OARB 2023

The City of Vaughan brought a motion for disclosure of lease documents and correspondence from the appellant, Canuck Properties Ltd., in a property assessment appeal.

The City argued the documents were relevant to its position that the appellant was estopped from raising certain issues already determined in earlier appeals.

The Assessment Review Board found the motion was timely as it was brought before the final disclosure deadline.

The Board ordered the disclosure of the lease documents, finding them relevant to the issue estoppel argument and proportionate to the dispute.

However, the Board denied the request for correspondence, finding it overbroad and disproportionate.

The City of Hamilton requested a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that valued a 411.6-acre portion of a steel production property at a nominal $100 per acre due to alleged environmental contamination.

Shortly after the original hearing, the entire property sold for $518 million.

The Board found that MPAC had jurisdiction to issue the corrected 2018 assessment and that the original panel did not err in admitting hearsay evidence regarding contamination risks.

However, the Board concluded that the post-hearing sale constituted new evidence that could not have been reasonably obtained earlier and could have affected the original panel's conclusion that the lands were unmarketable.

Consequently, the Board ordered a new hearing of the entire appeal before a different panel.

The property owner requested an extension of time to bring assessment appeals for the 2016 to 2019 taxation years, alleging palpable errors in the assessment roll regarding a feed mill and grain silos.

The Assessment Review Board applied the framework from a recent decision, finding that assessing unusable portions of the feed mill as fully operational and assessing eight non-existent silos constituted palpable errors.

The Board exercised its discretion to extend the time for bringing the appeals, noting the prejudice to the property owner and the lack of prejudice to the respondents.

The applicant applied to the City of Mississauga for a cancellation, reduction, or refund of his 2022 property taxes under section 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, citing an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The Assessment Review Board found that the applicant had significant assets, including $737,000 in home equity, $170,000 in an RRSP, and no mortgage, and had spent considerable amounts on non-essential items.

The Board concluded that the applicant failed to demonstrate an inability to pay the property taxes and dismissed the application.

The applicant appealed to the Assessment Review Board for a cancellation, reduction, or refund of her 2022 property taxes under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, citing an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The Board reviewed the applicant's financial situation, noting that while her monthly expenses exceeded her income, she had significant home equity, RRSP savings, and available credit.

Applying established tribunal precedent, the Board found that the applicant had not exhausted all available resources to meet her financial obligations.

Consequently, the Board concluded the applicant failed to demonstrate an inability to pay the $5,828.91 in property taxes levied in 2022, and dismissed the application.

The applicant applied to the Assessment Review Board for a cancellation, reduction, or refund of her 2022 property taxes, citing an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty under section 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

The Board reviewed the applicant's financial information, noting significant assets, equity in her home, and discretionary spending that contradicted a claim of extreme poverty.

The Board found that the applicant failed to demonstrate an inability to pay the property taxes and dismissed the application.

The requesting party sought an order for the disclosure of documents from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) regarding properties not under appeal.

Notice was served to the owners of the other properties, with only one objection that was not supported by submissions.

As the request was unopposed by MPAC and other parties, the Assessment Review Board granted the order for disclosure subject to terms imposed by MPAC under section 53(5) of the Assessment Act.

The City of Greater Sudbury brought a motion for disclosure against the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) regarding the assessment of eight mining properties.

The City sought various documents related to MPAC's land value analysis and cost rates under the Cost Approach valuation methodology.

The Assessment Review Board applied the two-part test of relevance and proportionality under Rule 45.

The Board ordered MPAC to disclose specific sales verification questionnaires and a legible version of its 2016 Automated Cost Systems rates, subject to redactions under s. 53 of the Assessment Act.

The Board denied several other requests as being overly broad, disproportionate, or relating to documents not in MPAC's possession.

The Appellant, General Motors of Canada Company, appealed the property assessments for its light vehicle assembly plant for the 2009 to 2023 taxation years.

The parties agreed that an equitable adjustment was required under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act but disagreed on the quantum.

The Board found that the best evidence to determine the equitable reduction was the Appellant's approach, which focused on the lower average construction cost rates used by MPAC to calculate the replacement cost new for similar properties.

The Board ordered reductions to the current values for the taxation years under appeal based on the Appellant's proposed percentage reductions, but rejected the Appellant's request for an additional adjustment.

The appellant appealed the property assessment for 835 and 839 Yonge Street.

Following an interim decision that increased the current value of the property to $106,262,000, the parties agreed on the apportionment of this value between the relevant roll numbers.

The Assessment Review Board ordered the agreed-upon apportionment.

The applicant applied to the City of Toronto for a cancellation, reduction, or refund of his 2022 property taxes, claiming an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty under section 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed the applicant's financial records and found that his monthly income exceeded his disclosed expenses, leaving over $13,000 available after property taxes were paid.

The Board concluded the applicant failed to demonstrate an inability to pay and dismissed the application.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the appeals because the appellants failed to serve expert reports and file a Statement of Issues and documentary evidence by the deadlines prescribed in the Schedule of Events.

The appellants did not provide an explanation for their non-compliance or seek an extension.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appellants failed to comply with the Rules of Practice and Procedure and that the circumstances weighed heavily in favour of dismissal.

The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed.

The Requestor sought a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that confirmed the $346,000 assessment of their commercial condominium unit in the Pacific Mall.

The Requestor argued the Board violated procedural fairness by preventing screen sharing and limiting time, and made errors of fact regarding the property's frontage and value.

The Board dismissed the request for review, finding no procedural unfairness as the Requestor's evidence was filed and considered.

The Board also found no significant errors of fact or law, noting the Hearing Member reasonably relied on the respondent's sales evidence and properly declined to qualify the self-represented Requestor as an expert witness due to a lack of impartiality.

The appellant appealed the property assessments for a Canadian Tire retail store and gas bar in Toronto for the 2017 to 2023 taxation years.

The parties agreed the current use was not the highest and best use (HABU), but disagreed on the appropriate degree of redevelopment.

The appellant argued the HABU should be based on as-of-right zoning, valuing the property at $30,000,000.

The respondent MPAC argued the HABU was a mixed-use development with a higher density requiring rezoning, valuing the property at over $110,000,000.

The Assessment Review Board found that a rezoning to permit a Floor Space Index of 6.5 was reasonably probable, satisfying the legal permissibility test.

The Board determined the correct current value of the property to be $106,262,000 and found insufficient evidence to warrant an equitable reduction.

The applicant property owner brought a motion to correct a palpable error on the assessment roll for the 2017 to 2019 taxation years under s. 40.1 of the Assessment Act.

The error involved the double assessment of a unit, which had been missed by both parties when they previously settled the applicant's s. 40 appeals.

The respondent MPAC argued that issue estoppel should prevent the applicant from re-litigating the settled appeals.

The Assessment Review Board found that while the requirements for issue estoppel were met, it would decline to apply the doctrine because the previous settlement was based on a clear factual error resulting in double taxation.

The Board exercised its discretion to correct the palpable error, extending the time for appeals and directing MPAC to be the appellant.

The appellant appealed the 2022 and 2023 property tax assessments for a residential townhouse in Collingwood, originally assessed at $366,000.

The Assessment Review Board determined the correct current value as of January 1, 2016, was $378,000 based on comparable sales evidence provided by MPAC.

The Board then applied a 15% equitable reduction, consistent with a neighbourhood-wide market adjustment, resulting in a final assessed value of $321,000.

The self-represented appellants in a property assessment appeal failed to file their documents with the Board by the deadline, mistakenly believing the respondent MPAC would do so after being served.

Neither MPAC nor the municipality appeared at the hearing or filed their own documents.

The Assessment Review Board found this combination of circumstances to be exceptional under Rule 40 and granted an extension of the Schedule of Events to allow all parties to file their materials, adjourning the hearing.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a converted light industrial building in Kitchener for the 2019-2023 taxation years.

The parties agreed to use the income approach to value but disputed the correct Fair Market Rent (FMR).

The Board found that the actual rents at the subject property were relevant due to its unique characteristics and location.

The Board determined the correct FMR to be $9.28 per square foot, resulting in a reduced current value assessment of $1,829,000.

The Applicant applied to have his 2022 property taxes cancelled, reduced, or refunded due to extreme poverty under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Assessment Review Board found that the Applicant's necessary household expenses exceeded his income, demonstrating an inability to pay due to extreme poverty.

However, because the property taxes levied for the 2022 taxation year were already $0 due to a previous Board decision, the amount of taxes cancelled was $0.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of its industrial property for the 2017 to 2023 taxation years, arguing the assessed value of $22,798,000 was too high.

Both parties relied on the direct comparison approach using different sets of comparable sales.

The Assessment Review Board evaluated the comparable sales, rejecting some due to differences in size, use, and sale dates.

Relying on three comparable sales, including one unique to the respondent and two common to both parties, the Board determined the correct current value to be $18,873,000.

The Board also dismissed the appellant's request for an equity reduction, preferring the respondent's equity analysis based on actual sales rather than assessment values.