Dan Weagant

The appellants appealed the 2017 property assessment of their residential property, arguing that the returned value of $945,000 was too high because it failed to account for the negative impact of nearby train tracks.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable sales provided by both parties.

The Board found that the appellants' comparable sales on the same street supported a current value of $965,000, and that no adjustment for the train tracks was warranted as the property was not sufficiently proximate.

As the determined current value was higher than the returned assessment and MPAC did not seek an increase, the Board confirmed the returned assessment of $945,000.

The Board also found the assessment to be equitable based on MPAC's equity analysis.

The appellants appealed the 2017 current value assessment of their residential property, which was returned at $1,043,000.

They argued the value should be reduced due to the lot's irregular shape, corner location, and external factors.

MPAC presented a valuation study supporting a value of $1,071,000 but sought to confirm the returned value.

The Assessment Review Board found the current value to be $1,052,000 after applying a 2% corner lot adjustment.

The Board further applied an equity reduction based on the median assessment-to-sale ratio of 0.949 for similar properties in the vicinity, resulting in a final assessment of $998,000 for the 2017 and deemed 2018 taxation years.

The appellants appealed the 2017 property assessment of their single-family detached home in Toronto, arguing the returned value of $945,000 was too high due to the nuisance of nearby train tracks.

MPAC presented sales data supporting a higher value, while the appellants presented comparable sales on the same street.

The Assessment Review Board found the appellants' comparable sales supported a current value of $965,000 and rejected the train track nuisance argument for lack of quantifiable evidence.

As MPAC did not seek an increase, the Board confirmed the returned assessment of $945,000 and found it to be fair and equitable.

The City of London appealed the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation's (MPAC) assessment of zero for a residential property for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

The property had previously been assessed at zero for the 2009-2012 cycle due to the presence of methane gas.

The assessed persons argued issue estoppel should apply to maintain the zero assessment.

The Assessment Review Board held that issue estoppel did not apply because the current value for the 2012 valuation year was a new issue.

Based on expert environmental and appraisal evidence, the Board found that while the methane did not pose a health or explosive risk, the property suffered from environmental stigma.

The Board accepted the City's appraiser's valuation, applying a 25% downward adjustment for stigma, and set the current value at $206,000.

The Board found no inequity requiring further adjustment.

The applicant applied for a reduction, refund, or cancellation of his 2016 property taxes under section 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, citing extreme poverty and sickness.

The applicant experienced significant financial hardship in 2016, including job loss, a plumbing leak, and high debt levels, resulting in his monthly expenses far exceeding his income.

The Assessment Review Board found that the applicant was in a condition of extreme poverty and was unable to pay his property taxes for the 2016 taxation year.

The Board directed the City of Toronto to refund the partially paid taxes and cancel the remaining balance.

The appellant appealed the 2017 property assessment of his residential property, arguing that the current value assessment of $661,000 was too high and did not adequately reflect the property's poor condition.

The Assessment Review Board found that the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) had appropriately applied a standardized reduction of $73,000 for the property's poor condition, which was supported by sales of comparable properties.

The Board also rejected the appellant's equity argument, finding that MPAC's equity analysis demonstrated that similar properties in the vicinity were assessed equitably.

The assessment was confirmed at $661,000.

The appellants appealed the 2017 current value assessment of their residential property, which was returned at $1,590,000.

Neither the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation nor the City of Toronto appeared at the hearing.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed the documentary evidence provided by the respondent and the oral testimony of the self-represented appellant.

The Board determined the current value of the property to be $1,560,000 based on the median time-adjusted sale value of comparable properties.

Applying the respondent's equity analysis, the Board further reduced the assessment to $1,440,000 to achieve equitable assessment with similar properties in the vicinity.

The appellant appealed the 2013 to 2016 property assessments of her residential property, arguing the returned value of $96,000 to $97,000 was too high and should be $64,000.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable sales provided by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation.

The Board disregarded several comparables due to differences in services (hydro, water, sanitary) and relied on two sales to determine a mean value.

The Board reduced the assessment to $78,000 for the 2013 through 2016 taxation years and found no further reduction was required for equity.

The appellant appealed the 2017 property assessment of his home, arguing that its history as a former illegal cannabis grow-op created a stigma that negatively impacted its current value.

MPAC argued that any lingering stigma was already reflected in the returned value, which was below what sales in the area suggested.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appellant provided compelling evidence of a 21.75% reduction in value due to the grow-op stigma, based on sales of a comparable former grow-op property.

The Board reduced the current value assessment from $992,000 to $840,000, but found no further reduction was necessary for equitable assessment purposes.

The appellants appealed the 2017 property tax assessment of their residential property in Markham, which MPAC had assessed at $966,000.

MPAC used the direct comparison approach.

The Board reviewed the comparable sales provided by MPAC, adjusted for corner lot and traffic patterns, and determined the current value to be $853,000.

The Board rejected the appellants' argument for a further reduction based on equity, finding that MPAC's equity study demonstrated that similar properties in the vicinity were assessed at approximately 100% of their current value.

The assessment was reduced to $853,000.

The moving parties brought a motion for the production of rents and current values from a settlement between MPAC and the GTAA regarding other airport properties.

MPAC opposed the motion, arguing the information was protected by settlement privilege, irrelevant, and requested too late.

The Board granted the motion in part, ordering the production of the returned values prior to settlement and the final values placed on the public roll, finding this information relevant and not privileged, while protecting the confidential settlement process itself.

The appellants appealed the 2017 property assessment of their single-family dwelling in Toronto, arguing the returned value of $1,892,000 was too high given the property's size and configuration.

The Assessment Review Board found that the best indicator of value was the median per acre value of comparable lots, excluding two properties in a different neighbourhood.

The Board determined the current value to be $1,700,000.

Furthermore, the Board found that an equity adjustment was necessary based on an expanded sample of comparable properties, resulting in a final reduced assessment of $1,603,000.

The appellants appealed the 2017 property assessment of their residential property, arguing that the returned value of $239,000 was too high due to increased traffic and nuisance from a newly installed roundabout.

The Assessment Review Board found that the best indicators of value were comparable properties on the same street that experienced similar traffic conditions.

Applying the median value per square foot of these comparable properties, the Board reduced the current value to $209,000.

The Board dismissed the appellants' request for a further reduction based on equity, finding no evidence that similar properties in the vicinity were assessed lower than their sale values.

The appellants appealed the 2017 property assessment of their waterfront residential property, seeking a reduction based on equitable assessment as they had achieved in previous cycles.

MPAC presented a direct comparison approach using time-adjusted sales, suggesting a current value of $689,000, and an equity study of 47 properties indicating no further reduction was warranted.

The Assessment Review Board agreed with MPAC's valuation and equity study, finding the appellants' comparison to a single older property insufficient.

The assessment was reduced from $697,000 to $689,000 based on the current value, with no further reduction for equity.

The applicant sought a refund of property taxes for the 2015 taxation year, claiming an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

While the Board accepted the applicant's testimony regarding his sickness, it found that he and his spouse held significant equity in two properties, exceeding $900,000.

The Board concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated extreme poverty and had the ability to pay the property taxes.

The application was dismissed.

The Applicant applied to the City of Toronto for a cancellation, reduction, or refund of her 2015 property taxes on the grounds of sickness or extreme poverty.

The Assessment Review Board found that while the Applicant demonstrated a condition of sickness, she did not establish an inability to pay her property taxes as a result.

The Board also found that the Applicant was not in a condition of extreme poverty, noting she had significant bank balances and had paid off her mortgage during the year.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a commercial property in Brampton for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value of the property to be $26,183,000, preferring the Income Approach over the Cost and Direct Comparison approaches.

The Board then applied an assessment-to-sale ratio of 0.937 based on similar properties in the vicinity to ensure equitable assessment, reducing the final assessment to $24,533,000.

The City of London appealed regarding the assessment of a property containing a place of worship.

The Board had to determine the amount of land in the Commercial property class that could be considered Commercial - Excess Land.

The Board found that 336 square metres of the Commercial land was in excess of the City's requirements.

After accounting for a site sign which constituted "development", the Board concluded that 326 square metres fell into the Commercial - Excess Land sub-class, as the remaining open area was not "developed" or "used" within the meaning of O. Reg. 282/98.

The Board directed the parties to provide written submissions on the apportionment of value.

The City of London appealed the assessment of a property containing a place of worship, seeking a determination of whether a portion of the land should be classified as Commercial - Excess Land.

The Assessment Review Board found that 336 square metres of the land was in excess of municipal requirements.

After accounting for a sign that constituted development, the Board concluded that 326 square metres of the land met the criteria for the Commercial - Excess Land sub-class under O. Reg. 282/98, as it was not developed or used.

The parties were directed to provide written submissions on the apportionment of value.

The appellants appealed the supplementary assessment and the 2015 and 2016 current value assessments of their waterfront property.

MPAC had assessed the property at $306,000 based on comparable sales.

The appellants argued for a reduction based on the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's current value of $306,000 but applied an equity adjustment based on the median assessment-to-sale ratio of MPAC's comparable properties.

The assessment was reduced to $249,000 for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years, and the supplementary assessment was reduced to $85,000.