Dan Weagant

The appellant appealed a decision of the Toronto City Council regarding the amount of property taxes to be cancelled for the 2020 taxation year due to renovations that prevented normal use of the property.

The City had cancelled $191.90 based on a notional dwelling value of $32,000.

The Assessment Review Board rejected both the appellant's construction cost approach and the City's notional value approach.

Instead, the Board adopted the City's alternative approach of deducting the assessed value of comparable vacant land from the total property assessment, resulting in a dwelling value of $178,000.

The Board ordered the cancellation of $1,067.47 in property taxes for the 2020 taxation year.

The appellant appealed the 2022 property assessment of a single-family detached residence in Hamilton.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) had amended its opinion of value from $696,000 to $621,000 during the reconsideration process.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's current value of $621,000 based on comparable sales.

However, applying an equity analysis based on the assessments of nine similar properties in the vicinity provided by the appellant, the Board found that a further reduction was required to make the assessment equitable.

The Board ordered the assessment reduced to $612,000.

Bell Canada appealed the property assessment of its telecommunications switching facility in downtown Toronto for the 2017-2022 taxation years.

MPAC had assessed the property at $33,368,000 using the income approach, while Bell Canada argued for $13,876,000 using the cost approach.

The Assessment Review Board found that the cost approach was the correct method given the property's unique use and statutory restrictions on its sale under the Bell Canada Act.

The Board determined the current value to be $38,938,000 but reduced it to $21,509,000 to reflect equitable assessment, relying on the assessment of a highly comparable Bell Canada facility nearby.

The applicants applied to the City of Hamilton to have their 2021 property taxes cancelled or reduced due to extreme poverty or sickness under s. 357(1)(d1) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Assessment Review Board found that the applicants had sufficient income and assets, including a second property and multiple vehicles, to pay their property taxes.

The Board concluded that the applicants made financial choices that prioritized other expenses over their tax obligations, which does not constitute an inability to pay.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant applied to the City of Mississauga to have his 2021 property taxes cancelled, reduced, or refunded due to an inability to pay caused by sickness or extreme poverty under s. 357(1)(d1) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Assessment Review Board found that after paying all non-discretionary household expenses, the applicant had sufficient financial resources to pay the property taxes.

The Board noted that discretionary expenses, such as entertainment subscriptions, cannot take precedence over property tax obligations.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant applied to the City of Toronto to have her 2021 property taxes cancelled, reduced, or refunded due to an inability to pay caused by sickness or extreme poverty under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

The Assessment Review Board found that the applicant had sufficient savings at the end of 2021 to cover the property taxes levied after all other living expenses were paid.

The Board concluded that the applicant failed to demonstrate an inability to pay and dismissed the application.

The Applicant applied to the City of Mississauga to have her 2021 property taxes cancelled, reduced, or refunded under s. 357(1)(d1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, claiming an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The Assessment Review Board found that the Applicant's income exceeded her non-discretionary expenses by an amount sufficient to cover the property taxes levied in 2021.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant applied to the City of Mississauga to have his 2021 property taxes cancelled, reduced, or refunded under s. 357(1)(d1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, citing an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The Assessment Review Board found that the applicant had a total income of approximately $118,000 in 2021, including loans from family and friends, and incurred $107,000 in expenses, leaving a surplus of $11,000.

Because the applicant had sufficient surplus funds but made no payments toward his property taxes, the Board concluded he failed to demonstrate an inability to pay.

The application was dismissed.

The Applicant applied to the City of Mississauga to have his 2020 property taxes cancelled, reduced, or refunded due to sickness or extreme poverty under s. 357(1)(d1) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Applicant had withdrawn $69,000 in home equity and lost it in the stock market, leaving him unable to pay his taxes.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the application, finding that the Applicant had the resources to pay his taxes but chose to make a risky investment instead, which does not constitute an inability to pay.

The applicants applied to the City of Mississauga to have their 2021 property taxes cancelled, reduced, or refunded under s. 357(1)(d1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, citing an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The City delegated the application to the Assessment Review Board.

The Board found that although the applicants faced health and business challenges, they were able to pay their property taxes by drawing on a home equity line of credit.

As the applicants had the means to pay, the application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the 2021 and 2022 property assessments of a seasonal cottage in Port Colborne.

The property lacked water service and central heating, and sat on a small lot.

MPAC proposed a current value of $144,000 based on comparable sales.

The Board found that the best comparable property supported a current value of $124,000.

The Board further found that an equity reduction was required based on the assessment of the most similar property in the vicinity, reducing the final assessment to $118,000.

The appellant appealed the 2021 and 2022 property tax assessments for a single-family dwelling in Toronto, seeking a reduction from the returned value of $4,098,000 to an equitable assessment of $3,601,000.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed comparable sales and determined the current value to be $4,604,000.

After applying a 10% reduction for equitable assessment, the resulting value was $4,143,600.

Because this value was higher than the returned assessment, the Board confirmed the returned assessment of $4,098,000.

The appellants appealed the omitted assessment of their residential property for the 2019 taxation year, which was deemed to include the 2020, 2021, and 2022 taxation years.

The omitted assessment of $17,000 was applied due to a building permit for a secondary structure, which the parties agreed was not advanced enough to be assessed.

The Board determined the current value of the property to be $362,000 based on its time-adjusted sale price, rejecting the appellants' argument that their purchase was made under duress.

However, the Board reduced the assessment to $347,000 to achieve equitable assessment, applying a 4% reduction based on the median assessment-to-sale ratio of similar properties in the vicinity.

The City of Greater Sudbury appealed the current value assessments of six active mining properties for the 2017 to 2021 taxation years, arguing that the assessments were too low.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current values using the cost approach.

The Board accepted the evidence of the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) and the respondent property owners regarding the reproduction cost new, depreciation, and land value, rejecting the City's proposed adjustments and global depreciation caps as unsupported.

The Board confirmed the current values as determined by MPAC and found no equitable reduction was required.

The appellants appealed the omitted assessments applied by MPAC for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years following a renovation and addition to their mixed-use property, which also triggered deemed appeals for 2020, 2021, and 2022.

The Assessment Review Board rejected MPAC's direct sales comparison approach and adopted the appellants' cost approach, determining the current value to be $1,679,000.

The Board further applied an equity reduction based on an Assessment to Sale Ratio study, reducing the final assessment to $1,588,000 for the 2020-2022 taxation years, and adjusted the 2018 and 2019 omitted assessments accordingly.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their townhouse for the 2021 and 2022 taxation years but failed to attend the hearing.

MPAC requested that instead of dismissing the appeal, the Board adopt a reduced assessment value of $426,000, which had been offered to the appellants during the Request for Reconsideration process.

The Board applied its Rules of Practice and Procedure and determined that adopting MPAC's recommendation was the most just and proportionate result.

The assessment was reduced accordingly.

The City of Hamilton appealed the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation's (MPAC) assessment of a steel manufacturing property owned by Stelco Inc. The sole issue was the current value of 411.6 acres of unused residual lands.

MPAC assessed the lands at a nominal value of $100 per acre due to the likelihood of environmental contamination and lack of market interest, while the City argued for a value of $125,000 per acre based on comparable sales of uncontaminated industrial lands.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's evidence that the lands were unmarketable due to contamination concerns and confirmed the nominal assessment value.

The appellant appealed the 2021 and 2022 current value assessment of her residential property.

MPAC and the City recommended a value of $412,000, while the appellant sought a reduction to $348,000 based on a comparison to the assessment of a nearby property.

The Assessment Review Board found the current value to be $426,500 using the direct comparison approach.

However, applying section 44(3) of the Assessment Act, the Board found that similar lands in the vicinity were assessed below their current values, with a median Assessment to Sale Ratio of 0.90.

The Board applied a 10% reduction for equitable assessment, reducing the final assessment to $384,000 for both taxation years.

The City of Greater Sudbury appealed the current value assessments of several active mining properties owned by Vale Canada Limited and Glencore Canada Corporation for the 2017 to 2021 taxation years.

The City argued that the assessments by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) were too low and sought significant increases.

The Board applied the cost approach to determine the current value, evaluating the reproduction cost new, depreciation, and land value.

The Board rejected the City's evidence, finding it unreliable and based on incorrect premises, and instead accepted MPAC's detailed and transparent costing and valuation methodology, which was supported by the property owners' experts.

The Board confirmed MPAC's current value assessments and found no equitable reduction was required.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their residential property for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation had returned an assessment of $3,101,000, which it later amended to $3,367,520.

The appellants argued for a lower current value.

The Assessment Review Board evaluated the comparable sales provided by both parties and determined the current value to be $3,313,000.

The parties agreed that a nine percent equity reduction was necessary, resulting in a final reduced assessment of $3,015,000.