Anthony LaRegina

The appellant appealed the 2017 current value assessment of his single-family detached dwelling, which was returned at $480,000.

MPAC recommended confirming the assessment based on comparable sales and an equity study.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed the comparable sales, specifically focusing on properties with ravine lots, and determined the current value to be $490,485.

The Board then applied an equity adjustment based on a revised median assessment to sale ratio of 0.936, reducing the assessment to $459,000 to ensure equity with similar lands in the vicinity.

At the initiation of a summary proceeding, the moving party objected to an MPAC valuations officer appearing as both advocate and witness because he was not a licensed paralegal.

MPAC argued that its employees are exempt from Law Society licensing requirements as they carry on a profession governed by the Assessment Act.

The Assessment Review Board held that under its Rules of Practice and Procedure, only licensed paralegals may appear as both advocate and witness in summary proceedings.

The Board directed MPAC to provide either a licensed paralegal to act as both, or a separate representative and witness.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a commercial automotive dealership for the 2016 taxation year.

The parties agreed on the building value using the cost approach but disputed the land value.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value of the property to be $5,659,000 based on the time-adjusted sale value of comparable properties.

The Board declined to make a further equity adjustment, finding the median assessment-to-sales ratio of comparable properties was within an acceptable range.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their newly built single-family dwelling on Manitoulin Island for the 2014, 2015, and 2016 taxation years.

MPAC had initially assessed the property at $907,000 but offered to reduce it to $604,000, recognizing that the property was overbuilt for the area.

The appellants argued that MPAC failed to meet its burden of proof because there were no comparable properties on the island, but provided no alternative valuation evidence.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC met its burden of proof through its assessment to sale ratio studies and confirmed the current value at $604,000, finding it to be fair and equitable.

The appellant appealed the Current Value Assessment (CVA) of their property at 893 Bloor Street West for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

The property had been vacant and under renovation for 10 years.

MPAC requested confirmation of the CVA at $1,361,000 based on comparable sales.

The appellant argued for a lower value between $939,000 and $1,040,000 due to chronic vacancy.

The Assessment Review Board found that the property was not chronically vacant but rather under continuous renovation by the owner's choice.

The Board accepted MPAC's comparable sales analysis and confirmed the CVA at $1,361,000, finding no equity adjustment was required.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of a mixed-use commercial and residential property in Toronto.

MPAC requested confirmation of the returned Current Value Assessment (CVA) of $1,014,000, while the appellants sought a reduction to $889,000 based on an Assessment to Sales Ratio (ASR) adjustment.

The Assessment Review Board found that the current value of the property was $1,147,413 based on comparable sales, but confirmed the returned assessment of $1,014,000 as MPAC did not request an increase.

The Board rejected the appellants' request for a further equity adjustment, holding that an ASR above 1.0 cannot be used to make a finding of inequity to reduce an assessment.

The appellant appealed the property classification of a parking lot, arguing that the lower tier should be classified as Commercial Excess Land during a period of vacancy.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the appeal, finding that the land had been developed with grading, gravel, curbs, and lighting to serve as a parking lot, and was therefore no longer in its natural state.

The Board confirmed the Commercial (CT) classification for the entire property for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

The City of Toronto appealed the classification of a property from multi-residential to commercial parking lot for the 2007 and 2008 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board found that a change event occurred after June 30, 2006, when the property's use changed from vacant land to a commercial parking lot.

The Board determined it had jurisdiction to change the classification because MPAC had the legislative authority to do so but failed to issue a supplementary classification.

The appeal was allowed and the classification was changed.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their residential property for the 2014, 2015, and 2016 taxation years, arguing the current value should be reduced due to the property's poor condition.

MPAC recommended a reduction to $339,000 and requested a portion be classified as commercial.

The Assessment Review Board found the property required substantial repairs and set the current value at $301,000 based on comparable sales.

The Board rejected MPAC's request to change the classification to commercial, noting procedural failures and that the business had been closed since 2005.

General Motors appealed the property tax assessments for its Windsor transmission plant for the 2009-2014 taxation years.

The plant operated until July 2010 and was subsequently sold as vacant land in 2014.

The Assessment Review Board held that for the 2009 and 2010 taxation years, the plant's highest and best use was as an operating factory, and valued it using the cost approach at $8,584,000.

For the 2011-2014 taxation years, the Board found the highest and best use was as scrap, and relied on the 2014 sale price to determine a current value of $6,348,000.

The Board rejected arguments that a restrictive covenant on the 2014 sale precluded its use as evidence of value, and found no inequity requiring further reduction of the assessments.

The appellant appealed the 2016 property assessment of a large industrial facility in Pickering.

The returned assessment was $5,593,000.

Both parties agreed the assessment should be reduced but disagreed on the current value and whether an equity adjustment was required.

The Assessment Review Board preferred the appellant's sales comparison approach, setting the current value at $4,391,000 based on the sale of a highly comparable property.

The Board rejected the appellant's request for a further equity reduction, finding the established current value was equitable with similar properties in the vicinity.

The assessment was reduced to $4,391,000.

The appellant appealed the property assessments for a Small Box Shopping Centre for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

The Board determined the current value using the time-adjusted 2009 sale price of the property rather than the income approach agreed upon by the parties during summations.

The Board also applied an equity adjustment, rejecting MPAC's use of Fair Market Rents as a proxy for equity, and instead applying an Assessment to Sale Ratio of 0.84 derived from a study of 30 commercial properties in the vicinity.

The assessments were reduced accordingly.

The applicant appealed the City of Brampton's rejection of a vacancy rebate application for an industrial property for the period of January 1 to June 30, 2014.

The applicant argued the property was vacant until the lease's occupancy date of July 1, 2014.

The City argued the property was already leased as of December 2013, the tenant had early access for construction, and the property was not actively marketed for lease.

The Assessment Review Board found that the property was under lease, the tenant had early access, and there was no serious attempt to lease the property during the interim period.

The appeal was dismissed and the vacancy rebate was determined to be NIL.

The appellant appealed the current value assessment of his residential property in Burlington for the 2013 to 2016 taxation years.

The property was initially assessed at $1,222,000 for 2013 and $1,137,000 for 2014 and 2015.

MPAC presented evidence supporting a reduced value of $957,000 based on the direct sales comparison approach.

The appellant argued for a lower value of $850,000, citing a specific comparable sale and estimated costs to cure.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's valuation of $957,000, finding it supported by the comparable sales data, and rejected the appellant's cost to cure deductions as they were primarily regular maintenance items.

The Board also found no further adjustment was required for equity purposes.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of an industrial warehouse and office building for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

The property was originally assessed at $3,172,000.

The respondent MPAC conceded a reduction to $2,917,000 based on two comparable sales, while the appellant's expert argued for a further reduction to $2,670,000 based on eight comparables.

The Board preferred MPAC's comparables, finding that the appellant's expert failed to account for building age, height, and quality.

The Board reduced the assessment to $2,917,000 and found no equity adjustment was required.

The appellants appealed the 2015 property assessment of their residential property in Brampton, which was assessed at $647,000.

MPAC presented six comparable sales to support the assessment, while the appellants relied on the 2014 purchase price of the property and a list of unverified sales.

The Assessment Review Board found that the best evidence of current value was the average time-adjusted sales value of MPAC's six comparables.

The Board reduced the assessment to $612,898 for the 2015 and deemed 2016 taxation years.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a multi-tenanted commercial strip mall for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years.

Both parties agreed to use the income approach to value the property, but disagreed on whether to use fair market rents or actual rents.

MPAC proposed a current value of $2,535,000 based on fair market rents, while the appellant argued for $2,440,000 based on actual rents.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC failed to provide sufficient evidence of fair market rents for similar properties in the vicinity, relying instead on averages of actual rents over the lease terms.

Consequently, the Board accepted the appellant's use of actual rents as of the 2012 valuation day and reduced the assessment to $2,440,000.

The City of Toronto brought a motion to adjourn the hearing of its property tax assessment appeals for the 2007 and 2008 taxation years to allow for production and discovery against the property owner, Philmor.

The City sought to reclassify the subject property from multi-residential to a commercial parking lot.

The parties had previously operated under the misconception that the facts were not in dispute and intended to proceed via an Agreed Statement of Facts.

However, shortly before the hearing, Philmor requested the City's evidence, taking the City by surprise.

The Assessment Review Board found that while both parties' pleadings were defective and the City could have been more diligent, the delay was reasonably explained.

To ensure procedural fairness and a determination on the merits, the Board granted the adjournment and ordered production and discovery.

The appellant appealed the property assessments of $522,000 for the 2015 taxation year and $391,000 for the 2014 taxation year for a newly built rural residential property in Niagara Falls.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the comparable sales provided by both the appellant and MPAC, finding MPAC's comparables substantially inferior and the appellant's comparable substantially superior.

The Board determined that the current value lay between the two extremes, confirming the 2015 assessment at $522,000.

The Board also found no equity adjustment was required.

Based on the parties' agreement regarding the June 2014 occupancy date, the 2014 assessment was reduced to $208,900.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a residential condominium unit for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years, which was returned at $623,000.

The appellant argued the value should be $525,000 based on the property's listing history and lack of upgrades compared to other units.

The Assessment Review Board rejected MPAC's median sale value per square foot analysis because the comparable units had different building areas and upgrades.

Finding that the subject unit had no upgrades and had remained vacant for five years, the Board determined the current value to be $557,000, matching the listing price of a similar unit.

The Board found no further reduction was required for equity.