Dan Weagant

The appellant appealed the property assessment for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years.

Following an earlier decision determining the current value of the property, the parties agreed on the values and classifications for six supplementary assessments under section 34 of the Assessment Act.

The Board had previously misinterpreted the parties' submissions, leading to an erroneous interim decision.

After a further telephone conference call, the Board corrected its interpretation and confirmed the values and classifications as agreed by the parties.

The decision also applies to the deemed 2016 appeal.

The appellants appealed omitted and supplementary assessments for a newly constructed commercial plaza.

The parties agreed on the assessed values for the 2014 and 2015 taxation years, leaving only the effective date of the omitted assessment in dispute.

The appellants argued the effective date should be July 11, 2014, when occupancy was permitted.

The Board agreed with MPAC that the effective date was January 1, 2014, as the structure existed prior to the end of 2013 and a building can be assessed whether or not it is occupied.

The appellants appealed the property assessments for a newly constructed commercial plaza for the 2014 and 2015 taxation years.

The parties reached an agreement on the assessed values, leaving only the effective date of the omitted assessment under section 33 of the Assessment Act in dispute.

The appellants argued the effective date should be July 11, 2014, when occupancy was granted, while MPAC argued for January 1, 2014, as the building structure existed by late 2013.

The Assessment Review Board found that a building can be properly assessed whether or not it is occupied, and determined the effective date of the omitted assessment to be January 1, 2014.

The appellant appealed the property assessments for two adjacent properties (one commercial, one residential) in London, Ontario, for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

The properties had a history of environmental contamination.

MPAC assessed the properties at $362,000 and $267,000 based on sales of uncontaminated comparable properties.

The appellant argued the assessments should be reduced to $275,000 and $125,000, reflecting the prices paid in a recent arm's-length agreement of purchase and sale.

The Assessment Review Board agreed with the appellant, finding that the recent sale prices were the best evidence of current value and reasonably reflected the stigma of contamination.

The assessments were reduced accordingly, but no further reduction for equity was granted due to a lack of evidence.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their waterfront home in Ipperwash Beach, arguing the value should be reduced by at least 10% due to stigma and unrest stemming from local First Nations land disputes and changes to beach access barriers.

The Assessment Review Board found the appellants provided no documentary evidence to quantify the impact of these events on property values.

The Board accepted MPAC's valuation study, confirming the current value at $519,000.

However, applying the median assessment-to-sale ratio of 0.95 from MPAC's own comparable sales data, the Board reduced the assessment to $493,000 to ensure equity with similar properties in the vicinity.

The appellant appealed the property assessments of 14 residential condominium units constructed under the Canada-Ontario Affordable Housing Program (AHP).

The appellant argued that the AHP funding agreement constituted an encumbrance that should reduce the current value of the properties.

The Assessment Review Board found that the AHP funding mechanism is similar to an open market mortgage and should not be considered in determining current value under section 1 of the Assessment Act.

The Board confirmed the assessments, finding MPAC's comparable sales data to be the best indication of value.

The City of London appealed the property assessment of a parcel containing a church building and a residential dwelling.

The property had been sold to a numbered company but continued to be leased to a religious organization for use as a place of worship.

The City argued that because the owner was not a religious organization, the church building should be classified as commercial and lose its tax-exempt status.

The Assessment Review Board agreed, finding that ownership, not just use, determines the exemption.

The Board also reduced the total assessed value from $328,000 to $314,000 based on an assessment-to-sale ratio study of similar properties, and directed the parties to calculate the portion of the property that should be classified as Commercial Excess Land.

The appellants appealed a supplementary property assessment of $499,000 levied by MPAC following the construction of a new single-family dwelling on their waterfront lot.

The appellants argued the assessment was too high, suggesting a value closer to $388,000 based on local real estate listings and a broker's letter.

MPAC defended its assessment using a valuation study of five comparable properties.

The Assessment Review Board found MPAC's valuation range of $590,000 to $620,000 for the total current value to be reasonable but selected the lower end of $590,000.

After applying a median assessment-to-sales ratio of 0.95 and deducting the undisputed land value of $102,000, the Board reduced the supplementary assessment to $459,000.

MPAC brought a motion to dismiss appeals regarding the tax-exempt status of a portion of a historic rail station occupied by the North American Railway Hall of Fame.

MPAC argued that disputes over tax exemptions must be addressed by application to the Superior Court of Justice under s. 46 of the Assessment Act, and that the Assessment Review Board lacks jurisdiction.

The Board agreed, finding that its jurisdiction under s. 40(1) does not include determining tax exemptions.

The Board ordered the respondent to provide proof of a Superior Court application within 30 days, failing which the appeals would be dismissed.

The Assessment Review Board issued a further interim decision regarding six supplementary assessment appeals under s. 34 of the Assessment Act for an industrial property in Woodstock.

Following an earlier decision determining the current value of the property, the parties attempted to agree on the supplementary assessment values.

However, their agreed total exceeded the Board's determined current value for the 2014 and 2015 taxation years.

The Board rejected the agreement, substituted its own findings for the supplementary assessment values, and directed the parties to either confirm their agreement with the Board's apportionment or request a reconvened hearing.

The appellant appealed the property assessments for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years following the consolidation of two roll numbers into a single property.

The appellant questioned the increase in the residential assessment and the change in the percentage of conservation lands post-consolidation.

The Assessment Review Board confirmed the current value assessments of $287,000 for 2013 and $310,000 for 2014, finding them supported by comparable sales data.

However, the Board varied the apportionment for 2014, increasing the exempt conservation lands value to reflect the same per-acre value applied in 2013, as MPAC provided no evidence to support a lower per-acre value.

The appellant appealed the property assessments and omitted assessments for a restricted service hotel for the 2012-2015 taxation years.

MPAC used a Pro Forma income capitalization approach based on stabilized revenue from a market set of comparable properties, as the subject property had not been operating long enough to establish reliable results.

The appellant argued for a different market set and the use of actual performance data.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's valuation method and market set but adjusted the stabilized Average Daily Rate to the median of the market set, resulting in a slight reduction in the assessed values.

The appellants appealed the omitted assessments applied by MPAC to their waterfront property for the 2012, 2013, and 2014 taxation years, arguing that the dwelling under construction should not be assessed until it was fit for occupancy in 2015.

The Assessment Review Board found that under s. 33 of the Assessment Act, the partially completed dwelling constituted an improvement that added value to the property and was therefore assessable.

The Board reviewed comparable sales data and reduced the omitted assessments to $157,000 for 2012, $198,000 for 2013, and $230,000 for 2014, finding these values to be equitable compared to similar properties in the vicinity.

The complainant appealed the City of Brampton's determination of a vacant unit rebate for a multi-unit commercial property.

The complainant argued that the vacancy period in the last 25 days of 2009 should be added to the vacancy period in 2010 to meet the minimum 90-day requirement and increase the rebate.

Following an interim decision finding the 2009 period eligible, the City determined the additional rebate payable was $1,085.23.

The complainant agreed with this amount, and the Assessment Review Board ordered the City to pay the additional rebate.

The appellant appealed the property assessment for a recreational camp located on Crown land leased from the Ministry of Natural Resources under a land use permit.

The appellant argued the property's value should be reduced to reflect the restrictions of the permit.

The Assessment Review Board found that under section 18 of the Assessment Act, the tenant of Crown land must be assessed as though they were the owner.

The Board accepted MPAC's recommended current value of $145,000, confirming the 2014 assessment and reducing the 2015 assessment from $228,000 to $145,000.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a retail plaza for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years.

Both parties agreed to use the income approach to value but disagreed on the fair market rent (FMR).

MPAC used a weighted mean FMR based on comparable properties, while the appellant argued for using the actual rental income generated by the property.

The Assessment Review Board found that while MPAC's approach was generally reasonable, four leases from the subject property should be included in the FMR calculation for one of the occupancy codes.

The Board recalculated the FMR and reduced the current value assessment from $3,978,000 to $3,645,000.

The appellant appealed the 2015 property assessment of his residential property, which MPAC had assessed at $204,000.

The appellant argued the assessment did not account for the property's condition and deferred maintenance, and that MPAC's comparables were superior.

The Assessment Review Board found that two of MPAC's comparables were one-storey homes and not suitably comparable to the subject one-and-a-half-storey home.

Relying on MPAC's third comparable and adjusting for square footage, the Board determined the current value to be $180,000 and reduced the assessment accordingly.

The Assessment Review Board held a pre-hearing telephone conference call regarding property assessment appeals for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years.

The Board issued a procedural order setting deadlines for the exchange of the statement of issues and responses, completion of property inspection, and scheduling a subsequent telephone hearing to set a date for a full hearing.

The appellant appealed the property assessments for an industrial property in Woodstock for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years, as well as six supplementary assessments.

The Assessment Review Board found that a derelict building on the property had no value, reducing the 2013 assessment by $37,000.

For the 2014 and 2015 taxation years, the Board preferred the appellant's equity analysis based on similar properties in the vicinity, reducing the assessment from $4,164,000 to $3,598,000.

The parties were directed to calculate the specific values of the supplementary assessments based on these findings.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a commercial property in Mississauga for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years.

The appellant argued the current value should be $5,178,000 based on comparable sales, while MPAC assessed the value at $5,596,000.

The Assessment Review Board preferred MPAC's evidence, finding that MPAC made reasonable adjustments to comparable properties to account for variables such as land area, age, and building height, whereas the appellant failed to make such adjustments.

The Board confirmed the assessment at $5,596,000 and dismissed the appeal.