Anthony LaRegina

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.

The appellants appealed the MPAC assessment of their residential property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years, arguing the assessed value of $404,000 was too high and improperly included the value of common lands.

The Assessment Review Board found that under the General Regulation, the value of common lands is deemed to be zero, but the value they add to the residential lot is reflected in the lot's current value.

After reviewing comparable sales, the Board determined the correct current value of the subject property was $377,000 and reduced the assessment accordingly.

The appellants appealed the property tax assessments of their residential property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The property included a 1/70th interest in common lands.

The appellants argued the assessment was too high and improperly included the value of the common lands.

The Assessment Review Board found that the value of the common lands was properly deemed to be zero under the regulations, but that the overall current value of the property should be reduced based on comparable sales.

The Board confirmed the 2017 assessment at $344,000 and reduced the 2018 assessment from $404,000 to $377,000.

The appellants appealed the property tax assessment of their single-family detached bungalow in Oakville for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the current value at $1,413,000, while the appellants argued for a value of $1,271,000.

The Board reviewed comparable sales and determined the current value to be $1,450,000, factoring in a $50,000 reduction for required repairs.

The Board also found that an equitable reduction under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act was not warranted, as the assessment to sales ratio of similar properties was within the acceptable range.

Because MPAC did not seek an increase, the Board confirmed the assessment at $1,413,000.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of their single-family detached bungalow for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the current value at $546,000, while the appellant argued for a value between $520,000 and $530,000.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed comparable sales and determined the correct current value to be $543,000.

The Board declined to make a further equitable reduction under section 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, finding that the assessment-to-sales ratio of similar properties in the vicinity did not warrant an adjustment.

The appellants appealed the 2018 property assessment of their residential property in Toronto, which MPAC assessed at $3,042,000.

The Board found that the best evidence of current value was the March 2015 sale of the subject property for $2,859,187.

The Board declined to apply a time adjustment factor, finding that a sale within 12 months of the January 1, 2016 valuation date did not require adjustment.

The Board also declined to apply an equitable reduction, as the median assessment-to-sales ratio of 0.95 for similar properties fell within the acceptable range.

The assessment was reduced to $2,859,000.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their waterfront home in Niagara-on-the-Lake for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

They argued the assessment was too high given the poor condition of the property at the time of purchase, which required significant repairs.

MPAC agreed to a reduction in the current value based on the property's condition and the actual adjusted purchase price.

The Assessment Review Board accepted the adjusted purchase price as the current value and applied a 12.4% downward equity adjustment based on MPAC's assessment-to-sales ratio study, reducing the final assessments for both years.

The appellant appealed the current value assessment of a waterfront property on Lake Joseph for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $2,359,000, while the appellant argued for a value of $1,784,000 based on comparable sales and factors such as topography, boat traffic, and non-contiguous waterfront.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC's comparable sales were more reliable and that the appellant failed to quantify the impact of the alleged negative features.

The Board determined the current value to be $2,651,000 but confirmed the assessment at $2,359,000 as MPAC did not seek an increase.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a luxury condominium unit in the Trump Tower for the 2014, 2015, and 2016 taxation years.

The Board rejected the appellant's purchase price as it was negotiated in 2005, far from the 2012 valuation date.

Using comparable sales within the same building, the Board determined the current value to be $1,348,548.

The Board then applied a 6.1% equity reduction based on the mean assessment-to-sales ratio of similar properties, resulting in a final assessed value of $1,266,000.

The appellants appealed the 2017 and 2018 property tax assessments for a 96-acre waterfront property classified as Managed Forest.

MPAC assessed the property at $111,000, applying the regulatory formula for Managed Forest lands to a base sale value of $358,000.

The appellants argued the assessment should be $17,324, based solely on the regulated rate per acre, relying on previous Board decisions.

The Assessment Review Board found that because the property contained seven family cottages and had unrestricted lake access, its current use was residential/recreational.

The Board upheld MPAC's base sale value of $358,000 and confirmed the final assessment of $111,000, finding it equitable with similar properties in the vicinity.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their single-family dwelling for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years, seeking a reduction from $250,000 to $189,000 due to functional obsolescence, heavy traffic, and water quality issues.

MPAC sought to confirm the assessment at $250,000 based on comparable sales.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value to be $199,000 by applying the mean time-adjusted sale value per square foot of MPAC's comparable properties and applying a 10% downward adjustment for functional obsolescence and heavy traffic.

The Board found no further equity adjustment was required.

The appellant appealed the current value assessment of his residential property in the Township of Ignace for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC recommended a reduction to $26,500 based on comparable sales, while the appellant sought a further 30% reduction due to the depressed local economy.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's comparable sales evidence and reduced the assessment to $26,500 for both years, finding no further equity adjustment was required.

The complainant appealed the City of Markham's denial of a commercial vacancy tax rebate for the 2015 taxation year.

The City had denied the application because the complainant failed to provide requested supporting documentation, including a sketch, rent roll, and MLS listing.

The Assessment Review Board found that the complainant failed to comply with the City's valid request for information under section 364(8) of the Municipal Act, 2001, and did not communicate that some of the requested documents did not exist.

The appeal was dismissed and the rebate amount was determined to be $0.

The appellant appealed the current value assessment of his single-family detached dwelling for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The respondent assessment corporation recommended a reduction from the returned values of $51,000 and $33,500 to $26,500 based on comparable sales.

The appellant sought a further 30% reduction due to the depressed local economy.

The Assessment Review Board accepted the respondent's comparable sales evidence, finding the current value to be $26,500, and concluded no further equity adjustment was required.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their single-family home, arguing that an 11% premium for abutting a golf course should be removed because they had insider information that the golf course was going to be sold and developed.

The Assessment Review Board rejected this argument, finding that the hypothetical future sale of the golf course did not affect the property's current value on the valuation date, as it still abutted the golf course.

The Board found the current value to be higher than the returned assessment based on comparable sales, but confirmed the returned assessment of $1,298,000 because MPAC did not request an increase.

The appellant appealed the current value assessment of his residential property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years, originally returned at $23,000.

MPAC recommended a reduction to $14,800 based on comparable sales and the property's condition.

The appellant sought a reduction to $6,100, citing water damage and lower assessments of nearby properties.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value to be $16,000 based on comparable sales, and applied a further deduction of $2,675 for structural water damage repairs, resulting in a final current value of $13,325.

The Board found no further equity adjustment was warranted.

MPAC brought a motion to dismiss the property owners' 2017 and 2018 assessment appeals on the basis that the owners failed to comply with a Board order requiring an inspection of the property.

The Board found that both MPAC and the owners shared fault for the non-compliance, as MPAC delayed in contacting the owners to schedule the inspection and the owners delayed in responding.

Given the mutual fault, the Board held that dismissal was an inappropriate remedy and instead ordered the parties to schedule an inspection by a peremptory date, noting that costs would be the preferred remedy for future non-compliance.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of his single-family home for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years, seeking a reduction of $200,000 to $300,000 due to increased aircraft noise from a changed flight path.

MPAC presented comparable sales supporting a current value of $1,188,267 but requested confirmation of the returned assessment of $1,159,000.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed the comparable sales and determined the current value to be $1,149,000.

The Board declined to make a further reduction for aircraft noise, finding that the comparable sales in the vicinity already accounted for locational elements including the noise.

The assessment was reduced to $1,149,000.

The appellant appealed the 2017 current value assessment of their residential property, returned at $1,082,000.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value to be $1,165,000 based on comparable sales provided by MPAC.

However, applying an equity adjustment of 8.2% based on the median assessment-to-sale ratio in the vicinity, the Board reduced the final current value assessment to $1,069,000.

The appellants appealed the 2017 current value assessment of their single-family detached home, returned at $2,210,000.

The appellants sought a reduction to $1,950,000 based on an appraisal report, while MPAC recommended confirming the returned assessment based on comparable sales and an equity adjustment.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the appellants' appraisal evidence because the appraiser was not present and the comparables were flawed.

The Board accepted MPAC's evidence, finding a current value of $2,573,000 and applying a 12% downward equity adjustment to $2,269,000.

Since MPAC did not request an increase, the Board confirmed the returned assessment of $2,210,000.