Assessment Review Board

The applicants applied to the City of Hamilton to have their 2021 property taxes cancelled or reduced due to extreme poverty or sickness under s. 357(1)(d1) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Assessment Review Board found that the applicants had sufficient income and assets, including a second property and multiple vehicles, to pay their property taxes.

The Board concluded that the applicants made financial choices that prioritized other expenses over their tax obligations, which does not constitute an inability to pay.

The application was dismissed.

The appellants appealed property assessments for multiple properties in Ottawa.

After several adjournments, a peremptory teleconference hearing was scheduled.

The appellants failed to attend the hearing and did not communicate with the Board.

Pursuant to section 7(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the Board proceeded in their absence.

The Board granted the respondent's request to dismiss the appeals as abandoned under Rule 24(f) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Appellants appealed the classification of their property, a honey extraction facility, arguing it should be classified in the farm property class rather than the commercial property class.

The Assessment Review Board found that while the scale of the beekeeping operation was sufficient and it was unreasonable to require 50 beehives on the small property due to biosecurity risks, the property was not used 'only' for farm purposes.

Because the property was also used for retail sales and the production of beeswax candles, it did not meet the strict requirement of section 19(5) of the Assessment Act.

The appeal was dismissed and the commercial classification was confirmed.

The City of Hamilton brought a motion for disclosure and an on-site inspection in an assessment appeal concerning a distribution centre.

The appellant opposed the motion, arguing that the requested disclosure was irrelevant to the specific issues raised in its Statement of Issues.

The Assessment Review Board held that the issues in dispute are not strictly limited to those in the appellant's pleadings at this stage.

Applying the test of relevance and proportionality, the Board ordered the appellant to disclose construction contracts, rent rolls, leases, operating expenses, and recoverable charges, and to permit an on-site inspection.

The request for a breakdown of costs from a tenant's press release was denied as it was not in the appellant's possession.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion for issue estoppel regarding the 2021 and 2022 property assessment appeals for a parking garage.

The appellant had previously settled the 2019 and 2020 appeals for the same property at a current value assessment of $2,500,000.

The Board found that the three-part test for issue estoppel was met, as the question of the property's value as of January 1, 2016, had already been finally decided between the same parties.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to bypass issue estoppel, confirming the assessment at $2,500,000 for the 2021 and 2022 taxation years.

This property tax assessment appeal concerned the current value and classification of a sports complex for the 2013 to 2022 taxation years.

The tribunal accepted the respondent assessment authority’s comparable-sales land valuation evidence and ACS-based cost approach for the building, rejecting the appellant’s reliance on land tables, actual construction cost evidence, and a lower arena-additive rating.

On classification, the tribunal held that the Sports Club Exception in the General Regulation applies only to legal ownership, not beneficial ownership asserted through trust arrangements.

The property therefore remained in the Commercial Property Class from November 1, 2013 onward, and the assessed values were increased for the land in accordance with the respondent’s evidence.

The property owner brought a motion to dismiss the City of Ottawa's property assessment appeals, arguing the City failed to obtain municipal council ratification for the appeals and requesting the Board reject Minutes of Settlement entered into by the City and MPAC.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the City had properly delegated authority to file appeals under section 23.1 of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Board also found no exceptional circumstances to extend the deadline for the owner to file a Statement of Response, noting the owner had been properly served but failed to participate in the proceedings.

The City of Guelph brought a motion to prohibit the appellant from raising new issues in its Amended Statement of Issues that were not raised in its Original Statement of Issues, or alternatively to strike the amended pleading.

The appellant had originally pleaded that the property's assessment should be reduced due to the COVID-19 pandemic, but its amended pleading abandoned this issue and raised entirely new issues regarding valuation methodology.

The Assessment Review Board found that while the City had standing to bring the motion and the amended pleading was filed within an agreed-upon extension, allowing such a significant amendment at a late stage of the proceeding would violate procedural fairness and cause significant prejudice to the City.

The Board prohibited the appellant from raising the new issues or presenting related evidence.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of a 65-unit multi-residential property for the 2017 to 2022 taxation years.

The parties agreed to use the income approach but disputed the potential gross income and the capitalization rate.

The Assessment Review Board determined the potential gross income by substituting market rents for subsidized units and established a capitalization rate of 7.16% based on comparable properties.

The Board concluded the current value of the property was $10,409,916, which was reduced to $9,577,000 after applying an agreed 8% equitable adjustment, resulting in a reduction from the returned assessment of $9,970,000.

The applicant applied to the municipality for a cancellation of property taxes for the 2021 taxation year, claiming an inability to pay due to extreme poverty under section 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Assessment Review Board found that the applicant had significant assets, including rental agricultural land, dividend-paying shares, and a credit with a petroleum provider, as well as a positive net income balance for the year.

The Board concluded that the applicant had not called upon all available resources to pay the taxes and dismissed the application.

The applicant applied to the City of Hamilton to have her 2021 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.

The Assessment Review Board found that the applicant was unable to pay a portion of the taxes due to the sickness of herself and two other household members.

After reviewing the applicant's income, expenses, and assets, the Board ordered the 2021 property taxes to be reduced by $2,604.41.

The applicant applied for a refund of her 2021 property taxes under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, claiming an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed the applicant's financial situation, noting her income, expenses, and significant assets, including home equity and RRSPs.

The Board found that the applicant was able to pay her property taxes and had not reduced her spending on non-essential items.

The application was dismissed.

In a property assessment appeal, MPAC brought a motion to disqualify the appellant's proposed expert witness, who had previously drafted the appellant's pleadings.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion, finding that an expert witness cannot also assume the role of an advocate in the same proceeding, and ordered his expert report removed from the record.

The appellant brought a cross-motion to disqualify MPAC's expert witness on the grounds that her report lacked a summary of qualifications and that her conclusion matched the assessed value, allegedly showing bias.

The Board dismissed the cross-motion, finding no evidence of bias, but ordered the expert to amend her report to include her qualifications.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessments for nine commercial condominium units for the 2020 to 2022 taxation years, arguing that the valuation day should be January 1, 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Assessment Review Board held that the applicable valuation day is strictly prescribed by the Assessment Act and regulations as January 1, 2016, with no exceptions.

Applying the sales comparison approach, the Board rejected sales data from 2021 and 2022 as being too remote from the valuation day, and instead relied on comparable sales within 18 months of January 1, 2016.

The Board determined the current value of each unit to be $294,000 and found no further reduction was warranted for equitable assessment purposes.

The appellants appealed the 2022 taxation year assessment of their single-family detached residence, arguing the current value assessment of $882,000 was too high.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) presented evidence supporting a current value of $908,000 based on time-adjusted sales of similar properties.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's valuation and equity analysis, finding no equity reduction was required.

The Board ordered the assessment increased to $908,000.

The applicant applied to the City of Mississauga to have his 2021 property taxes cancelled, reduced, or refunded due to an inability to pay caused by sickness or extreme poverty under s. 357(1)(d1) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Assessment Review Board found that after paying all non-discretionary household expenses, the applicant had sufficient financial resources to pay the property taxes.

The Board noted that discretionary expenses, such as entertainment subscriptions, cannot take precedence over property tax obligations.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant, a Crown tenant at Pearson Airport, appealed the property tax assessments for two aircraft hangars for the 2013-2022 taxation years.

The parties agreed on the cost approach for valuation but disputed the Replacement Cost New and depreciation rate for the asphalt aircraft aprons.

The Assessment Review Board accepted the respondent MPAC's use of the RS Means costing manual and a 1% depreciation rate, finding that aircraft aprons require specialized construction and constant maintenance compared to standard commercial asphalt surfaces.

The assessed values determined by MPAC were upheld.

The applicant applied to the municipality to have his 2021 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.

The municipality delegated the application to the Assessment Review Board.

The Board reviewed the applicant's financial situation, noting a deficit net income, no discretionary expenses, and significant liabilities.

The Board found that the applicant had utilized all available financial resources and was unable to pay the taxes due to sickness.

The Board ordered the cancellation of the $2,056.63 in property taxes levied in 2021.

The applicant applied to the City of Toronto to have her 2021 property taxes cancelled, reduced, or refunded due to an inability to pay caused by sickness or extreme poverty under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

The Assessment Review Board found that the applicant had sufficient savings at the end of 2021 to cover the property taxes levied after all other living expenses were paid.

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

The Applicant applied to the City of Mississauga to have her 2021 property taxes cancelled, reduced, or refunded under s. 357(1)(d1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, claiming an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The Assessment Review Board found that the Applicant's income exceeded her non-discretionary expenses by an amount sufficient to cover the property taxes levied in 2021.

The application was dismissed.