Jacques Laflamme

The appellant appealed the current value assessment (CVA) of a vacant residential/recreational waterfront lot for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

MPAC had assessed the property at $61,000 but recommended a reduction to $33,500 due to the property's steep slope and weedy shoreline.

The appellant argued that the CVA should be based on the allocated purchase price of $10,000 from a recent bulk sale of three adjoining properties.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the allocated purchase price as unreliable but accepted MPAC's best comparable sale, adjusting it downward by 45% for the property's negative features to find a current value of $53,000.

The Board then applied an equity adjustment based on the assessment-to-sales ratio of the comparable property (59%), resulting in a final CVA of $31,000.

The appellant appealed the current value assessment of a vacant residential waterfront lot for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation had assessed the property at $67,000 but recommended a reduction to $39,500 due to topography and shoreline conditions.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the appellant's reliance on a non-arm's length package sale but accepted one of MPAC's comparable sales.

Applying a 45% reduction for the subject property's negative features and a further equity adjustment based on the comparable's assessment-to-sales ratio, the Board reduced the assessment to $31,000.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a car dealership for the 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 taxation years, disputing only the land value portion of the assessment.

The appellant argued the land value should be reduced based on a settlement for a nearby property, but provided no current value estimate or equity analysis.

The Board found the nearby property was inferior in location and access, and accepted the respondent's comparable property analysis.

The Board confirmed the current value assessment at $4,272,000 and found no equity adjustment was warranted.

The appellants appealed the omitted assessments for a temporary sales and presentation centre moved to their property.

They argued the building should not be assessable, or alternatively, that it suffered from obsolescence.

The Assessment Review Board found the building was assessable under s. 1(1) of the Assessment Act because it had a degree of permanency, resting on concrete piers and connected to utilities.

The Board accepted MPAC's recommendation to reduce the building's value from $331,000 to $324,000 due to a change in the life table used in the cost approach.

The Board found no evidence to support an equity adjustment or functional obsolescence, confirming the commercial property classification.

The appellants appealed the current value assessment of their mixed-use commercial and residential property for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years.

The property was originally assessed at $682,000.

The appellants argued for a reduction to $465,000, relying on the income and direct sales comparison approaches, while the respondent MPAC recommended a reduction to $584,000 based on a recalculated cost approach and equity analysis.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the income approach and the appellants' argument regarding a right of way, but utilized comparable sales from both parties to determine a current value of $591,790.

Applying a 7% equity adjustment based on MPAC's analysis of similar properties, the Board reduced the assessment to $550,000 and applied the decision to the deemed 2016 appeal.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of a commercial plaza in Cornwall for the 2014 and 2015 taxation years.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) assessed the property at $3,539,000 using the income approach for the leasable area and the direct sales comparison approach for the excess land.

The appellants argued for a lower valuation based on actual rents and higher vacancy rates, and contested the value of the excess land.

The Assessment Review Board confirmed MPAC's assessment, finding that fair market rents were appropriately applied, the vacancy rate was not chronic, and the appellants failed to provide sufficient comparable sales to challenge the excess land valuation.

The Board also found the assessment to be equitable with similar properties in the vicinity.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of a commercial warehouse, arguing that the land value component was overstated based on vacant land sales.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the appeal and confirmed the current value of $1,695,000.

The Board held that under the Assessment Act, the assessment must be based on the total current value of the property (land and building), and the appellant could not isolate and reduce the land component without addressing the total valuation.

MPAC satisfied its burden of proof by providing sales of built-on properties that supported the total assessment.

The Board also found no equity adjustment was required.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their water-access island property on the St. Lawrence River for the 2014 and 2015 taxation years.

The property was assessed at $467,000 based on a January 1, 2012 valuation date.

MPAC recommended a reduction to $401,000 based on a change to the main building quality classification, which the appellants rejected, seeking a reduction to $300,000.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the comparables provided by both parties but accepted MPAC's recommended value of $401,000 as reasonable based on one neighbouring sale.

The Board further reduced the value by $18,000 to account for the lack of interior finish in the main cottage, resulting in a final current value assessment of $383,000.

The appellant challenged the property assessment of a commercial site, specifically arguing that the 33% Indirect Cost Charges applied by MPAC under the cost approach were unreasonable.

The Assessment Review Board found that the overall current value of the property, rather than individual cost components, must be evaluated.

Comparing the subject property to similar properties in the vicinity, the Board concluded that the assessed value was fair and equitable, and confirmed the assessments for the 2008 and 2012 base years.