Assessment Review Board

The appellants appealed the 2017 and 2018 property assessment of their single-family detached dwelling in Markham.

MPAC had assessed the property at $964,000, while the appellants argued for a value of $875,000.

The Assessment Review Board determined the correct current value to be $1,056,000 based on comparable sales.

However, applying an equitable reduction based on the median assessment-to-sales ratio of similar properties in the vicinity, the Board reduced the final assessment to $939,000.

The applicant sought a refund of her 2018 property taxes under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, claiming an inability to pay due to sickness.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed the applicant's financial resources and expenses.

The Board found that the applicant had incurred significant discretionary expenses, including meals outside the home, music lessons, and travel expenses for an adult child, which exceeded the total amount of property taxes owed.

The Board concluded that the applicant could reasonably have paid her property taxes had she prioritized them over discretionary spending.

The application was dismissed.

The moving party, Hornepayne First Nation Incorporated, sought leave to file a late appeal of its property assessments for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 taxation years.

The moving party did not receive the Property Assessment Change Notices because they were mailed to the physical address rather than the correct post office box.

Upon discovering the assessment changes via a tax bill, the moving party promptly contacted the relevant authorities and filed its request within 30 days.

The Assessment Review Board found that the moving party met all requirements of Rule 26(b) and granted the motion to allow the late appeals.

The moving party sought to withdraw its property assessment appeals for the 2017-2019 taxation years.

The respondents, MPAC and the City of Ottawa, opposed the withdrawal because they intended to seek a higher assessment based on a recent sale of the property.

The moving party argued the Board lacked jurisdiction to refuse the withdrawal in a general proceeding and that a higher assessment could not be sought absent a physical or legal change.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that its Rules permit a party in a general proceeding to give notice of an intention to seek a higher assessment within their statement of issues, and that such notice can be issued on an annual assessment without a physical or legal change.

The Board exercised its discretion to refuse the withdrawal to prevent potential prejudice to other taxpayers.

The appellants brought a motion to extend the time to file a request for reconsideration for property assessments, while MPAC brought a motion to dismiss several appeals created by the Board's administrative staff.

The Board dismissed the appellants' motion as moot because the extension had already been granted.

The Board granted MPAC's motion to dismiss the appeals for the 2016 and 2017 land assessments because the appellants failed to file the mandatory requests for reconsideration.

The Board also dismissed the appeals for the 2015-2017 structure assessments because the parties had signed minutes of settlement, which the Board has no jurisdiction to set aside.

The Board noted that its administrative staff erred in deeming appeals for prior taxation years without notice to MPAC.

The Orangeville Agricultural Society brought a motion to file late appeals for the 2016 and 2017 taxation years regarding a property assessment.

The moving party's president filed an affidavit stating he did not receive a notice of assessment and only became aware of the assessments upon receiving a tax bill and notice of arrears.

MPAC consented to the motion.

The Assessment Review Board found that the moving party met the requirements of Rule 26(b) of the Rules of Practice and Procedure and granted the motion to accept the late appeals.

The applicants applied to the City of Toronto to have their 2017 property taxes cancelled, reduced, or refunded due to an inability to pay caused by sickness or extreme poverty.

The Assessment Review Board, acting under delegated authority, reviewed the applicants' household income and expenses.

The Board found that the applicants' monthly income exceeded their expenses and that they were meeting their financial obligations, including property taxes.

Consequently, the applicants failed to demonstrate an inability to pay, and the application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the omitted assessments of two newly constructed commercial condominiums for the 2016 taxation year.

MPAC assessed the units at $324,000 and $330,000 based on a January 1, 2012 valuation day.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC failed to meet its statutory burden under s. 40(17) of the Assessment Act to prove the correctness of the current value, as its sales evidence was either not comparable or too far removed in time, and its path to value relied on arbitrary component adjustments.

Because the appellant also provided no evidence of current value, and there was no previous uncontested assessment to revert to (as the units were newly created), the Board held that the appropriate remedy was to set the assessments at zero.

The omitted assessments for both units were reduced to $0.

The moving parties sought an extension of time to file an appeal and a Request for Reconsideration (RfR) regarding the 2017 property assessment of their newly purchased severed parcel.

The Board found that an RfR was a mandatory precondition to an appeal under the Assessment Act.

Because the request to extend the time to file the RfR was made in 2018, the year after the 2017 taxation year in issue, the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 40(4) of the Assessment Act to grant the extension.

Consequently, the motion was denied.

The appellants appealed the MPAC assessment of their residential property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years, arguing the assessed value of $404,000 was too high and improperly included the value of common lands.

The Assessment Review Board found that under the General Regulation, the value of common lands is deemed to be zero, but the value they add to the residential lot is reflected in the lot's current value.

After reviewing comparable sales, the Board determined the correct current value of the subject property was $377,000 and reduced the assessment accordingly.

The appellant appealed the 2018 and 2019 property assessments of a residential property in North Bay.

MPAC recommended a reduced current value of $234,000 based on the direct comparison approach, while the appellant argued for a value of $162,000 using a relative comparison and gross rent multiplier approach.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the appellant's income approach due to a lack of market rent evidence and preferred MPAC's direct comparison approach.

The Board found the current value to be $234,000 and concluded that no further reduction was necessary for equitable assessment.

The moving party sought leave to file a late property assessment appeal for the 2018 taxation year, arguing it did not receive the notice of reconsideration from MPAC.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that Rule 26(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure only permits late appeals when a notice of assessment is not received.

Because the moving party acknowledged receiving the initial notice of assessment, it failed to meet the strict requirements for an extension of time to appeal.

The appellant appealed the 2018 and 2019 property assessments of a residential property in North Bay.

MPAC recommended a reduced assessment of $226,000 based on a direct comparison approach, while the appellant argued for a lower value using a relative comparison and gross rent multiplier approach.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's direct comparison approach as the best evidence of current value, rejecting the appellant's income approach due to a lack of market rent evidence.

The Board set the current value at $226,000 and found no further reduction was warranted for equitable assessment purposes.

The appellants appealed the 2018 and 2019 property assessments of their single-family detached home, which had undergone major renovations.

MPAC assessed the property at $1,700,000 but recommended a revised value of $1,667,000 based on data changes.

The appellants argued for a value of $1,400,000, contending the property was not a 'rebuilt new' as classified by MPAC.

The Assessment Review Board found MPAC's comparables superior and relied on the appellants' comparables to determine the current value.

The Board reduced the assessment to $1,667,000 and found no further equitable reduction was warranted.

The appellant appealed the 2018 and 2019 property assessments of a residential property in North Bay.

MPAC recommended a reduced assessment of $224,000 based on the direct comparison approach, while the appellant argued for a value of $162,000 using a relative comparison and gross rent multiplier approach.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the appellant's income approach due to a lack of market rent evidence and preferred MPAC's direct comparison approach.

The Board found the current value to be $224,000 and concluded no further reduction was necessary for equitable assessment.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their waterfront property for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years, arguing the assessed value of $208,000 was too high compared to similar properties.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed sales data and determined the correct current value to be $177,000.

The Board further applied an equitable reduction based on the Assessment to Sales Ratio of similar properties, reducing the final assessed value to $167,000.

The City of Toronto requested a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that allowed a corporation, Bela Acres Holding Inc., to apply for property tax relief under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act due to 'sickness or extreme poverty'.

The Associate Chair granted the review, finding that the previous decision made significant errors of law in its statutory interpretation.

The Board held that a corporation cannot practically experience 'extreme poverty' or 'sickness', and that the legislative intent of the provision was to provide relief to individuals, not corporations.

The application for tax relief was dismissed.

The Appellant appealed the Municipality's denial of his application to cancel, reduce, or refund his 2017 property taxes due to sickness or extreme poverty under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed the Appellant's income, expenses, assets, and liabilities for the 2017 taxation year.

The Board found that the Appellant had a net cash surplus and significant assets, including an un-locked RRSP, which could have been used to pay the taxes.

Because the Appellant failed to demonstrate an inability to pay, the appeal was dismissed.

The moving parties brought three disclosure motions in property assessment appeals for three properties in Ottawa.

They sought disclosure of net operating income statements, capitalization rate studies, and unredacted expense allowances for comparable properties relied upon by MPAC.

MPAC opposed the requests on grounds of relevance, proportionality, and lack of notice to third parties.

The Assessment Review Board found that the requested documents were relevant to determining the correctness of MPAC's capitalization rates and net operating income calculations, and that the requests were proportionate.

The Board granted the disclosure requests, subject to the execution of non-disclosure agreements, except for one request where MPAC confirmed it did not possess unredacted documents.

The Township of Prince appealed the property classification of a residential property, arguing a portion should be in the commercial property class due to the storage and maintenance of heavy machinery.

In a previous decision, the Board agreed that a portion was commercial but left the valuation to be determined.

After a procedural history involving misplaced submissions and a review request, the Board determined the value of the commercial portion.

The Board found that half the value of the detached garage and one acre of the surrounding land should be apportioned to the commercial property class for the 2012, 2013, and 2014 taxation years.