Dan Weagant

The appellant appealed the property assessment of their single-family home for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years, which was returned at $1,231,000.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value of the property to be $1,279,000 based on a comparable sale, adjusted for differences such as lot type, dwelling size, and the presence of a swimming pool.

The Board then applied an equity reduction factor of 0.953, derived from the mean Assessment to Sale Ratio of similar properties in the vicinity, resulting in a final assessed value of $1,219,000.

The appeal was allowed in part and the assessment was reduced.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their single-family dwelling, arguing that the current value should be reduced due to the nuisance created by an adjacent church.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value of the property to be $3,150,000 by comparing it to a neighbouring property and adjusting for differences.

The Board found no evidence to support a further reduction for equitable assessment and confirmed the assessment at $3,148,000 for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The appellants appealed the 2017 and 2018 property assessment of their condominium unit, which was assessed at $378,000.

They argued the assessment should reflect their 2015 purchase price of $317,500.

MPAC argued the estate sale was not a valid indicator of current value and relied on sales of other units in the building.

The Assessment Review Board found the estate sale was a valid arm's-length transaction and that the lower price reasonably reflected the unit's unrenovated condition and less desirable location near elevators and public areas.

The Board reduced the assessment to $318,000 and found no further reduction for equity was warranted.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of her waterfront property for the 2017 and deemed 2018 taxation years, arguing the current value assessment of $574,000 was too high.

The Assessment Review Board considered comparable sales evidence and found that the returned value of $574,000 accurately reflected the property's current value.

The Board also reviewed the equity analysis provided by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and concluded that no reduction was necessary to achieve equitable assessment.

The appeal was dismissed and the assessment was confirmed.

The Complainant appealed the City of Toronto's denial of vacant unit rebate applications for the 2008 through 2014 taxation years.

The Complainant, who held a 50-year lease for the building, argued it was the de facto owner due to its extensive rights and obligations under the lease.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the complaints, finding that the Complainant was a tenant, not an owner within the meaning of section 331 of the City of Toronto Act.

Furthermore, the Board held that the property was not an eligible property under section 38(5)(b) of Ontario Regulation 121/07 because it was leased to a tenant in possession of the leasehold interest.

The appellants appealed the 2017 property assessment of their single-family dwelling, arguing the returned value of $2,624,000 was too high compared to similar properties in the vicinity.

MPAC had recommended a settlement value of $2,362,000.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable sales and determined the current value of the subject property to be $2,148,000.

The Board further found that no reduction was required for equitable assessment, as the assessment-to-sale ratio of similar properties fell within an acceptable range.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the assessment was reduced to $2,148,000 for the 2017 and deemed 2018 taxation years.

The appellant appealed the 2016 property assessment of his residential condominium unit, arguing the returned value of $99,000 should be reduced to $93,000 based on a 2015 sale and the property's condition.

The Assessment Review Board applied the direct comparison approach, finding the most comparable sales indicated a current value of $101,000.

The Board further determined that no reduction was necessary for equitable assessment purposes, as the assessment to sale ratio of similar properties was approximately 98%.

The appeal was dismissed and the assessment was confirmed at $99,000.

The appellant appealed the 2017 property assessment of their residential property, arguing the returned value of $965,000 was too high.

MPAC presented evidence suggesting a higher current value of $1,136,000 but did not file a notice to request a higher assessment.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value of the property to be $1,068,000 and applied a reduction for equitable assessment, resulting in a value of $1,012,000.

However, because MPAC failed to provide notice of its intention to seek a higher assessment under Rule 40, the Board confirmed the assessment at the originally returned value of $965,000 for the 2017 and deemed 2018 taxation years.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a farm property with a residence for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the current value at $465,000.

The appellant argued the value should be between $364,000 and $394,638 and sought an equitable reduction.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC's direct comparison approach was more reliable than its cost approach, but excluded one of MPAC's comparable properties due to its shoreline feature.

Relying on another comparable property, the Board determined the correct current value to be $390,000.

The Board declined to make an equitable reduction, finding that equity had been achieved based on the assessment to sales ratio study.

The appellants appealed the 2017 property assessment of their semi-detached residential dwelling, arguing the returned value of $655,000 was too high due to an improper 2012 assessment that assumed uncompleted renovations.

MPAC provided a direct comparison approach valuation supporting a value of $675,000 but sought to confirm the returned value.

The Assessment Review Board found the returned value of $655,000 was reasonable based on comparable sales and the assessments of neighboring properties.

The Board also found no reduction was necessary for equitable assessment purposes.

The appeal was dismissed and the assessment was confirmed for the 2017 and deemed 2018 taxation years.

The appellants appealed the 2017 and 2018 property assessments of their single-family dwelling, arguing the returned value of $390,000 was too high compared to similar properties in their subdivision.

MPAC presented a valuation report suggesting a current value of $408,000 based on the direct comparison approach, but did not seek an increase.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC's comparable properties located in the former City of Chatham were not suitable due to differences in municipal services.

Using the only comparable property in the same subdivision, the Board determined the current value of the subject property to be $402,000.

The Board also found no reduction was required for equity.

Because MPAC failed to give notice of an intention to seek a higher assessment, the Board confirmed the assessment at the returned value of $390,000.

The appellants appealed the 2017 property assessment of their semi-detached residential property, arguing the returned value of $655,000 was too high due to an improper assumption of renovations by MPAC in 2012.

MPAC provided a direct comparison approach valuation supporting a value of $675,000 but only sought to confirm the returned value.

The Assessment Review Board found the appellants failed to provide sufficient evidence to lower the assessment and that MPAC's comparable sales supported the returned value.

The Board confirmed the assessment at $655,000 and found no reduction was necessary for equity.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a single-family dwelling on a 2.88-acre ravine lot in the Bridle Path area of Toronto for the 2017 taxation year.

The appellant argued the returned value of $4,443,000 was too high due to the lack of updates since 1977 and development restrictions on the ravine portion of the lot.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value to be $3,821,000 using the direct comparison approach.

The Board further reduced the assessment to $3,554,000 to ensure equity with similar properties in the vicinity, applying an assessment-to-sale ratio of 0.930.

The decision also applied to the deemed 2018 appeal.

The appellants appealed the 2017 property assessment of their home, which was valued at $274,000 by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC).

The property is located near a contaminated site and has an in-ground venting system and Soil Vapour Extractor (SVE).

The parties agreed the base value without the SVE was $305,000, but disputed the reduction amount.

MPAC applied a 10% reduction, while the appellants sought a 15% reduction based on a 2006 valuation study.

The Assessment Review Board found the 2006 study to be the best evidence and applied a 15% reduction, setting the current value at $259,000.

No further reduction for equitable assessment was warranted.

The moving party, who purchased the subject property in 2015, sought to reinstate an assessment appeal for the 2015 taxation year that had been withdrawn by the previous owner.

The moving party had negotiated a reduced assessment for 2016 and expected it to apply to 2015.

The Board found that the moving party was a party to the appeal under the Assessment Act, the request was timely, and procedural fairness required reinstatement because the previous owner's unilateral withdrawal prejudiced the moving party.

The motion to reinstate the 2015 appeal was granted on consent of the other parties.

The appellant appealed the 2017 property assessment of a penthouse condominium unit, which MPAC had assessed at $506,000.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value of the property using the direct comparison approach, relying on the time-adjusted sale of a similar penthouse unit in the same building.

The Board found the current value to be $470,000.

Applying an equity analysis provided by MPAC, the Board further reduced the assessment by 13.3% to ensure it was equitable with similar properties in the vicinity.

The final assessment was reduced to $407,000 for the 2017 and deemed 2018 taxation years.

The appellants appealed the current value assessment of their residential property for the 2017 and deemed 2018 taxation years, arguing the returned value of $1,122,000 was too high compared to similar properties.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed the sales comparison approaches presented by both the appellants and the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation.

The Board found the appellants' alternative valuation approach flawed as it relied on a single comparable property and arbitrary adjustments not based on market sales.

Relying on the best comparable sales evidence, the Board determined the current value was approximately $1,177,000, but confirmed the returned assessment of $1,122,000 as MPAC did not seek an increase.

The Board also found no reduction was necessary for equitable assessment.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their residential property in Oakville for the 2017 taxation year, arguing it was overvalued compared to similar properties.

The Assessment Review Board evaluated comparable sales and determined the current value of the property was $1,023,510.

After applying an assessment-to-sale ratio to ensure equity with similar properties in the vicinity, the equitable value was calculated at $950,000.

Since no party sought a higher assessment, the Board confirmed the original returned assessment of $947,000 and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed the 2017 current value assessment of his waterfront property, which was returned at $425,000.

The appellant argued the value should be $375,000 due to the property's age, condition, elevation, and proximity to a septic tile field.

MPAC provided a valuation report comparing the property to six similar waterfront sales, adjusted for time.

The Assessment Review Board found MPAC's valuation logical and supported by the evidence, while the appellant provided no documentary evidence to support a lower value.

The Board confirmed the assessment at $425,000 for the 2017 and deemed 2018 taxation years, finding no basis for an equitable reduction.

The appellant appealed the 2017 property assessment of his single-family dwelling, arguing the value was too high and contesting a standard renovation adjustment applied by MPAC.

The Board found that the property had not undergone minor upgrades, removing the renovation adjustment and determining the current value to be $1,090,000.

The Board further applied an equity adjustment based on MPAC's assessment-to-sale ratio analysis, reducing the final assessment to $1,007,000 for the 2017 and deemed 2018 taxation years.