Sean Doyle

The Requestor sought an extension of time to file a request for review of a Board decision that dismissed his application to reduce his 2017 municipal taxes due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The request was filed beyond the 30-day limit under Rule 120.

The Requestor claimed his delay was due to sickness but provided no evidence to substantiate this claim.

The Board denied the request for an extension of time.

The applicant applied to have his 2018 property taxes cancelled, reduced, or refunded under s. 357(1)(d1) of the Municipal Act, 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, which showed a monthly income exceeding documented expenses and access to funds through a reverse mortgage.

The Board found that the applicant failed to demonstrate an inability to pay the property taxes and dismissed the application.

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 99-year-old applicant applied for a refund of her 2018 property taxes under section 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, citing sickness or extreme poverty.

The Assessment Review Board found that the applicant had already paid the taxes in full and still retained a monthly surplus, significant equity in her home, and available funds through a reverse mortgage.

The Board concluded the applicant was not unable to pay her taxes and dismissed the application.

The applicants applied for a refund of their 2016 property taxes under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, citing sickness and extreme poverty.

While the Board accepted that one applicant suffered from sickness, it found that the applicants had sufficient financial resources, including significant assets outside of Canada, to pay their property taxes.

The application was dismissed.

The moving party brought a motion for the production of confidential information held by the respondent regarding 24 pharmaceutical companies and five non-pharmaceutical companies, to assist in valuing its purpose-built pharmaceutical manufacturing facility.

The respondent and third-party property owners consented to the release of information for the pharmaceutical properties but objected to the non-pharmaceutical properties.

The Assessment Review Board found that the non-pharmaceutical properties lacked sufficient similarity to the subject property and denied disclosure for those five properties.

The Board ordered the disclosure of information for the 24 pharmaceutical properties, subject to strict confidentiality undertakings.

The appellants in a property assessment appeal brought a motion for an order permitting alternative service of a motion for production of third-party confidential information.

The appellants sought to serve the motion on non-party property owners by registered mail directed to the general manager of the hotel and to the owners' representatives if they had outstanding appeals.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion on consent, finding it to be the most just, expeditious, and least expensive method of advancing the production motion.