Section 357 Tax Relief: A Key ARB Decision for Taxpayers and Municipalities

Submitted by: Monika Cholewa, BGIS, Ottawa, ON 

Assessment Review Board (ARB) issued a decision by H. Cudmore on June 26th, 2026, WR 190394 that provides important guidance on the interpretation of section 357(1)(g) of the Municipal Act, 2001, particularly in municipalities that have discontinued their vacant unit rebate programs.

The appeal was brought by 79 Bramstelle Road Inc (appellant) against the City of Brampton regarding municipal property taxes in 2024.

The appellant sought tax relief under section 357(1)(g) of the Municipal Act arguing that renovations prevented normal use of certain property units for at least three months.

Does Section 357(1.1) Bar Relief for “Prescribed Land”?

Before hearing any evidence, the Board member requested legal submissions addressing whether section 357(1.1) could disqualify the appellant from obtaining relief under section 357(1)(g) because the property constituted “prescribed land.” The Board referenced ARB decision 2198806 Ontario Inc v Windsor(City)CanLII 132950 and requested the appellant and the City of Brampton to comment on applicability of this decision to the appeal of 79 Bramsteele Road.

Interestingly, neither party had raised the issue prior to the proceedings.

The Board ultimately concluded that section 357(1.1) did not operate as a bar to relief in this case because the City of Brampton had previously opted out of the vacant unit rebate program established under Ontario Regulation 325/01 and subsequently restructured by Ontario Regulation 581/17.

The decision establishes an important principle: municipalities that have eliminated their vacant unit rebate programs cannot rely on section 357(1.1) to deny relief under section 357(1)(g) on the basis that the property constitutes “prescribed land.”

This clarification provides much-needed guidance regarding the interaction between section 357 tax relief provisions and municipal decisions to discontinue vacancy rebate programs.

The Importance of Proper Notice to Applicants

The second significant issue concerned whether the Board could consider evidence that had not originally been presented to municipal council.  The Board accepted the appellant’s additional evidence because the municipality had failed to properly notify the applicant of the council meeting at which the application was considered.

The decision emphasizes that notice to the applicant is not discretionary — it is a mandatory requirement under the Municipal Act.

Section 357(5) specifically requires municipalities to notify applicants of the meeting during which their application will be considered so they have an opportunity to attend and present evidence in support of their position.

The Board went even further, stating:

“Had the appellant been properly notified, the Board would NOT now be able to consider the evidence on the appeal.”

This finding is supported by section 357(8) of the Municipal Act, which provides that only where council fails to make a decision does an appeal proceed as a hearing de novo before the Board.

The practical implication is significant: applicants must be given a meaningful opportunity to present their case at the municipal level. If they receive proper notice and choose not to provide available evidence, they generally cannot use the appeal process to introduce evidence that could have been presented earlier.

Additional Takeaways from the Decision

The City of Brampton argued that the appellant failed to meet the statutory three-month threshold required under the Municipal Act and that the application should therefore be dismissed.

The Board agreed with the appellant renovation timelines and the fact that renovation did prevent normal use of several units for more than three months in 2024 meeting the statutory requirement.

The decision emphasizes the importance of providing sufficient evidence to establish the amount of property taxes paid, the specific refund sought and the legal or factual basis for that amount. At a minimum, an applicant should submit evidence enabling the Board to calculate the appropriate refund, together with an explanation of the methodology and the reasons supporting the calculation.

The appellant presented a methodology for calculating the amount of relief requested. The City of Brampton did not provide any evidence or alternative calculation regarding the appropriate quantum of relief.

In the absence of competing evidence from the municipality, the Board accepted the appellant’s calculation and adopted the proposed formula for determining the refund amount.

Why This Decision Matters
This decision offers several important lessons for taxpayers and municipalities alike:

  • Municipalities that have opted out of vacant unit rebate programs may not rely on section 357(1.1) to deny relief under section 357(1)(g) based on the “prescribed land” provisions.
  • Proper notice of council meetings under section 357(5) is mandatory, not procedural formality.
  • Failure to provide notice may allow applicants to introduce evidence on appeal that otherwise would have been excluded.
  • Applicants should ensure they fully present their case at the municipal level when given the opportunity, as appeals are generally not intended to provide a second chance to submit evidence.
  • Where municipalities do not challenge the methodology used to calculate relief, the Board may accept the applicant’s evidence on quantum.

The decision provides valuable clarification on both the substantive eligibility requirements for section 357 relief and the procedural protections that municipalities must provide to applicants.