OARB 2024

The Applicant applied to the City of Hamilton for a refund of his 2023 property taxes, claiming an inability to pay due to extreme poverty under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed the Applicant's financial information, including his income, expenses, assets, and liabilities.

The Board found that the Applicant's monthly income, while slightly less than his reported expenses, was sufficient to cover the necessities of life and his property taxes, especially given his discretionary spending and overall net worth.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant applied to the City of Toronto for a cancellation, reduction, or refund of her 2023 property taxes due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The matter was delegated to the Assessment Review Board.

The applicant failed to comply with a procedural order requiring the disclosure of supporting documents and failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the application.

The applicant applied to the City of Toronto for a cancellation, reduction, or refund of property taxes due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The application was delegated to the Assessment Review Board.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled pre-hearing conference call and did not respond to the City's attempts to contact them.

Finding no exceptional circumstances to explain the non-attendance, the Board dismissed the application pursuant to Rule 104 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessments for a 2.51-acre vacant industrial property for the 2023 and 2024 taxation years.

The property was purchased for $850,000 in 2016, but the appellant later discovered a municipal bylaw prohibited road access, rendering the land undevelopable.

The Assessment Review Board found that the purchase price did not reflect a discount for this restriction, as the appellant was unaware of it.

The Board applied a 90% downward adjustment to the time-adjusted sale price, reducing the current value to $66,800.

The request for an equitable adjustment was dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

The appellant appealed the property assessments for the 2021 to 2024 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value of the property as of the January 1, 2016 valuation day using the direct comparison approach, relying on the respondent's comparable sales evidence.

The Board found the current value to be $992,000.

Applying an assessment to sales ratio of 0.98, the Board ordered an equitable reduction, resulting in a final assessment of $972,000 for the 2024 taxation year and $653,000 for the 2021 to 2023 taxation years.

The appellant appealed the returned assessment of $384,000 for a condominium apartment for the 2023 and 2024 taxation years, arguing for a reduction to $333,000.

The Assessment Review Board found the best evidence of current value was the time-adjusted sale price of the subject property, establishing a current value of $434,000.

Applying an assessment-to-sale ratio of 0.90 based on the respondent's equity analysis, the Board reduced the current value to $390,000 to ensure equity with similar lands in the vicinity.

The Board ordered the assessment increased to $390,000.

The Appellant appealed the property assessments for its light vehicle assembly plant for the 2009 to 2023 taxation years.

In previous interim decisions, the Board confirmed the current values for 2009-2022.

MPAC sought to amend the 2017 current value to reflect a supplementary assessment for a body shop expansion completed mid-year.

The Board found that under the agreed Production Capacity Cost Approach Method, the expansion did not change the facility's normalized annual production capacity, and therefore did not increase the Replacement Cost New.

The Board concluded no amendment to the 2017 current value was required and directed the parties to finalize apportionments.

The City of Hamilton brought a motion seeking permission to serve supplementary expert reports and an amended Statement of Response past the deadlines prescribed in the Schedule of Events.

The motion was unopposed by the other parties.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion, finding that late service was an appropriate consequence for non-compliance given the lack of prejudice and the promptness of the motion.

The Board also confirmed that the City is permitted to adduce evidence regarding the income approach to value at the hearing.

The appellants appealed the property tax assessments for a newly constructed office complex in Toronto, arguing that the partial assessment of the property at 80% of its full value was inequitable compared to similar properties in the vicinity.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appellants failed to provide sufficient convincing evidence that the comparison properties were at the same stage of development as the subject property on the valuation date.

The Board also rejected the appellants' expert's reliance on only a portion of the assessed values of mixed-use comparison properties.

The appeal for an equitable reduction was dismissed.

The appellant property owner appealed the assessment of her farm property for the 2023 and 2024 taxation years, seeking a 20% to 50% nuisance reduction due to noise and activities from an abutting property.

MPAC maintained that the assessed value of $266,000, which already included a 5% nuisance reduction agreed upon in a prior reconsideration, was correct.

The Assessment Review Board preferred MPAC's market-based valuation and equity analysis over the appellant's limited evidence, confirming the assessed value and finding no further nuisance adjustment was warranted.

The City of Ottawa brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's property assessment appeals for the 2022 to 2024 taxation years on the basis of issue estoppel.

The appellant had previously settled appeals for the 2017 to 2020 taxation years, agreeing to an assessed value.

In the current appeals, the appellant did not dispute the assessed value but sought a further reduction under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act.

The Assessment Review Board found that the issue of equitable reduction was necessarily before the Board in the prior proceedings and applied issue estoppel, dismissing the appeals.

The applicant filed an application to the City of Toronto for a cancellation, reduction, or refund of property taxes due to sickness or extreme poverty under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

The applicant failed to respond to communications from the Board and the City, and did not attend the scheduled pre-hearing conference.

In the absence of any evidence of exceptional circumstances explaining the non-attendance, the Assessment Review Board dismissed the application pursuant to Rule 104 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The City of Greater Sudbury brought a motion to exclude a supplementary expert report and the corresponding expert witness, Malcolm Stadig, tendered by Glencore Canada Corporation in a property assessment appeal regarding mining properties.

The City argued the evidence should be excluded because Glencore failed to file an Acknowledgment of Expert Duty by the deadline set in the Schedule of Events, and because the report was not proper reply evidence.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that while Glencore breached the filing deadline, excluding the evidence would cause undue prejudice to Glencore.

The Board also found that the report constituted proper reply evidence as it responded to specific, unanticipated information raised in the City's expert report.

The appellant appealed the 2023 and 2024 property assessments of a newly built residential property in Toronto, arguing the assessed value of $4,042,000 was too high.

The Assessment Review Board determined the correct current value to be $4,089,000 based on comparable sales.

However, applying an equity analysis under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, the Board found that similar properties in the vicinity were assessed at a lower ratio to their market value.

Consequently, the Board ordered an equitable reduction, lowering the assessment to $3,737,000 for both taxation years.

The Appellant brought a motion to withdraw its appeals of omitted assessments made under s. 33 of the Assessment Act for the 2018 to 2020 taxation years.

The City of Kitchener opposed the withdrawal, arguing it had provided notice of its intent to seek a higher assessment.

The Assessment Review Board found that the City had provided valid notice of its intent to seek a higher assessment, precluding the Appellant from withdrawing the appeals as of right under Rule 27.

The Board also denied the Appellant leave to withdraw under Rule 29, finding that the City had put forward a reasonable case for a higher assessment and would be prejudiced if denied a hearing after participating fully in the proceedings.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's property assessment appeals for the 2023 and 2024 taxation years on the basis of issue estoppel.

The appellant had previously settled appeals for the 2017 to 2022 taxation years, resulting in a Board decision establishing the current value as of January 1, 2016.

The Board found that the preconditions for issue estoppel were met, as the same question (value as of January 1, 2016) was decided in a final decision involving the same parties.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to refuse the application of issue estoppel, finding no real injustice to the appellant, and dismissed the appeals.

The appellant appealed the 2023 and 2024 property assessments of their residential property, arguing the value should be reduced due to nuisances caused by abutting commercial properties.

The Assessment Review Board found insufficient evidence to quantify the nuisance impact and relied on the respondent's comparable sales data to determine a current value of $1,140,000.

The Board then applied an equity reduction based on the median assessment-to-sales ratio of similar properties, resulting in a final equitable assessment of $1,060,000, which increased the original assessment.

The appellant property owner appealed the City's denial of its application for municipal tax relief for the 2021 taxation year under s. 357(1)(g) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The appellant argued that renovations prevented the normal use of its hotel property for the entire year.

While the Assessment Review Board found that renovations did prevent normal use for at least three months, it dismissed the appeal because the appellant failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence, such as invoices, tax bills, or proof of taxes paid, to substantiate the requested refund amount.

The appellants sought property tax relief for the 2021 and 2022 taxation years under s. 357(1)(d)(ii) and s. 357(1)(g) of the Municipal Act, 2001, arguing that demolition and renovations prevented the use of their property as a warehouse.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the 2021 appeal, finding that the demolition and renovations did not occur during the 2021 taxation year or the preceding year after the return of the assessment roll, which is a statutory requirement for relief.

For the 2022 taxation year, the Board found the property eligible for relief under s. 357(1)(g) but upheld the Town's calculation of the tax refund using the cost to cure approach, dismissing the appeal to vary the quantum.

The moving parties sought an extension of time to bring assessment appeals for the 2017 to 2021 taxation years, alleging a palpable error in the assessment roll regarding the residential unit count.

The Board found that the assessment corporation's overstatement of the unit count was a factual error of conspicuous magnitude.

As the motion was unopposed and there was no evidence of prejudice, the Board exercised its discretion to extend the time for bringing the appeals and directed the assessment corporation to be the appellant.