OARB 2025

The City of Hamilton brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's property tax assessment appeals for the 2024 and 2025 taxation years on the basis of issue estoppel.

The appellant had previously appealed the 2022 and 2023 taxation years, which were resolved via minutes of settlement signed by the appellant's paralegal representative.

The appellant argued that the paralegal lacked authority to accept the settlement and that the settlement was fraudulent or unconscionable.

The Assessment Review Board found that the three preconditions for issue estoppel were met, as the prior decisions were final and involved the same parties and issues.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to refuse issue estoppel, finding no evidence of fraud, unconscionability, or that the municipality knew of any limitation on the paralegal's authority.

The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed.

The appellant requested an order for the disclosure of lease documents related to properties not under appeal from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC).

Notice was served on the owners of the other properties, and no objections were received.

As the request was unopposed by MPAC and the municipality, the Assessment Review Board granted the order for disclosure.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their single-family home for the 2024 and 2025 taxation years, arguing the current value was too high.

The Assessment Review Board evaluated comparable sales evidence and time adjustment factors provided by both parties.

The Board preferred the respondent's comparable properties and Assessment to Sales Ratio analysis, finding the correct current value to be $1,697,035.

The Board concluded that no equitable reduction was required, setting the final assessment at $1,697,000.

The Appellant appealed the property assessment of a neighbourhood shopping centre containing a variety store, diner, and gas station for the 2023, 2024, and 2025 taxation years.

The parties agreed on several valuation parameters but disputed the Fair Market Rent (FMR) for the retail portion and the size and value of the land attributable to the gas bar.

The Assessment Review Board applied the income approach for the retail portion, adopting MPAC's market rent evidence over the Appellant's actual rent evidence, consistent with binding jurisprudence.

The Board valued the gas bar land using the cost approach, adopting the Appellant's proposed land size to avoid double-assessing land captured by the income approach, but applied MPAC's comparable sales data for the valuation.

The Board found the correct current value to be $840,000 and determined no equitable adjustment was required.

The City of Kitchener brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's property assessment appeals for the 2020-2025 taxation years on the grounds of issue estoppel and abuse of process, arguing the 2016 current value assessment was already settled in prior appeals.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion without prejudice, finding insufficient evidence to determine if the statutory basis for MPAC's subsequent assessment changes altered the valuation day, which left the Board unable to conclude whether the same question was being raised or if the prior decisions were final for these purposes.

The City of Greater Sudbury appealed the current value assessments of eight mining properties owned by Vale Canada Limited and Glencore Canada Corporation for the 2017 to 2025 taxation years, arguing the values were too low.

The Assessment Review Board applied the Cost Approach valuation methodology to determine the Reproduction Cost New, depreciation, and land value.

The Board accepted the valuation evidence provided by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC), finding it to be the best available evidence over the City's expert evidence.

The Board also determined that no equitable adjustment to the current values was required.

The appellants appealed the 2023 property assessment of a converted commercial property in Ottawa, which was returned at $852,000.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation's cost approach due to missing depreciation data and instead used a bracketing approach with comparable properties to determine a current value of $877,000.

The Board then applied an assessment-to-sales ratio (ASR) study of similar properties in the vicinity, finding a median ASR of 0.925.

Consequently, the Board applied a 7.5% equitable reduction, lowering the final assessment to $811,000 for the 2023, 2024, and 2025 taxation years.

The City of Hamilton brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's property assessment appeals for the 2020 to 2025 taxation years, arguing issue estoppel and abuse of process.

The appellant had previously withdrawn appeals for the 2017 to 2019 taxation years following an agreement with the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that issue estoppel did not apply because the prior appeals were withdrawn without a final Board decision.

The Board also held that the current appeals were not an abuse of process, as allowing them to proceed would not offend judicial economy, consistency, or finality.

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

The subject property's 2016 current value assessment had previously been settled via Minutes of Settlement in a 2023 appeal brought by the City of Brampton, resulting in a final Board decision.

The appellant argued it did not participate in the 2023 appeal and did not receive the settlement documents.

The Assessment Review Board found that the three preconditions for issue estoppel were met and that the appellant was deemed to have received the mailed documents under the Board's Rules.

The Board exercised its discretion to apply issue estoppel, emphasizing the public interest in the finality of litigation, and dismissed the appeals.

The appellant property owner appealed the 2023 and 2024 property tax assessments for a multi-tenanted retail plaza and gas station in Thorold, Ontario.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value of the property by applying the income approach to the retail and office portions and the cost approach to the gas bar improvements and excess land.

The Board rejected the appellant's reliance on actual rents, preferring the respondent's market rent evidence, and declined to consider a vacancy rate issue raised for the first time at the hearing.

The Board ultimately increased the assessed value of the property from $1,858,000 to $2,385,000.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion for disclosure in an assessment appeal concerning a 40-room hotel in Thunder Bay.

MPAC sought four categories of documents, including financial statements, sale details, capital expenditure reports, and franchise agreements.

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

The Board ordered the disclosure of financial statements from 2019 to the present and franchise agreements from 2017 to the present, finding them relevant to the property's current value given its atypical conversion from a courthouse to a hotel.

The Board denied the requests for documents relating to a 2022 share transfer and capital expenditure reports, finding the former overbroad and the latter not within the appellant's control.

The appellant appealed the 2024 property assessment for a vacant land lot.

The respondent MPAC brought a motion to dismiss the appeal based on issue estoppel, arguing that the 2016 current value assessment had already been decided in a 2023 appeal via Minutes of Settlement.

The appellant argued it did not participate in the 2023 appeal and did not receive the relevant correspondence.

The Board found that the three preconditions for issue estoppel were met and that the appellant had been properly served with notices at its correct mailing address.

The Board exercised its discretion to apply issue estoppel, prioritizing the finality of litigation, and dismissed the appeal.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's property assessment appeals for the 2021-2024 taxation years based on issue estoppel.

The parties had previously settled appeals for the 2017-2019 taxation years regarding the same 2016 current value assessment, resulting in final Board decisions.

The Board found that the three preconditions for issue estoppel were met: the same question was decided, the previous decisions were final, and the parties were the same.

The Board exercised its discretion to apply issue estoppel, noting the public interest in the finality of settlements and avoiding duplicative litigation.

The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's property assessment appeals for the 2020 to 2024 taxation years, arguing issue estoppel and abuse of process based on a prior settlement for the 2017 to 2019 taxation years.

The appellant opposed the motion, arguing that physical alterations and the loss of an anchor tenant constituted changes under s. 34 of the Assessment Act, resulting in a different valuation day and a different question to be decided.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed MPAC's motion, finding it premature to determine issue estoppel and abuse of process at the interim stage without further evidence regarding the statutory basis for the changes in the assessed values.

The property owner brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal property assessments for the 2017 to 2022 taxation years, alleging a palpable error in the assessment roll.

The owner argued that the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation incorrectly calculated the effective lot size by failing to account for an unbuildable floodplain.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding insufficient evidence to establish a plain and obvious factual error, as determining the effective land area required interpretation and judgment rather than correcting a conspicuous factual mistake.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's property assessment appeals for the 2021 to 2024 taxation years, arguing issue estoppel and abuse of process.

The appellant opposed the motion and introduced new evidence in its reply submissions suggesting it had not resolved earlier appeals for the 2017 to 2019 taxation years, contradicting its previous evidence.

The Assessment Review Board found that resolving the dispute over the 2017 to 2019 appeals was central to the motion but required evidentiary findings beyond the scope of the interim stage.

The Board dismissed the motion without prejudice to MPAC raising the issues at the main hearing.

The appellant appealed the 2024 property assessment for a residential property in Burlington, arguing the current value should be $542,300 rather than the assessed value.

MPAC argued the highest and best use was mixed-use multi-residential development land due to a 2023 zoning approval, and proposed a value of $933,000.

The Assessment Review Board rejected MPAC's "state and condition" approach, finding that the property must be valued based on its legally permissible use as of the January 1, 2016 valuation day.

The Board determined the highest and best use was improved residential and relied on a comparable sale provided by the appellant to determine a current value of $554,940.

The Board found no equitable adjustment was required and reduced the assessment to $554,000.

The applicants applied to the City of Greater Sudbury to cancel their 2023 property taxes due to extreme poverty under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The City delegated its authority to determine the application to the Assessment Review Board.

Following an interim decision finding the applicants were unable to pay due to extreme poverty, the Board ordered the cancellation of the 2023 levied taxes in the amount of $3,468.49, noting it had no jurisdiction to adjust penalties or interest.

The requesting party, 57 Spadina GP Inc., sought an order for the disclosure of documents from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) regarding properties not under appeal.

Notice was served on the owners of the other properties, and no objections were received.

As the request was unopposed by MPAC and the City of Toronto, the Assessment Review Board granted the order for disclosure pursuant to section 53(5) of the Assessment Act.

The applicants applied to the City of Greater Sudbury to have their 2023 property taxes cancelled, reduced, or refunded due to an inability to pay caused by sickness or extreme poverty under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The City delegated its authority to determine such applications to the Assessment Review Board.

The Board found that the applicants' monthly expenses significantly exceeded their income, demonstrating an inability to pay due to extreme poverty.

The Board issued an interim order directing the City to provide the amount of taxes levied in 2023 before making a final determination on the amount to be cancelled.