Assessment Review Board

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

The parties agreed on a current value of $887,000, leaving the sole issue of whether an equitable reduction was required under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act.

The Board found that the appropriate vicinity for comparison was the specific homogeneous neighbourhood (E60) and that similar properties were two-storey residential homes with a quality class of 6 to 7.

Applying the median assessment-to-sale ratio of 0.90 from ten comparable properties in that neighbourhood, the Board reduced the assessment to $798,000.

The moving party sought permission to file a late appeal of their 2019 property assessment, claiming they never received MPAC's reconsideration decision letter.

MPAC did not dispute the non-receipt but argued the Board lacked jurisdiction to extend the deadline.

The Board found that because the notice was not received through no fault of the moving party, the secondary 90-day appeal deadline under section 40(5) of the Assessment Act was engaged.

As the appeal was filed within this secondary window, it was deemed timely and processed.

The moving parties brought a motion to extend the time to file a late appeal of their property assessment for the 2017 taxation year.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding that the moving parties failed to meet the requirements of Rule 26(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, as they had received the notice of assessment and did not file the appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of it.

The moving party brought a motion to extend the time to file property assessment appeals for the 2016 to 2018 taxation years.

The property was in the residential tax class, which requires a Request for Reconsideration (RfR) as a precondition to an appeal.

The moving party had not filed RfRs for those years.

The Board held that it lacked jurisdiction under section 40(4) of the Assessment Act to extend the time to file an RfR because such a request must be made during the taxation year in question.

Consequently, the motion to extend time to file the appeals was dismissed.

The requester sought to reinstate two property assessment appeals that were inadvertently withdrawn.

The requester had sent a withdrawal letter for several appeals but quickly realized two appeals pending settlement were included in error.

A revised letter was sent the same day, but the withdrawal was still processed.

The Assessment Review Board found the error was made in good faith, the application was timely, and the respondents consented.

The request for reinstatement was granted.

The moving party sought an extension of time to file an appeal for the 2019 taxation year regarding a property in Hamilton.

The moving party argued they did not receive the notice of assessment because they were a bare trustee prior to the property's conveyance.

The Assessment Review Board found that while the moving party met the first two requirements of Rule 26(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, they failed to provide evidence that the appeal was filed within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment.

Consequently, the motion to extend time was denied.

The moving party, a property manager, brought a motion to extend the time to file a property assessment appeal for the 2018 taxation year.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding that the property manager was not a person entitled to receive a notice of assessment under the Assessment Act, and therefore did not meet the requirements of Rule 26(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

Furthermore, the moving party failed to provide the date she became aware of the assessment, making it impossible to determine if the appeal was filed within the required 30-day window.

The appellant appealed the 2017, 2018, and 2019 property assessments for a vacant commercial lot, arguing the assessed value of $9,100 was too high and should be $1,000.

MPAC recommended a value of $6,400 based on a 50% reduction for a significant decline at the rear of the property.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable sales and found that a nearby undeveloped property with similar topographical challenges sold for $4,000.

Applying a 49% downward neighbourhood adjustment agreed upon by the parties, the Board determined the correct current value to be $1,960 and reduced the assessment accordingly.

The appellant appealed the 2017, 2018, and 2019 property assessments for a vacant commercial lot, arguing the current value should be $1,000 rather than the $8,700 assessed by MPAC.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable sales data provided by MPAC and found that the most reliable comparable sales indicated a mid-point value of $9,500.

Applying a 49% downward neighbourhood adjustment, the Board determined the correct current value to be $4,655.

The Board found no evidence to support a further equitable reduction.

The appellant appealed the 2017, 2018, and 2019 property assessments for a vacant commercial lot, arguing the current value should be $1,000 due to topography issues and lack of access.

MPAC assessed the property at $9,900 for 2017-2018 and $7,000 for 2019.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC's comparable sale was superior to the subject property and adjusted the current value to $6,776 based on the property's effective site area and declining topography.

The Board found no evidence to support an equitable reduction.

The appellant appealed the 2017, 2018, and 2019 property assessments for a vacant commercial property, arguing the assessed value of $8,700 was too high and should be $1,000.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable sales data provided by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) and found that the most comparable sales indicated a lower value than assessed.

Applying a downward neighbourhood adjustment to the mid-point of the comparable sales, the Board reduced the current value assessment to $4,655.

The Board found no evidence to support a further equitable reduction.

The moving party filed a motion requesting the Assessment Review Board to accept a late appeal for the 2019 taxation year.

The moving party provided affidavit evidence that he did not receive the 2019 notice of assessment and only became aware of the increased assessment upon receiving his 2019 tax bill.

The Board found that the moving party met all the requirements of Rule 26(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, as he filed the appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment.

The motion was granted and the late appeal was accepted.

The appellant appealed the 2017, 2018, and 2019 property assessments for a vacant commercial lot, arguing the assessed value of $8,700 was too high and should be $1,000.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable sales provided by the respondent and found that the most similar sales indicated a lower value than assessed.

Applying a downward neighbourhood adjustment to the mid-point of the comparable sales, the Board reduced the current value assessment to $4,655.

The Board found no evidence to support a further equitable reduction.

The appellant appealed the 2017, 2018, and 2019 property tax assessments of a vacant residential lot in the Township of Ignace, arguing the assessed value of $16,200 was too high compared to the 2012 assessment of $3,800.

MPAC presented evidence of sales of smaller and larger vacant lands to support the assessment, noting the 2012 assessment was an error.

The Assessment Review Board found the appellant failed to provide market evidence to support a reduction and that MPAC's evidence supported the $16,200 valuation.

The Board also found the assessment was equitable compared to similar properties in the vicinity and dismissed the appeal, confirming the assessment.

The moving party, 2662537 Ontario Ltd., sought an extension of time to file a property tax assessment appeal for the 2019 taxation year.

The property had been reclassified from residential to commercial, tripling the tax bill.

The moving party did not receive the notice of assessment because it was sent to the previous owner.

The Assessment Review Board found that the moving party met the requirements of Rule 26(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, as it did not receive the notice and filed the appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment.

The motion to extend time was granted.

The applicants applied for a reduction, cancellation, or refund of their 2018 property taxes, citing an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty under s. 357(1)(d1) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Assessment Review Board found that the applicants had a monthly income exceeding their expenses and possessed significant cash assets and savings.

Consequently, the Board concluded that the applicants failed to demonstrate an inability to pay their property taxes and dismissed the application.

The City of Kitchener brought a motion to validate the late service of its Responding Statement of Issues (RSOI) and a subsequent amendment to its RSOI in a property assessment appeal.

The City argued that exceptional circumstances existed due to a gap in staffing and unfamiliarity with the file.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the delay was caused by the City's own carelessness in failing to monitor timelines, which did not constitute exceptional circumstances under Rule 82.

The Board also noted that granting the extension would cause significant prejudice to the respondent, Canadian Tire Corporation.

The City of Kitchener brought a motion to validate the late service of its Responding Statement of Issues (RSOI) and to amend it in an ongoing property assessment appeal.

The City argued that staff turnover and a period without an assessment analyst constituted exceptional circumstances under Rule 82.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the delay was caused by the City's own carelessness in failing to monitor the appeal timelines, which did not amount to exceptional circumstances.

The Board also noted that granting the extension would significantly prejudice the respondent, Canadian Tire Corporation.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a 10-acre farm property for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value of the property to be $559,000 based on comparable sales of farm properties.

The Board found no evidence to support a reduction for equitable assessment purposes.

As neither the respondent nor the municipality sought a higher assessment, the original assessment of $550,000 was confirmed.

The appellant property owner appealed the municipality's denial of vacant unit tax rebates for three areas of its industrial property for the 2015, 2016, and 2017 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board found that two of the areas were not eligible for the rebate because they contained obsolete machinery and office furnishings, and were not clearly delineated or separated by physical barriers as required by O. Reg. 325/01.

However, the Board found that a portion of the third area was clearly delineated and vacant, and therefore eligible for the rebate.

The Board also held that the appellant was entitled to carry over its 2015 application to 2016, and that the 90-day eligibility rule was satisfied for a 51-day vacancy period in 2017 due to continuous vacancy from the prior year.

The appeal was allowed in part.