Donald Whitehurst

The appellant appealed the property assessments for a partially completed single-family log house for the 2013 to 2016 taxation years.

The appellant argued that the percentage of completion used by MPAC was incorrect and that the current value should be lowered based on a previous Board decision and sales comparables.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed the sales comparables and determined the current value of the property, applying a lump sum adjustment for the incomplete construction consistent with the prior Board decision.

The Board found the resulting current value of $184,000 to be correct and equitable, confirming the returned assessments for all years under appeal.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their townhouse for the 2011 and 2012 taxation years, arguing that MPAC had historically assessed the property based on an incorrect frontage measurement.

MPAC acknowledged the error and recommended a reduced assessment of $242,000.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value of the property to be $225,000 based on comparable sales, adjusted for renovations and central air conditioning.

The Board found this value to be equitable with similar properties in the vicinity.

The appellants' request for costs based on allegations of bad faith by MPAC was denied, as the Board found MPAC acted professionally in disclosing and attempting to correct the frontage error.

The appellants appealed the 2015 property assessment of their waterfront residential property, which was returned at $331,000.

The respondent assessment corporation recommended a reduction to $267,000 based on an inspection and sales comparables.

The appellants argued for a value of $160,000 based primarily on waterfront frontage and a 2014 estate sale of the property for $174,000.

The Assessment Review Board found that the estate sale was not the best evidence of current value as it fell below the range established by comparable sales.

The Board accepted the respondent's recommended assessment of $267,000, finding it to be fair, reasonable, and equitable with similar lands in the vicinity.

The moving party, Baybridge, brought a motion for an order permitting alternative service of a production motion on non-party property owners.

The underlying appeal was brought by the City of Toronto regarding the assessment of Baybridge's property.

Baybridge sought to compel MPAC to produce documents containing confidential information from other property owners of comparable properties.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion on consent, ordering that the production motion be served by registered mail to the last known mailing address on the roll, and by fax to the owner's representative if there are outstanding appeals.

The appellant appealed the 2015 current value assessment of his semi-detached home, which MPAC had assessed at $163,000.

The appellant had purchased the property from CMHC in 2014 for $82,500 and argued for a reduction to $120,000 or lower.

MPAC argued the sale was encumbered and relied on other sales comparables.

The Assessment Review Board found the 2014 sale was a valid arm's length transaction.

Using the sale of the subject property and other relatively comparable properties, the Board determined the current value to be $132,000.

The Board reduced the assessment to $132,000, finding no further equity reduction was required.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their residential triplex in Ottawa, which was assessed at $691,000 for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years.

They argued the value should be reduced to between $600,000 and $620,000 due to the property's poor condition and the cost to cure defects.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed the sales comparison approach used by MPAC, adjusted the cost to cure estimate based on the appellants' evidence, and conducted its own current value tests.

The Board found that the returned assessment of $691,000 fell within the lower half of the current value range established by comparable sales and was equitable with similar lands in the vicinity.

The appeal was dismissed and the assessment confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 2015 property assessment of his single-family home, which was returned at $439,000.

The appellant argued the assessment should be reduced to approximately $400,000 based on the Ottawa housing market, changes to the base year assessment, and comparisons to similar properties.

MPAC recommended a reduction to $435,000 based on a revised renovation year.

The Assessment Review Board found that the sale of the subject property was the best evidence of current value and accepted MPAC's recommendation, reducing the assessment to $435,000.

The Board found insufficient evidence to support a further reduction based on equity.

The appellants appealed the 2015 property assessment of their single-family home, which MPAC had returned at $556,000.

MPAC recommended a reduction to $498,000 based on an equity adjustment, estimated basement repair costs, and corrected records.

The appellants argued the value should be closer to their 2014 purchase price of $453,625.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value to be $475,000 by applying the average time-adjusted sale price per square foot of comparable properties and deducting the estimated basement repair costs.

The Board found no further equity adjustment was required.

The appellant municipality appealed the property tax assessment of a vacant lot owned by a non-profit service organization, arguing it should be classified as industrial rather than residential.

The municipality contended that the non-profit did not 'occupy' the vacant land as required by the regulation.

The Assessment Review Board found that 'occupy' means having control over the property, which the owner possessed.

The Board also determined that the definition of 'land' in the regulation includes 'vacant land'.

The appeal was dismissed and the residential classification was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a seasonal dwelling for the 2013, 2014, and deemed 2015 taxation years.

MPAC had assessed the property at $146,000 but recommended a reduction to $94,000 based on a sales comparison approach.

The appellant argued the assessment should be reduced to $85,000, the price for which the property sold in October 2014, noting it lacked waterfront ownership and development rights.

The Assessment Review Board found the 2014 sale to be the best evidence of current value, rejecting MPAC's comparables which all had waterfront ownership.

The Board reduced the assessment to $85,000 for all years under appeal.