Anita Lovrich

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of a commercial property operating as a restaurant and food market for the 2023, 2024, and 2025 taxation years.

The returned value was $813,000.

MPAC sought an increased assessment based on the cost approach.

As preliminary matters, the Board allowed the appellant's representative to act as a fact witness, found MPAC provided sufficient notice to seek a higher assessment, and qualified MPAC's employee as an expert witness.

On the merits, the Board accepted MPAC's cost approach analysis over the appellant's single comparable sale, determining the current value to be $1,057,962 for 2023 and $1,077,318 for 2024 and 2025.

The Board also found no equitable adjustment was required.

The appellants appealed the 2024 and 2025 property assessments for their 5.05-acre property, arguing it should be valued as 'farm lands used only for farm purposes' under s. 19(5) of the Assessment Act due to their boutique Christmas tree, foraging, and beekeeping operations.

The Assessment Review Board found the farming activity was limited in scale, generated minimal income, and lacked the characteristics of a bona fide farming business, concluding it was a hobby farm.

The Board determined the current value of the property to be $581,000 based on comparable sales provided by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, and found no equitable reduction was warranted.

The applicant appealed to the Assessment Review Board for a refund of her 2023 property taxes, citing an inability to pay due to extreme poverty under section 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Board found that the applicant's 2023 income of $3,519.52 constituted extreme poverty and that she was unable to pay the taxes levied.

While the applicant sought a refund of $8,988.45, which included additional municipal charges, the Board held that only the $3,276.54 levied as property taxes could be refunded under the Act.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the City was ordered to refund $3,276.54.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their single-family detached home in Toronto for the 2024 and 2025 taxation years, arguing the assessed value of $1,265,000 was too high.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable sales evidence provided by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) and determined the correct current value to be $1,297,000.

The Board declined to make an equitable reduction under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, finding that the assessment to sales ratio of 0.98 indicated similar properties in the vicinity were assessed at or near their current values.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their detached residential dwelling, arguing the current value determined by MPAC was too high.

MPAC assessed the property at $383,000, while the appellants sought a reduction to $270,000.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable sales data and time adjustment analyses from both parties.

The Board preferred MPAC's time adjustment analysis but rejected some of MPAC's comparables that abutted green space or had pools.

Relying on the remaining comparables, the Board determined the current value to be $314,000.

The Board also found that no equitable reduction was necessary based on MPAC's assessment-to-sale ratio analysis.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion for disclosure of subject sale information and appraisals regarding the 2021 purchase of the subject property.

The appellant opposed the motion, arguing the request was late and the information was irrelevant to the 2016 valuation date.

The Assessment Review Board found the motion was not brought too late and that the requested information was relevant to the issues raised by MPAC.

However, the Board found the request was too broad and ordered disclosure limited to the parameters set out in the Board's Disclosure Guideline.

The motion was granted in part.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a single-family detached home in Vaughan for the 2024 and 2025 taxation years.

The property was assessed at $2,127,000, but the appellant argued for a reduction to $1,697,350.

The Assessment Review Board applied the direct comparison approach, adjusting comparable sales for time and removing an 11% premium for properties abutting a golf course, to determine a current value of $1,910,000.

The Board rejected the appellant's equity analysis and accepted MPAC's assessment-to-sale ratio analysis, finding no further equitable reduction was required.

The applicant sought to have her 2023 property taxes cancelled, reduced, or refunded under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, claiming an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The Assessment Review Board found that the applicant's income of approximately $84,000 in 2023 was well above the threshold for extreme poverty, even accounting for $30,000 in unexpected housing expenses.

The applicant also failed to provide medical documentation of sickness or demonstrate how sickness caused an inability to pay.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought a reduction of his 2024 property taxes under the City of Toronto Act, 2006, claiming an inability to pay due to extreme poverty.

While the Assessment Review Board found the applicant's monthly income was low enough to constitute extreme poverty, it determined he was not unable to pay his property taxes.

The applicant possessed significant assets, including over $100,000 in a Tax Free Savings Account, which could be utilized to mitigate his property tax obligations.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant applied to the City of Mississauga to have her 2024 property taxes of $5,064.57 cancelled or reduced due to extreme poverty or sickness under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

While the Assessment Review Board found the applicant's monthly income of $730.92 met the threshold for extreme poverty, it determined she was not unable to pay her property taxes.

The applicant had over $14,000 in available bank accounts, which the Board concluded were resources that could be utilized to mitigate her property tax obligations.

The application was dismissed.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their newly built two-storey detached residential dwelling in Ajax, arguing the current value was too high.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value as of the January 1, 2016 valuation day to be $719,000 based on time-adjusted comparable sales provided by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC).

The Board also found that an equitable adjustment was required based on an Assessment to Sales Ratio analysis, reducing the equitable current value to $654,000 for the s. 40 assessment and $440,000 for the s. 34 supplementary assessment.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of his waterfront residential property for the 2024 and 2025 taxation years, arguing the assessed value of $941,000 was too high and seeking a reduction to between $500,000 and $600,000.

MPAC proposed a current value of $843,000 based on comparable sales.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the appellant's valuation methods, which relied on non-time-adjusted sales and a ratio applied to a neighbour's assessment.

Relying on MPAC's comparable sales data, the Board determined the current value to be $867,000.

The Board also found no equitable reduction was required under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, as MPAC's Assessment to Sales Ratio analysis demonstrated similar properties were assessed at or near their current values.

The appellant appealed the supplementary and annual property tax assessments for a newly constructed single-family dwelling in Mississauga.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value of the property using the direct comparison approach, relying on MPAC's time-adjusted comparable sales.

The Board reduced the supplementary assessment to $1,262,000 and the annual assessment to $1,948,000, confirmed the effective date as September 28, 2023, and found no equitable reduction was required under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a single-family detached residential dwelling for the 2024 and 2025 taxation years, arguing the assessed value of $358,000 should be reduced to $240,000.

The Assessment Review Board applied the direct comparison approach, preferring the respondent's five comparable sales over the appellant's single older comparable property.

The Board determined the current value to be $362,000 and found no equitable adjustment was warranted based on the assessment-to-sales ratio analysis.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their waterfront property for the 2024 and 2025 taxation years, arguing the current value was incorrect and inequitable.

They also sought to appeal assessments for the past 19 years due to alleged errors.

The Assessment Review Board denied the request to extend the time to appeal past years, as the appeal was brought under s. 40 of the Assessment Act, which does not permit such extensions.

On the issue of current value, the Board rejected the appellants' reliance on assessed values of other properties and instead relied on MPAC's comparable sales data.

The Board determined the correct current value to be $442,000 based on the average time-adjusted sales price of comparable properties with detached garages and apartments above them.

The Board found no equitable reduction was required.

The applicants appealed to the Assessment Review Board for the cancellation of their 2023 property taxes, citing an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Board found that the applicants' household expenses exceeded their income after one applicant became legally blind and unable to work, forcing the other to leave employment to provide care.

The Board concluded that the applicants were unable to pay their property taxes due to sickness and ordered the cancellation of the $8,307.94 levied for the 2023 taxation year.

The appellant applied for a property tax refund under s. 357(1)(g) of the Municipal Act, arguing that renovations to convert an office building into a self-storage facility prevented the normal use of the property for at least three months in 2023.

The municipality denied the application and the appellant appealed to the Assessment Review Board.

The Board found that renovations did prevent normal use of the property from January 1, 2023, until a partial occupancy permit was issued on September 18, 2023.

The Board ordered a pro-rated tax refund of $39,887 based on a 50% current value adjustment for the affected areas.

The appellant appealed the current value assessment of her waterfront property for the 2023-2025 taxation years, as well as a supplementary assessment for a newly erected detached garage.

The Assessment Review Board determined that the valuation day for the supplementary assessment under s. 34 of the Assessment Act is the date the improvement commenced to be used, which was September 15, 2023.

The Board increased the base current value of the property to $322,000 based on comparable sales evidence, confirmed the supplementary assessment value of $75,000, and adjusted the effective date of the supplementary assessment to September 15, 2023.

No equitable reduction was found to be required.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their single-family home for the 2024 and 2025 taxation years, arguing the current value was too high.

The Assessment Review Board evaluated comparable sales evidence and time adjustment factors provided by both parties.

The Board preferred the respondent's comparable properties and Assessment to Sales Ratio analysis, finding the correct current value to be $1,697,035.

The Board concluded that no equitable reduction was required, setting the final assessment at $1,697,000.

The Appellant appealed the property assessment of a neighbourhood shopping centre containing a variety store, diner, and gas station for the 2023, 2024, and 2025 taxation years.

The parties agreed on several valuation parameters but disputed the Fair Market Rent (FMR) for the retail portion and the size and value of the land attributable to the gas bar.

The Assessment Review Board applied the income approach for the retail portion, adopting MPAC's market rent evidence over the Appellant's actual rent evidence, consistent with binding jurisprudence.

The Board valued the gas bar land using the cost approach, adopting the Appellant's proposed land size to avoid double-assessing land captured by the income approach, but applied MPAC's comparable sales data for the valuation.

The Board found the correct current value to be $840,000 and determined no equitable adjustment was required.