Assessment Review Board

The applicant applied for a refund of his 2018 property taxes under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, citing an inability to pay due to sickness.

The City argued the applicant had equity in his property and a small monthly surplus.

The Assessment Review Board found the applicant was unable to pay his taxes due to his sickness, which prevented him from working and limited his income to ODSP.

The Board ordered a full refund of the $2,325.35 in property taxes paid.

The appellant appealed the city's decision denying a vacancy rebate application for the 2013 taxation year.

The appellant failed to comply with the Board's Schedule of Events and did not attend the scheduled telephone conference hearing.

The city sought a dismissal on multiple grounds, noting it had received no direct communication from the appellant in five years.

The Board found the appeal to be abandoned and dismissed it.

The appellant requested a review of the Board's decision refusing to allow a late appeal of a property assessment.

The appellant argued that severe illness prevented him from reviewing the Property Assessment Notice until months after it was received.

The Board dismissed the request, finding that under section 40(6) of the Assessment Act, the deadline is absolute unless the notice was never received.

Because the notice was delivered, the Board lacked jurisdiction to extend the deadline, regardless of the appellant's medical circumstances.

The applicant applied to the municipality to have her 2018 property taxes cancelled, reduced, or refunded under section 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, citing an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The Assessment Review Board found that the applicant's income and bank balances demonstrated an ability to pay the taxes, which had already been paid in full.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant applied for a cancellation, reduction, or refund of his 2018 property taxes under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, citing an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The City of Mississauga delegated the determination to the Assessment Review Board.

The Board reviewed the applicant's financial evidence and found that his average monthly income exceeded his monthly expenses, leaving sufficient funds to pay the levied taxes.

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

The appellant requested an extension of time and the reinstatement of a property assessment appeal that had been previously withdrawn.

The appellant withdrew the appeal before receiving notice of a supplemental assessment that changed the property classification.

The Board found that the appeal was withdrawn in error due to the unknown impending supplemental assessment.

Given the consent of all parties and the lack of prejudice, the Board granted the extension of time and reinstated the appeal.

The applicants applied for a cancellation, reduction, or refund of their 2018 property taxes under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, citing an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The City of Mississauga delegated the application to the Assessment Review Board.

The Board reviewed the applicants' financial records, noting that their household income significantly exceeded their monthly expenses, they had no mortgage, and they paid off their credit cards monthly.

The Board found the applicants were able to pay the 2018 property taxes and dismissed the application.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) requested an extension of time and the reinstatement of a 2008 taxation year appeal that was dismissed in error.

The appeal had been inadvertently included in a request to dismiss other appeals for failure to comply with timelines.

The parties had already reached Minutes of Settlement for the 2008-2016 tax years.

The Assessment Review Board found that the error was reasonable, the request was timely upon discovery, and all parties consented.

The Board granted the extension and reinstated the appeal to allow the Minutes of Settlement to be fully executed.

The appellants appealed the assessment of their vacant waterfront lot for the 2017-2019 taxation years, arguing the assessed value of $148,000 was too high due to flood risk, hard well water, and comparable sales.

The Assessment Review Board found that flooding occurring after the statutory valuation day could not justify a reduction, and there was no market evidence that hard water affected vacant land value.

However, based on comparable sales, the Board determined the correct current value was $140,000.

Applying an equity adjustment to align with similar properties in the vicinity, the Board further reduced the assessment to $123,200.

The appellant appealed the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation's (MPAC) current value assessment of a used car dealership property for the 2016 taxation year, arguing the value should be reduced from $1,433,000 to $1,100,000.

MPAC defended the assessment using both the cost approach and the direct sales comparison approach.

The Assessment Review Board found MPAC's analysis reasonable and well-documented, particularly relying on the direct sales comparison approach.

The Board confirmed the assessment at $1,433,000, noting the superior construction of the subject property compared to the older structures of the comparable properties.

The Appellant filed property assessment appeals for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years but failed to serve a Statement of Issues by the deadline set in the Schedule of Events.

At a peremptory default hearing, the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation moved to dismiss the appeals.

The Appellant requested an adjournment to retain a representative, claiming a lack of understanding of the Board's process.

The Assessment Review Board denied the adjournment, finding that the Appellant's failure to seek assistance over two years did not constitute exceptional circumstances under Rule 82.

The appeals were dismissed.

The moving party sought to file a late appeal of a property assessment under Rule 26 of the Assessment Review Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Board found that the moving party failed to meet the requirements of Rule 26(a) because there was no evidence the appeal was mailed within the statutory timeframe.

The Board also found the moving party failed to meet the three-part test under Rule 26(b), as she did not claim she failed to receive the Notice of Assessment and did not provide evidence of when she became aware of the assessment.

The motion for a late appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a purpose-built gluten-free flour facility for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years.

The Board determined the current value of the property to be $637,500 as of the January 1, 2016 valuation date, preferring a direct comparison approach using four comparable properties and rejecting the respondent's reliance on a power of sale transaction.

The Board also found no equitable reduction was warranted under section 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, as the assessment to sale ratio of comparable properties did not justify a reduction.

The moving party sought permission to file a late appeal of a property assessment change notice for the 2017 to 2019 taxation years.

The moving party missed the statutory deadline but argued it did not receive the notice.

The Assessment Review Board found that the moving party met all three conditions under Rule 26(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure: it was entitled to notice, did not receive it, and filed the appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment via a municipal tax bill.

The motion for a late appeal was granted.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) requested an extension of time and the reinstatement of three property assessment appeals that were dismissed after the parties failed to file executed Minutes of Settlement within the required timeframe.

The failure to file was due to an internal communication error at MPAC.

The Assessment Review Board found that the 31-day delay in requesting reinstatement was minimal and that dismissing the appeals would prejudice the appellant, who had agreed to the settlement terms.

The Board granted the extension of time and reinstated the appeals to allow the Minutes of Settlement to be filed.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's decision regarding property tax refunds for fire damage under section 323(7) of the City of Toronto Act, arguing the refunds were too low because the land values assessed by MPAC were incorrect.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the appeal, finding that it had no jurisdiction to change the land values of the properties under a section 323 appeal.

The Board noted that challenges to property assessments must be brought under section 40 of the Assessment Act, and the appellant provided no other evidence to justify an increase in the tax refunds.

The appellant appealed the 2019 property assessment of a single-family home, arguing the current value assessment of $797,000 should be reduced due to construction defects.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation agreed to a reduction to $753,000, but the City of Brampton objected, requesting the assessment be confirmed as returned.

The Assessment Review Board admitted post-inspection evidence over the City's objection and found that construction deficiencies warranted a $44,000 reduction from the determined current value of $810,000.

The Board set the assessment at $766,000 and found no further equity adjustment was required.

The moving party, Soul Restaurants, sought to withdraw its property assessment appeals for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

The respondents, MPAC and the City of Kitchener, opposed the withdrawal because they had indicated an intention to seek a higher assessment in their Statements of Response.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion to withdraw, finding that the Rules of Practice and Procedure permit a party in a general proceeding to seek a higher assessment and that the Board has jurisdiction to refuse a withdrawal request under such circumstances.

The Board also confirmed that MPAC has the authority to alter the assessment roll based on a change in opinion of market value during an annual assessment appeal.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of his single-family detached dwelling in Ottawa for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years.

MPAC had issued a supplementary assessment increasing the property's value from $659,000 to $909,000 due to a building addition.

The appellant argued the addition was incomplete and the value should remain at $659,000, presenting assessments of neighbouring properties.

MPAC relied on a valuation report and comparable sales outside the immediate neighbourhood.

The Assessment Review Board found that the best evidence of current value was the market-tested sales presented by MPAC, which supported a value of at least $909,000.

The Board rejected the appellant's argument that an incomplete dwelling cannot be assessed, confirming the assessment at $909,000.

The appellants appealed the 2016 taxation year property assessment of their mixed-use commercial/industrial property, which hosts a forest products business.

MPAC assessed the current value at $531,000, later revising its position to $434,000 based on the cost approach.

The appellants argued for a value of $325,000, asserting that the cost approach did not reflect the depressed local market and that the direct sales comparison approach should be used.

The Assessment Review Board agreed with the appellants that the direct sales comparison approach was more appropriate given the market conditions.

The Board determined the current value to be $387,000 based on comparable sales and found no further equity adjustment was required.