Charlotte Sloan

The complainant appealed the City of Markham's rejection of its applications for commercial vacancy rebates for nine unsold condominium units.

The City rejected the applications because the complainant failed to provide MLS listings or rental advertisements, which were part of the City's evidentiary requirements.

The Assessment Review Board found it had jurisdiction to grant the rebates despite the missing documentation, as the City's own application form indicated that failure to provide documentation 'may' result in rejection, implying discretion.

The Board concluded that the complainant had employed a successful alternative marketing strategy and acted responsibly in mitigating its vacancy losses, and therefore granted the rebates totaling $9,301.69.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a standard industrial property for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years.

MPAC had increased the assessment from $1,285,000 to $2,045,000 based on a highest and best use of redevelopment into a high-density condominium, relying on a recommended zoning by-law amendment.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC failed to prove that redevelopment was the highest and best use, as the zoning amendment had not yet been enacted and remained speculative.

The Board reduced the assessment to the original returned value of $1,285,000.