Cristina Marques

The appellant appealed the property assessment of her single-family detached home for the 2013-2016 taxation years, originally assessed at $3,550,000.

The appellant argued for a reduction to $3,080,000 based on comparable properties and previous Board decisions, while MPAC defended the assessment based on its own comparables and a 5% positive adjustment for abutting green space.

The Assessment Review Board rejected both parties' comparable sales as insufficiently similar.

However, the Board agreed with the appellant that the 5% positive adjustment for the abutting green space was unreasonable due to nuisances such as a leash-free dog park, a public walkway, and a water culvert causing flooding.

The Board removed the 5% adjustment, reducing the current value assessment to $3,372,000.

The appellant appealed the Town of Markham's rejection of its application for a vacancy rebate for an industrial property for the 2014 taxation year.

The Town had rejected the application on the basis that the appellant failed to provide requested additional information in a timely manner and that the information provided was confusing.

The Assessment Review Board found that the application was filed on time, the requested information was provided, and the units were in fact vacant.

The Board ordered the Town to calculate the rebate owing.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a single-tenant industrial facility for the 2013 to 2016 taxation years.

MPAC recommended a revised assessment of $1,418,000 based on classification changes, while the appellant argued for a lower assessment of $1,182,000.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed comparable sales presented by both parties and determined the current value of the property to be $1,202,000.

The Board found that the assessment to sales ratios of the comparable properties indicated that MPAC was achieving equity in the vicinity, and therefore no further equity adjustment was required.

The assessment was reduced to $1,202,000.

The appellant appealed the 2012 property tax assessment of a waterfront residential property in Burlington, assessed at $2,191,000.

The appellant argued for a reduced assessment of $1,095,000 based on the sale price per square foot of a nearby property.

MPAC defended the assessment using the direct comparison approach, presenting sales of comparable waterfront properties and vacant land to demonstrate the value per linear foot of water frontage.

The Assessment Review Board found MPAC's comparables persuasive, confirming the current value at $2,191,000 and finding no equity adjustment was warranted.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of a vacant industrial property in Fort Erie for the 2015 taxation year.

MPAC assessed the property at $1,125,000 using the cost approach.

The appellants argued the current value should be $500,000, reflecting the property's 2014 sale price, piecemeal construction, and environmental contamination.

The Assessment Review Board found the 2014 sale price of $500,000 to be the best evidence of current value, noting it aligned with the market value per square foot of comparable vacant properties.

The Board reduced the assessment to $500,000 and found no further equity adjustment was required.

The decision also applied to the deemed 2016 appeal.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their abattoir facility for the 2013-2016 taxation years, challenging both its classification as Industrial (IT) and its assessed value of $459,000.

The Assessment Review Board upheld the Industrial classification, finding that the property processes meat and does not fit the residual Commercial class.

However, the Board reduced the current value assessment to $433,000 after analyzing comparable sales provided by both parties and calculating an average value per square foot.

The Board declined to make a further equity adjustment due to insufficient evidence.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their 47.83-acre rural property for the 2014, 2015, and 2016 taxation years.

MPAC recommended reducing the assessment from $599,000 (2014) and $605,000 (2015) to $562,000 based on a data correction.

The appellants sought a further reduction to $321,000 based on an appraisal report.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the appellants' appraisal evidence as the author was not present for cross-examination and the comparables were flawed.

The Board accepted MPAC's recommended value of $562,000, finding it supported by the sale of a comparable vacant lot and equitable with similar lands in the vicinity.

The appeal was allowed in part to reflect MPAC's recommended reduction.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their waterfront condominium, which was returned at $1,645,000 for the 2014 and 2015 taxation years.

MPAC relied on the Direct Comparison Approach, presenting three comparable sales.

The appellants argued the property was inferior to MPAC's comparables and presented evidence that the planned development had not materialized.

The Assessment Review Board rejected two of MPAC's comparables and relied on the remaining comparable to determine a value per linear foot of waterfront.

Applying this value, the Board reduced the assessment to $1,450,000 and found no further equitable adjustment was required.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a seasonal waterfront property on Stoney Lake for the 2013-2016 taxation years, arguing the assessed value of $459,000 was too high due to lot shape and water-only access.

MPAC presented sales of comparable properties with time-adjusted sale prices ranging from $561,512 to $720,090.

The Assessment Review Board found that the assessment of $459,000 fell considerably below the range of probable sale values, indicating MPAC had recognized the property's inferior characteristics.

The Board confirmed the assessment and found no equity adjustment was warranted.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a vacant waterfront lot on Stoney Lake, which was assessed at $302,000 for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

MPAC relied on two sales of vacant land to support the assessment, while the appellant's representative argued the property was inferior due to its shape, water-only access, and lack of a dock, proposing a value of $190,000.

The Assessment Review Board found that the best evidence of current value was a comparable sale presented by the appellant, which had a time-adjusted sale price of $264,000.

The Board reduced the assessment to $264,000 and found no further equity adjustment was required.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a funeral home with an attached residence for the 2014, 2015, and deemed 2016 taxation years.

The property was assessed at $625,000.

The appellant argued the value should be $400,000, while MPAC recommended a reduction to $581,000 based on an equity adjustment.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC met its burden of proving the current value of $625,000 using the direct sales comparison approach.

However, applying an equity adjustment, the Board reduced the final assessment to $581,000.

The appellant appealed the property assessment for the taxation years 2009-2012.

MPAC sought to increase the assessment based on changes to the property profile, including quality class, effective lot size, and a green space variable.

The Board declined to qualify MPAC's assessor as an expert witness but admitted his evidence.

The Board rejected MPAC's proposed changes to the property profile, finding them insufficiently justified, but adjusted the current value based on comparable sales and the value of an enclosed pool.

The assessment was set at $2,063,000 for all years, and the Board found no evidence to support a reduction for equity.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a residential condominium unit for the 2014 and 2015 taxation years.

The property was assessed at $420,000.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value of the property to be $440,000 based on time-adjusted sales data.

However, applying an equity analysis, the Board found that similar properties in the vicinity were assessed below their current values, with an average Assessment to Sales Ratio of 0.91.

To achieve equity, the Board reduced the assessment to $401,000.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessments for 22 low-rise apartment buildings in Toronto for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years.

The parties agreed to consolidate the 22 roll numbers into two new roll numbers.

The main issue was the appropriate Gross Income Multiplier (GIM) to determine current value.

The appellant argued for a lower GIM based on the buildings' poor condition, while MPAC recommended a reduction based on an average condition.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's recommended GIM and reduced the assessments, finding the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence of renovation costs to justify a poor condition rating.

The appellant property owners appealed the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation's (MPAC) assessment of their single-family detached home at $1,633,000 for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years.

The appellants argued the current value should be $1,450,000, relying on an appraiser's qualitative report.

MPAC defended its assessment based on comparable sales and the property's large irregular lot.

The Assessment Review Board found that neither party provided sufficient evidence to fully support their proposed values.

The Board rejected the appellant's appraisal for lacking quantitative adjustments and time adjustments, but also found MPAC failed to meet its burden of proof to support the $1,633,000 value.

Relying on the best available comparable sale evidence, the Board reduced the assessment to $1,520,456 and found this value to be equitable.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a residential condominium unit for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years, arguing the assessed value of $362,000 was too high.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed the direct sales comparison evidence provided by both parties.

The Board rejected the appellant's comparables as they lacked the premium features of the subject property, specifically being a corner unit with a water view.

Finding that the respondent's comparables supported the assessed value and that the assessment was equitable, the Board confirmed the assessment at $362,000 and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a residential condominium unit for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years, arguing the current value of $361,000 was too high.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) defended the assessment using the direct sales comparison approach, providing sales of identical corner units facing the lake.

The appellant provided sales of non-corner units without lake views, which the Board rejected as not comparable.

The Board found MPAC's comparables supported the assessment and that the assessment was equitable compared to similar properties.

The assessment was confirmed at $361,000.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of a residential condominium unit for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years, arguing the assessed value of $372,000 was too high.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed sales data provided by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and the appellant.

The Board rejected the appellant's comparable sales because they were not corner units and did not face the lake, unlike the subject property.

Finding that MPAC's assessment reflected the current value and was equitable compared to similar properties, the Board confirmed the assessment at $372,000 and applied the decision to the deemed 2015 appeal.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a commercial building for the 2011 and 2012 taxation years, arguing for an equity reduction below the returned value of $787,000.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value of the property to be $1,221,000 based on sales of similar properties.

The Board found that the returned assessment of $787,000 was already below the current value and equitable with similar lands in the vicinity.

The assessment was confirmed at $787,000.

The appellant appealed the 2014 property assessment of a commercial property in Toronto.

MPAC recommended a reduction from $2,258,000 to $2,184,000 based on comparable sales, while the appellant sought a reduction to $1,677,000.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed the comparable sales provided by both parties and determined the current value of the property to be $2,087,000.

The assessment was reduced accordingly for the 2014 and deemed 2015 taxation years.