Assessment Review Board

The appellant appealed its property tax assessments, arguing that its telecommunication towers should be classified as exempt from taxation under s. 3(1)(21) of the Assessment Act.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the appeals on the basis that the Assessment Review Board lacks jurisdiction to determine exemption status.

The Board granted the motion, finding that property 'classification' under the Act does not include exemption status, and that the Board's statutory jurisdiction under s. 40(1) does not permit it to adjudicate disputes regarding tax exemptions.

The Board also held it has no general jurisdiction to grant equitable relief regarding exemptions.

The appeals were dismissed.

In a property assessment appeal, the City of Vaughan brought a motion to call a witness to provide oral testimony regarding a comparable sales analysis, despite failing to file a witness statement or expert report by the required deadline.

The City argued the witness would provide lay opinion evidence admissible under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the request to call the witness, finding that the proposed testimony constituted expert opinion evidence on property valuation, which requires a compliant expert report under the Board's Rules.

The Board permitted the late filing of the City's Statement of Response, but clarified it could only be used to raise issues and not as evidence.

The City of Greater Sudbury appealed the current value assessments of six active mining properties for the 2017 to 2021 taxation years, arguing that the assessments were too low.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current values using the cost approach.

The Board accepted the evidence of the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) and the respondent property owners regarding the reproduction cost new, depreciation, and land value, rejecting the City's proposed adjustments and global depreciation caps as unsupported.

The Board confirmed the current values as determined by MPAC and found no equitable reduction was required.

The appellant appealed the current value assessment of their property, arguing that a portion used for non-commercial tree farming should be valued as farm land under section 19(5) of the Assessment Act.

The Assessment Review Board found that the limited scale and non-commercial nature of the tree farming did not qualify the land as being used only for farm purposes.

Relying on comparable sales evidence provided by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, the Board determined the current value to be $304,342, an increase from the returned assessment of $238,000.

The Board found no equitable reduction was required and ordered the assessment increased to $304,000.

The appellants appealed the omitted assessments applied by MPAC for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years following a renovation and addition to their mixed-use property, which also triggered deemed appeals for 2020, 2021, and 2022.

The Assessment Review Board rejected MPAC's direct sales comparison approach and adopted the appellants' cost approach, determining the current value to be $1,679,000.

The Board further applied an equity reduction based on an Assessment to Sale Ratio study, reducing the final assessment to $1,588,000 for the 2020-2022 taxation years, and adjusted the 2018 and 2019 omitted assessments accordingly.

The appellants appealed the property tax assessments for two properties, arguing they should be classified as vacant land in both the commercial and residential property classes.

The Assessment Review Board confirmed that the first property was correctly returned as vacant land in the commercial property class because its principal zoning was commercial.

For the second property, the Board found it was correctly returned in the commercial property class, but altered the assessment to indicate that a 10% portion of the land was vacant land.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a vacant, unbuildable waterfront lot for the 2019 to 2022 taxation years, arguing the current value should be zero due to zoning changes.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) presented expert evidence of comparable sales, suggesting a value of $19,500 but requesting the assessment be confirmed at $5,300.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the appellant's argument that the property had no market value, relying on MPAC's comparable sales data.

The Board applied time-adjusted sale values of the most similar comparable properties and ordered the assessment increased from $5,300 to $13,400.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their townhouse for the 2021 and 2022 taxation years but failed to attend the hearing.

MPAC requested that instead of dismissing the appeal, the Board adopt a reduced assessment value of $426,000, which had been offered to the appellants during the Request for Reconsideration process.

The Board applied its Rules of Practice and Procedure and determined that adopting MPAC's recommendation was the most just and proportionate result.

The assessment was reduced accordingly.

The City of Hamilton appealed the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation's (MPAC) assessment of a steel manufacturing property owned by Stelco Inc. The sole issue was the current value of 411.6 acres of unused residual lands.

MPAC assessed the lands at a nominal value of $100 per acre due to the likelihood of environmental contamination and lack of market interest, while the City argued for a value of $125,000 per acre based on comparable sales of uncontaminated industrial lands.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's evidence that the lands were unmarketable due to contamination concerns and confirmed the nominal assessment value.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion requesting that three separate property assessment appeals concerning two adjacent properties operated as a single business follow a common Schedule of Events for their remaining due dates.

The City of Brampton supported the motion, while the property owner opposed it, arguing potential prejudice.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion, finding that a common schedule would avoid duplication of effort, ensure consistency in decision outcomes, and result in the most expeditious and least expensive determination of the proceedings without prejudicing any party.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of a 14-storey office building in London, Ontario for the 2017 to 2022 taxation years.

The parties agreed to use the income approach to determine the current value, agreeing on a capitalization rate of 9.5%.

The Assessment Review Board determined the gross income based on the appellants' uncontested evidence of fair market rents for comparable properties.

The Board also determined the appropriate vacancy allowance to be 30% and the expense allowance to be 22.5%.

Applying these figures, the Board reduced the assessment of the subject property from $4,993,000 to $4,732,000.

The property owner filed a motion requesting the Assessment Review Board to accept a late appeal for the 2021 taxation year under Rule 26(b).

The owner claimed they did not receive a response to their Request for Reconsideration (RfR) from MPAC until a misdelivered 2022 assessment prompted them to inquire.

The Board found that the owner failed to meet the requirements of Rule 26(b), as they had received the initial notice of assessment and did not file the appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of it.

The motion for a late appeal was denied.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) requested a review of an Assessment Review Board decision regarding the valuation and classification of a 35-acre property.

The original Hearing Panel found that the entire property, including a residence and non-farmable land, qualified as farm lands under s. 19(5) of the Assessment Act and classified it in the Farm Property Class.

On review, the Board found that the Hearing Panel erred in law by misinterpreting s. 19(5), as the residence and non-farmable land were not used solely for farm purposes.

The Board also found that the Hearing Panel exceeded its jurisdiction by determining the property's classification, which must be referred to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal if disputed.

The Board varied the decision to apportion the property's value correctly and directed the parties to advise if classification remained in issue.

The appellant filed a motion to amend the Schedule of Events for several property assessment appeals.

The Board ordered the matter to proceed as a written motion and required the appellant to file supporting evidence.

The appellant failed to file any additional information or motion material.

As the appellant did not comply with the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure requiring evidence in support of a motion, the motion was dismissed.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to determine that the Assessment Review Board lacks jurisdiction to determine the tax liability of a property and to prohibit the City of Kitchener from raising tax liability as an issue in its appeals.

The property had been returned as exempt by MPAC.

The City attempted to challenge the exemption by appealing the property's classification.

The Board granted MPAC's motion, confirming that jurisdiction to determine tax exemption resides entirely with the Superior Court and prohibiting the City from circumventing this limitation by framing the issue as a classification dispute.

The appellant appealed the 2017 to 2022 property tax assessments for a multi-residential property in Waterloo.

The parties agreed on the current value of the property at $7,616,902 based on the income approach, leaving equity as the sole issue.

The appellant argued that similar properties in the vicinity were assessed below their current value, presenting an Assessment to Sales Ratio (ASR) analysis.

The Assessment Review Board found that an equitable reduction should be applied to the agreed current value rather than the returned assessment.

Applying the median ASR of 0.87 from five comparable sales near the valuation date, the Board reduced the assessment to $6,627,000.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a pre-hearing motion to strike three documents from the Appellant's reply materials, arguing they were not disclosed in accordance with the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Board found that the rules do not provide for striking evidence, but rather govern the admission of evidence.

The Board determined that the documents were served well past the disclosure deadlines set out in the Schedule of Events and that the Appellant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to justify the late disclosure.

Consequently, the Board ordered that the three documents will not be admitted into evidence at the hearing.

The appellant appealed the returned property assessments for the 2021 and 2022 taxation years, arguing the current value should be based on the 2016 time-adjusted sale price of the property.

The Assessment Review Board found that the property had undergone extensive renovations and a change in use to fully commercial after the sale.

Adding the estimated renovation costs to the time-adjusted sale price resulted in a current value higher than the returned assessment.

As the respondent did not seek an increase, the Board confirmed the returned assessments and updated the tax class apportionment.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion requesting a determination that the Assessment Review Board lacks jurisdiction to determine the tax liability of a property, and an order prohibiting the City of Kitchener from raising tax liability as an issue in its appeals.

MPAC had previously determined the subject property was exempt from taxation.

The City appealed, arguing the property should be classified in the multi-residential property class.

The Board granted MPAC's motion, confirming that it does not have jurisdiction to determine whether a property is exempt from taxation, as that jurisdiction resides with the Superior Court.

The Board also held that the City could not circumvent this limitation by challenging the property's classification, and prohibited the City from raising tax liability as an issue.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a custom-built home in Brampton for the 2020, 2021, and 2022 taxation years.

The appellant argued that the quality of construction rating was too high, the vicinity for comparable sales should be limited to the city, and the current value should be reduced to $3,500,000.

The Assessment Review Board found that the quality rating of 9 was correct and that expanding the vicinity for comparable sales was appropriate given the unique nature of the property.

Applying the direct comparison approach, the Board determined the correct current value to be $4,546,000, reducing the returned assessment of $4,768,000.

The Board declined to apply an equitable reduction.