Anthony LaRegina

The appellants appealed the property tax assessment of their residential condominium unit for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years, arguing the current value assessment of $810,000 was too high and should be reduced to $789,000 based on the assessment of a similar unit in the building.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) presented comparable sales evidence demonstrating the current value was actually $1,026,000, but requested the returned value of $810,000 be confirmed.

The Assessment Review Board found MPAC's comparable sales evidence to be the best evidence of current value and rejected the appellants' equity argument, finding no further downward adjustment was warranted.

The appeal was dismissed and the assessment was confirmed at $810,000.

The City of Guelph brought a motion for disclosure in an ongoing property assessment appeal concerning a Magna manufacturing facility.

The City sought detailed financial and operational data, including manufacturing costs and equipment replacement costs, to assess functional obsolescence using the cost approach.

Magna opposed the motion, arguing the requests were disproportionate and irrelevant as it was not using a full model plant methodology.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion, finding the requested information relevant to the dispute over functional obsolescence and proportional to the significant valuation impact, ordering disclosure subject to confidentiality undertakings.

The appellants appealed the property tax classification of their property, which had been changed by MPAC from residential to commercial for the period of January 1, 2019 to September 12, 2019.

The property was zoned residential but was leased to a for-profit daycare operator during that time.

The Assessment Review Board found that property classification is based on actual use rather than zoning.

Because the daycare was a for-profit operation, the property fell into the commercial property class under O. Reg. 282/98.

The Board confirmed the commercial classification for the disputed period.

The Appellants appealed the current value assessment of their property located at 19 Bowman Avenue in Brampton for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years.

MPAC and the City of Brampton sought to confirm the assessment at $1,184,000, while the Appellants argued for a reduction to $755,200.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed comparable sales and determined the current value to be $1,145,000.

The Board rejected the Appellants' request for a further equitable reduction, finding that the assessment to sales ratios of similar properties in the vicinity were within the acceptable range.

The assessment was reduced to $1,145,000.

The appellant appealed the current value assessments of 48 condominium units for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years.

The Board accepted MPAC's methodology of using comparable sales from a nearby building but rejected MPAC's upward adjustments and applied a $5,000 downward adjustment to account for the subject properties having outdoor rather than indoor parking.

The Board rejected the appellant's proposed 15% negative adjustment and reliance on non-MLS sales.

The Board also found that no equitable reduction was required under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, as the median assessment-to-sales ratio in the vicinity was 0.988.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) requested a review of a previous Assessment Review Board decision that set the subject property's assessment at its last uncontested value due to inadequate evidence.

MPAC argued that the Board erred in law and denied natural justice, relying on the recent Divisional Court decision in Zarichansky.

The Board agreed, finding that it has a statutory obligation under the Assessment Act to determine the current value and cannot simply assign a value it knows is not current.

The Board also found it breached natural justice by relying on case law without allowing party submissions.

The request for review was granted, the previous decision was cancelled, and a rehearing was ordered.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their farm property for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years, arguing that the current value should be $49,005 based on a Class 6 soil classification.

The respondent, Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, argued for a reduction to $115,000 based on Class 4 and 5 soil classifications and comparable sales.

The Assessment Review Board found insufficient evidence to classify the soil as Class 6, as the land was actively cultivated.

The Board accepted the respondent's comparable sales approach and reduced the assessment to $115,000 for both taxation years, while changing the soil classification to Class 4 and 5.

The appellants appealed the 2019 and 2020 property tax assessments for two farm properties, arguing that the soil should be classified as Class 6 rather than Class 5, which would lower the current value.

The Assessment Review Board found insufficient evidence to warrant a change to Class 6 soil, noting that portions of the land were actively cultivated.

Applying the direct sales comparison approach, the Board accepted the respondent's comparable sales evidence and determined the current value of the properties to be $159,000 and $8,370, respectively.

The assessments were reduced accordingly for the 2020 taxation year, and the farm property classifications were confirmed.

The appellants appealed the property tax assessments for their 50-acre farm property for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years, arguing the current value should be $45,235 based on a Class 6 soil classification.

The respondent MPAC argued for a reduction to $87,000 based on a Class 5 soil classification and a direct sales comparison approach.

The Assessment Review Board found insufficient evidence to classify the soil as Class 6, noting the land was actively cultivated.

The Board changed the classification of 22.9 acres from Class 4 to Class 5, confirmed the rest as Class 5, and reduced the assessed value to $87,000 for both years based on comparable sales.

The appellants appealed the property tax assessments for their 50-acre farm property for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years, arguing the current value should be $45,235 based on a Class 6 soil classification.

The respondent Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) argued the soil was Class 5 and recommended a reduced current value of $87,000 based on comparable sales.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's expert evidence, finding insufficient evidence to warrant a soil classification change to Class 6, as the land was being cultivated using farm equipment.

The Board reduced the assessments to $87,000 for both years and confirmed the Farm Full classification.

The appellants appealed the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation's (MPAC) current value assessment of their residential property for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years.

The appellants argued the assessment of $542,000 was too high and should be reduced to $400,000 based on comparable sales.

MPAC presented evidence supporting a current value of $691,000 but requested the assessment be confirmed at $542,000.

The Assessment Review Board found the correct current value to be $608,000 based on the best comparable sales evidence.

The Board also determined that no equity adjustment was required, as the assessment to sales ratio of similar properties was within the acceptable range.

The Board confirmed the assessment at $542,000 for both the 2019 and 2020 taxation years.

The appellant appealed the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation's (MPAC) current value assessment of a used car dealership property for the 2016 taxation year, arguing the value should be reduced from $1,433,000 to $1,100,000.

MPAC defended the assessment using both the cost approach and the direct sales comparison approach.

The Assessment Review Board found MPAC's analysis reasonable and well-documented, particularly relying on the direct sales comparison approach.

The Board confirmed the assessment at $1,433,000, noting the superior construction of the subject property compared to the older structures of the comparable properties.

The appellants appealed the 2016 taxation year property assessment of their mixed-use commercial/industrial property, which hosts a forest products business.

MPAC assessed the current value at $531,000, later revising its position to $434,000 based on the cost approach.

The appellants argued for a value of $325,000, asserting that the cost approach did not reflect the depressed local market and that the direct sales comparison approach should be used.

The Assessment Review Board agreed with the appellants that the direct sales comparison approach was more appropriate given the market conditions.

The Board determined the current value to be $387,000 based on comparable sales and found no further equity adjustment was required.

The applicant applied for a vacancy unit rebate for its industrial facility.

The municipality declined the application because the applicant failed to provide required documentation, specifically a lease termination notice, and did not respond adequately to a request for additional information.

The Assessment Review Board found that the municipality was justified in declining the application as the applicant failed to meet its onus to prove the property was eligible for the rebate.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their single-family home for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the current value at $981,000, but at the hearing argued for a value of $1,057,000 based on comparable sales.

The Board analyzed the comparable sales and determined the current value to be $1,012,658.

The Board then applied a 4.14% equitable reduction pursuant to section 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, resulting in a final assessed value of $971,000.

The appellant appealed the 2019 property assessment of their single-family home in Toronto, which MPAC assessed at $2,088,000.

The appellant argued the value should be $1,500,000 based on the cost approach and comparable sales west of Bathurst Street.

MPAC relied on comparable sales east of Bathurst Street to support a value of $2,087,000, but conceded a 5% equitable reduction was warranted.

The Board preferred the appellant's comparable sales, finding properties east of Bathurst Street commanded higher market values.

The Board determined the current value to be $1,906,464 and applied the 5% equitable reduction, resulting in a final assessed value of $1,811,000.

The moving party, Jay Patry Enterprises Inc., brought a motion seeking documentary disclosure from MPAC in a property assessment appeal.

MPAC agreed to produce some documents but argued that it was statutorily prohibited from disclosing third-party rent rolls and income/expense information without consent or a Board order.

The Board ordered the disclosure of the relevant third-party financial information, subject to the execution of a confidentiality and non-disclosure agreement restricting access to the moving party's lawyers and consultants.

The Board denied the request for documents related to fair market rent adjustments that MPAC no longer relied upon, except for four properties used for corroboration.

In an appeal concerning the property assessment of a casino in Gananoque, both the property owner and the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought motions for disclosure of documents.

The Assessment Review Board applied the test of relevance and proportionality to each request.

The Board granted several of MPAC's requests for financial and operational documents relevant to its discounted cash flow valuation, subject to confidentiality agreements to protect the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation's commercially sensitive information.

The Board denied several of the owner's requests for being overly broad, disproportionate, or lacking established relevance to the issues pleaded.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of his single-family home in Toronto for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the current value at $1,427,000, while the appellant argued for a value of $1,250,000, contending that finished basement space should be included in total living area comparisons.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the appellant's methodology, finding that finished basement space does not have the same value as above-grade building area.

Based on comparable sales, the Board determined the actual current value was $1,455,000.

The Board also found no equitable reduction was warranted under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, as the Assessment to Sale Ratio was within the acceptable range.

Because MPAC did not seek an increase, the Board confirmed the returned assessment of $1,427,000.

The appellant appealed a municipal decision granting a partial property tax refund for the 2016 tax year after the subject property was substantially damaged by fire.

The appellant argued the refund should be based on the cost to cure the damage, claiming over $500,000 in losses, while the municipality relied on the assessment corporation's revised value which reduced the building value by only $30,000.

The Assessment Review Board found the $30,000 reduction not credible given the extent of the damage and the $256,000 insurance payout for the building.

The Board calculated a revised assessment by deducting the $256,000 repair cost from the original assessed value, resulting in an order for the municipality to issue an additional tax refund of $4,242.46.