Assessment Review Board

The Moving Party brought a motion to extend the time to file late property assessment appeals for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

The Moving Party argued it did not receive the notices of assessment because they were sent to the wrong address.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding that the Moving Party failed to meet the requirements of Rule 26(b) because it did not file the appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment.

The Board also declined to extend time under Rule 17, concluding that the delays were unexplained and there were no unusual or extenuating circumstances to justify an extension.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion on behalf of the City of Brampton to extend the time for bringing appeals to correct palpable errors in the assessment roll for the 2011 to 2014 taxation years.

A municipally-owned cemetery had been erroneously assessed as vacant residential land instead of being exempt.

Although the Board found that the errors were palpable, it declined to exercise its discretion to extend the time for appeals.

The Board determined that the Municipality was aware of the errors but chose not to file appeals in a timely manner due to its own internal policies and resource allocation, making it unreasonable and unfair to reopen the roll.

The moving party filed a motion requesting the Assessment Review Board to accept a late appeal for the 2017 taxation year.

The moving party argued that he misunderstood the Property Assessment Notice and assumed his 2016 appeal would apply to the 2017-2020 cycle.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party did not meet the requirements of Rule 26(b) because he had received the notice of assessment and failed to file within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment.

MPAC brought a motion to dismiss the appellants' property assessment appeals for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years due to non-compliance with statutory requirements and Board Rules.

The appellants failed to file a Request for Reconsideration for the 2015 appeal, which is a statutory precondition under s. 40(3) of the Assessment Act.

The 2016 appeals, deemed from the invalid 2015 appeal, were also found non-compliant.

Furthermore, the appellants failed to file a Statement of Issues and documentary evidence as required by the Board's Schedule of Events.

The Board granted the motion and dismissed the appeals.

The appellant appealed the 2018 and 2019 property assessments of a historically significant mansion in Carleton Place.

MPAC assessed the property at $999,000 for 2018 and $700,000 for 2019.

The Board found that the burden of proof remained on MPAC because the required special notice for a reverse onus was not provided and the assessor was ultimately allowed to inspect the property.

The Board accepted MPAC's base valuation of $700,000 derived from comparable sales but applied an $88,000 deduction for proven deferred maintenance costs for the 2018 tax year.

The 2018 assessment was reduced to $612,000, and the 2019 assessment was confirmed at $700,000 as the repairs had been completed.

IKEA brought a motion to dismiss the City of Toronto's property assessment appeals, arguing that the City's expert report improperly relied on confidential information from other proceedings, amounting to an abuse of process.

Alternatively, IKEA sought to postpone the appeals or obtain documentary disclosure.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the expert's initial inclusion of the contested references was a mere oversight that had been corrected, which did not meet the threshold for abuse of process.

The Board also declined to postpone the appeals or order disclosure, but granted IKEA an extension of time to serve its responding expert report.

The property owner appealed its property tax assessment, arguing the property should be classified as tax-exempt under s. 3(1)12 iii. of the Assessment Act.

MPAC brought a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion and dismissed the appeal, finding that questions of exemption from taxation fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Superior Court under s. 46 of the Act, whereas the Board's jurisdiction is limited to matters such as incorrect classification.

The moving party sought to file a late appeal of her 2018 property assessment.

She had not filed a Request for Reconsideration (RfR) with MPAC during the 2018 taxation year, which is a statutory precondition for an appeal.

The Board held that under s. 40(4) of the Assessment Act, it only has jurisdiction to extend the RfR deadline if the application for an extension is made during the taxation year in question.

Because the moving party did not apply during 2018, the Board lacked jurisdiction to grant the extension or accept the late appeal.

The motion was denied.

The moving party, a registered charity, sought an extension of time to file a Request for Reconsideration regarding the commercial classification of its property for the 2019 taxation year.

The Assessment Review Board found it lacked jurisdiction to extend the time for a Request for Reconsideration because the property was in the commercial tax class, making such a request optional rather than a prerequisite for an appeal.

Treating the application as a motion to file a late appeal, the Board denied the motion because the moving party failed to file it within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment, as required by Rule 26(b).

The Township of Johnson appealed the 2019 property assessment of a farm property, arguing the assessment was too low because it failed to account for ongoing industrial activity.

MPAC had returned a value of $503,000 based on residential and farm classifications.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC failed to discharge its burden of proof regarding the correctness of the current value, as its cost approach lacked sufficient detail.

However, the Board also found the Township's evidence insufficient to prove a different value.

Applying the principle from Patry, the Board fixed the assessment at the last uncontested value of $503,000.

Acknowledging the undisputed industrial use, the Board apportioned a nominal $1,000 to the Industrial property class, reducing the Farm class value accordingly.

The requester, Milord Realty Inc., sought to reinstate two property assessment appeals that were withdrawn in error.

The requester's representative had mistakenly withdrawn the section 32 appeals instead of the section 40 appeals.

The Board found that the request met the requirements of Rule 122 of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, as it was filed within 30 days and the withdrawal was due to a clerical error.

The Board exercised its discretion to reinstate the appeals, noting no prejudice to other parties.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their residential dwelling in Toronto for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the current value at $1,164,000, while the appellants argued for a value of $949,000.

The Assessment Review Board found the appellants' evidence of comparable properties lacked detailed information and time adjustments.

The Board accepted MPAC's direct comparison approach and bracketing analysis as the best evidence of value.

The appeal was dismissed and the assessed value of $1,164,000 was confirmed.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their single-family home for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the current value at $981,000, but at the hearing argued for a value of $1,057,000 based on comparable sales.

The Board analyzed the comparable sales and determined the current value to be $1,012,658.

The Board then applied a 4.14% equitable reduction pursuant to section 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, resulting in a final assessed value of $971,000.

The Township appealed the 2019 property assessment, arguing that the property's industrial use was not adequately reflected in its value.

MPAC had applied omitted and supplementary assessments to recognize the industrial activity.

The Board found that MPAC failed to discharge its burden of proof regarding the correctness of the current value, as it did not provide sufficient evidence on how the building values and depreciation were calculated.

Applying the Patry framework, the Board fixed the assessment at the last uncontested value of $131,000 and apportioned a nominal $1,000 to the Industrial property class.

The applicant sought relief from property taxes for the 2018 taxation year due to sickness or extreme poverty under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

After numerous adjournments of the 2016, 2017, and 2018 applications, the Board scheduled a peremptory hearing.

The applicant's representative failed to attend the peremptory hearing despite receiving notice.

The Board dismissed the 2018 application due to the applicant's non-compliance with the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The applicant sought property tax relief under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act due to sickness or extreme poverty.

Following the death of his wife, the applicant requested a third adjournment to gather required financial documentation.

The Assessment Review Board granted the adjournment but issued an interim procedural order detailing the specific documentation required to prove the application and warning that further adjournments would not be granted absent exceptional circumstances.

The Township of Johnson appealed the 2019 property assessment of a farm property, arguing that ongoing industrial activity warranted a higher assessment.

MPAC amended its valuation to include the Industrial property class but the Township disputed the valuation methodology, specifically the use of the Agricultural Cost Guide instead of an industrial cost guide.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC failed to discharge its burden of proof under s. 40(17) of the Assessment Act to establish the current value.

Applying the Patry framework, the Board fixed the assessment at the last uncontested assessed value of $336,000, while recognizing the industrial use by attributing a nominal value of $1,000 to the Industrial property class.

The appellants appealed the 2019 property assessment of their residential property, which MPAC had assessed at $999,000.

The appellants argued the value should be their 2016 purchase price of $830,000, while MPAC argued the property's value had increased due to renovations but agreed to a value of $952,000.

The Assessment Review Board used a bracketing approach with comparable sales to determine a current value of $990,023, but reduced the assessment to $952,000 as requested by MPAC.

The Board dismissed the appellants' request for an equitable reduction, finding the assessment to sales ratio was within an acceptable range.

The City of Pickering brought a motion to alter the timeline in the Schedule of Events to allow it to file a late Statement of Response in a property assessment appeal.

The City admitted it failed to understand the Rules and missed the deadline, but argued it was unfairly excluded from settlement discussions between the property owner and MPAC.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that a lack of understanding of the Rules does not constitute 'exceptional circumstances' required under Rule 82 to alter a timeline.

As the City failed to file its response on time, it was deemed not to oppose the settlement reached by the other parties pursuant to Rule 39.

A request for costs against the City was also denied.

The appellant appealed the 2019 property assessment of their single-family home in Toronto, which MPAC assessed at $2,088,000.

The appellant argued the value should be $1,500,000 based on the cost approach and comparable sales west of Bathurst Street.

MPAC relied on comparable sales east of Bathurst Street to support a value of $2,087,000, but conceded a 5% equitable reduction was warranted.

The Board preferred the appellant's comparable sales, finding properties east of Bathurst Street commanded higher market values.

The Board determined the current value to be $1,906,464 and applied the 5% equitable reduction, resulting in a final assessed value of $1,811,000.