{"id":33320,"date":"2025-05-21T10:41:51","date_gmt":"2025-05-21T14:41:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/?p=33320"},"modified":"2025-05-21T10:41:52","modified_gmt":"2025-05-21T14:41:52","slug":"the-date-debate-a-new-battleground-in-assessment-appeals","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/real-estate\/the-date-debate-a-new-battleground-in-assessment-appeals\/","title":{"rendered":"The date debate: A new battleground in assessment appeals"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

On May 15, 2025, the Ontario provincial government released its 2025 budget, and with it came no signs of a general reassessment of property taxes. For the foreseeable future, property tax assessments in Ontario will continue to be based on a January 1, 2016 valuation date. That said, after nearly a decade and counting with the same valuation date, a decision from the Assessment Review Board (\u201cARB<\/strong>\u201d) is sparking debate about how many valuation dates there are in Ontario\u2019s property tax assessment system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In General Motors of Canada Company v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 23, <\/em>2024 CanLII 55068 (ON ARB)<\/a> <\/em>(\u201cGeneral Motors<\/em><\/strong>\u201d), the ARB interpreted the Assessment Act, <\/em>S.O. 1990 C. A.31 (the \u201cAct<\/strong>\u201d) as prescribing different valuation dates for omitted and supplementary assessments made during the assessment cycle. If not overturned, this interpretation may cause significant increases in tax liabilities for Ontario taxpayers. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The rise of multiple valuation dates<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

An omitted assessment is issued under section 33 of the Act to correct an omission from the tax roll (i.e. the value of a building was missed and is now being accounted for on the tax roll). A supplementary assessment is issued under section 34 of the Act to account for certain circumstances listed under that section (i.e. an increase in assessed value that has happened as a result of an improvement).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In General Motors<\/em> the ARB interpreted sections 33 and 34 of the Act as prescribing different valuation dates than the general reassessment valuation date, being January 1, 2016. In other words, while properties in Ontario generally continue to be valued as of January 1, 2016, under the ARB\u2019s interpretation in General Motors<\/em>,\u00a0 if a property receives a supplementary or omitted assessment, those assessments will have a different valuation date other than the January 1, 2016 general reassessment valuation date.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In General Motors<\/em>, the ARB observed that there are two valuation dates \u201cimplicitly referenced\u201d in section 34:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. the date that construction of an improvement is completed; and<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. the date that an improvement commences to be used.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    The ARB did not, however, indicate what the valuation date is for omitted assessments made under section 33. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    This interpretation is not entirely new. It harks back to the findings in National Car Rental (Canada) Inc. v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 15<\/em>, 2022 CanLII 53352 (ON ARB)<\/a>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \u201cHowever, only s. 33 and s. 34 provide that current value may be determined based on a valuation day which follows the general reassessment valuation day prescribed by s. 19.2 of the Act.\u201d (National Car<\/em>, para 229)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    While this interpretation of sections 33 and 34 has been on the books for several years, it is only recently that the ARB\u2019s findings have become a real point of contention in assessment appeals. At the time of writing this article, we are aware of at least two proceedings where the ARB has scheduled motions on this \u201cissue.\u201d In one instance, all parties to the assessment appeal proceedings agree that there is only one valuation day for all assessments made during the current assessment cycle, being January 1, 2016.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Multiple valuation dates: A new challenge for valuation?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    The ARB\u2019s increasing shift towards recognizing multiple valuation days in the assessment cycle raises some important and complex questions about how properties are to be valued going forward, particularly when we are in the middle of the ninth year of what was supposed to be a four-year assessment cycle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    To illustrate some potential complications, consider the following scenario:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    An office building is assessed at $30,000,000 for the 2017-2024 taxation years and valued as of the January 1, 2016 valuation date under section 19.2 of the Act. On January 1, 2025, the owner of the office building completes an improvement, triggering a supplementary assessment by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (\u201cMPAC<\/strong>\u201d). Under the rationale in General Motors<\/em>, the improvement is to be valued as of January 1, 2025, whereas the balance of the office building is to continue being valued as of January 1, 2016.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    This raises some significant questions:<\/p>\n\n\n\n