Bernard Cowan

The appellants appealed the 2016 property assessment of a recreational property on Fletcher Lake, originally assessed at $317,000.

The property was purchased in 2015 for $285,000 and had a structure that encroached on an abutting property.

The Assessment Review Board found the original assessment excessive and reduced the current value to $251,000, based on the lowest quality classification value indicated by MPAC, accounting for the probable encroachment.

The Board found this value equitable with similar lands in the vicinity and ordered no further reduction.

The appellants appealed the 2016 property assessment of their seasonal waterfront property, which was assessed at $209,000.

The property was largely unfinished, lacking drywall, heating, and full plumbing.

MPAC conceded the property was more unfinished than initially accounted for and recommended a reduction to $139,000.

The appellants sought a further reduction to $80,000-$100,000 based on a realtor's estimate.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's recommended value of $139,000, finding the realtor's estimate unreliable.

The Board also found no determinative evidence to warrant a further reduction based on equity with similar properties in the vicinity.

The appellants appealed the 2016 property assessment of a commercial building in downtown Toronto, seeking a reduction from $1,462,000 to $1,234,000.

The appellants argued that the sales comparison approach used by the respondent was inappropriate due to the high crime rate and negative character of the subject property's immediate neighbourhood, proposing an income capitalization approach instead.

The Assessment Review Board found that while the location likely had a negative impact on value, the appellants failed to provide sufficient evidence to quantify that impact or to support their proposed capitalization rate and market rents.

The Board confirmed the assessment as returned and found no adjustment was necessary for equity.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of a 75-unit row housing rental property for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

The property qualified for the 'new multi-residential' (NT) property tax class.

The parties agreed on an income-based valuation methodology but disputed the gross annual rental income and the Gross Income Multiplier (GIM) adjustments for condition, size, and the NT classification.

The Assessment Review Board determined the gross income using actual rents, including lower rents for 'legacy' units, and added a utility gross-up.

The Board found the property to be in average condition, requiring no GIM adjustment, but applied a 9% premium to the GIM to reflect the enhanced value of the NT tax classification, rejecting MPAC's 18% premium and the appellant's position that no premium should apply.

The assessment was reduced from $17,835,000 to $15,426,000.

The appellants appealed the 2015 supplementary and 2016 current value assessments of their custom-built home on a ravine lot in Toronto.

They sought a reduction based on comparable sales and an equity adjustment.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed the comparable sales evidence, applying time adjustments and adjustments for ravine, pool, and traffic influences.

The Board determined the current value to be $11,060,000.

After conducting an equity analysis under section 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, the Board found that applying the median assessment-to-sales ratio of similar properties resulted in a value consistent with the returned assessment.

The appeals were dismissed and the assessments were confirmed.

The appellant property owner appealed the MPAC assessment of his custom-built home in Toronto, assessed at $2,940,000 for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

The appellant argued that MPAC's comparative sales analysis was flawed, challenging the use of time adjustments and the inclusion of certain superior properties.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the appellant's arguments, finding that time adjustments were necessary in a rising market and that the selected comparable sales supported the assessment.

The Board also found that the assessment was equitable with similar properties in the vicinity, confirming the assessment.

The complainant sought a vacant unit property tax rebate for the 2011, 2012, and 2013 taxation years.

The applications were filed after the statutory deadline of the last day of February of the year following the vacancy.

The City rejected the applications as late.

The complainant appealed to the Assessment Review Board, seeking equitable relief.

The Board dismissed the appeals, finding that the statutory deadlines in the City of Toronto Act are mandatory and the Board lacks jurisdiction or discretion to extend them or grant equitable relief.

The City of Toronto appealed the residential classification of a vacant lot for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

The parties consented to reclassify the property as multi-residential.

The assessed person challenged the assessed value of $3,806,000.

The Assessment Review Board found that the initial assessment incorrectly applied a corner lot premium and an unsupported rate per square foot.

Based on sales evidence of similar multi-residential development sites, the Board determined the current value using a rate of $55 per square foot applied to the approved buildable area of 68,340 square feet.

The assessment was reduced to $3,759,000, which the Board found equitable with similar lands in the vicinity.

The appellant appealed the 2015 property assessment of a commercial property used for auto repairs and used car sales.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) initially assessed the property at $897,000 but recommended a reduction to $620,000 based on the site area value of comparable older commercial properties.

The appellant sought a further reduction to $450,000, citing a failed sale attempt and zoning/licensing restrictions.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value to be $519,000 by analyzing the median sales price per square foot of site area from six comparable sales.

The Board found this value to be equitable with the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity and ordered the assessment reduced accordingly.

At a pre-hearing conference for a property assessment appeal, the Assessment Review Board found the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) in default of a previous order and Rule 86 for failing to serve a Statement of Response.

The Board ordered MPAC to serve the response by a specified date, warning that failure to comply would result in MPAC being barred from introducing evidence at the hearing.

The matter was adjourned to a further pre-hearing conference to adopt a procedural order.

At a pre-hearing conference, the Assessment Review Board found the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) in default of a previous order and Rule 86 for failing to serve a Statement of Response.

The Board ordered MPAC to serve the response by January 29, 2016, and set deadlines for the municipality's response and the filing of a draft Procedural Order.

The matter was adjourned to a further telephone conference call.

At a pre-hearing conference, the Assessment Review Board found the appellant in default of a previous order and the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure for failing to serve a Statement of Issues.

The Board ordered the appellant to serve the Statement of Issues by a peremptory date, failing which the appeals would be dismissed without further notice.

The Board also set a schedule for the respondents to serve Statements of Response and for the parties to file a draft Procedural Order.

The moving party brought a motion to reinstate property assessment appeals that were previously dismissed for failing to notify the Board that a Statement of Issues had been served by the ordered deadline.

The Board found that the moving party did not meet the strict grounds for review under Rule 145, as there was no denial of natural justice or procedural fairness.

However, the Board granted the motion and reinstated the appeals as an 'amnesty', recognizing that stakeholders were not adequately forewarned about the strict enforcement of the updated Rules, while cautioning that this decision would not serve as a precedent for future non-compliance.

The moving party brought a motion to review a Board decision that dismissed its property assessment appeals for failing to comply with a procedural order requiring notice of service of a Statement of Issues.

The Board found that the grounds for review under Rule 145, including denial of natural justice or procedural fairness, were not strictly met.

However, the Board granted the motion and reinstated the appeals as an 'amnesty,' recognizing that stakeholders were not adequately forewarned about the strict enforcement of the Board's updated rules, while cautioning that this decision would not serve as a precedent for future defaults.

The moving party brought a motion to review a Board decision that dismissed its property assessment appeals for failing to notify the Board that a Statement of Issues had been served by the ordered deadline.

The Board found that the moving party did not strictly meet the grounds for review under Rule 145, as there was no denial of natural justice or procedural fairness.

However, the Board granted the motion and reinstated the appeals as an 'amnesty', recognizing that stakeholders were not adequately forewarned about the strict enforcement of the updated Rules, while cautioning that this decision would not serve as a precedent for future defaults.

The moving party brought a motion to review the Board's decision dismissing its property assessment appeals for failing to notify the Board that a Statement of Issues had been served by the ordered deadline.

The Board found that the grounds for review under Rule 145, including denial of natural justice or procedural fairness, were not strictly met.

However, the Board granted the motion and reinstated the appeals as an 'amnesty', recognizing that stakeholders were not adequately forewarned about the strict enforcement of the updated Rules.

The moving party brought a motion to review a Board decision that dismissed its property assessment appeals for failing to notify the Board that a Statement of Issues had been served by the ordered deadline.

The Board considered whether the dismissal violated principles of natural justice or procedural fairness.

Although the Board found that the grounds for review under Rule 145 were not strictly met, it granted the motion and reinstated the appeals as an 'amnesty', recognizing that stakeholders were not adequately forewarned about the strict enforcement of the updated Rules.

The moving party brought a motion to review a Board decision that dismissed its property assessment appeals for failing to notify the Board that a Statement of Issues had been served by the ordered deadline.

The Board found that the grounds for review under Rule 145 were not strictly met, as there was no denial of natural justice or procedural fairness.

However, the Board granted the motion and reinstated the appeals as an 'amnesty', recognizing that stakeholders were not adequately forewarned about the strict enforcement of the updated Rules.

The moving party brought a motion to review a Board decision that dismissed their property assessment appeals for failing to notify the Board that a Statement of Issues had been served by the ordered deadline.

The Board found that the grounds for review under Rule 145 were not strictly met, as there was no denial of natural justice or procedural fairness.

However, the Board granted the motion and reinstated the appeals as an 'amnesty', recognizing that stakeholders were not adequately forewarned about the strict enforcement of the updated Rules.

The moving parties brought a motion to review a Board decision that dismissed their property assessment appeals for failing to notify the Board that a Statement of Issues had been served by the ordered deadline.

The Board reviewed the grounds for review under Rule 145, noting that the parties had been adequately warned of the consequences of non-compliance under the Board's new rules.

Although the Board found that the strict grounds for review were not met, it granted the motion and reinstated the appeals as an 'amnesty', recognizing that stakeholders were not fully forewarned of how strictly the new rules would be enforced.