Jennifer Griffith

The appellant appealed a property assessment, arguing that MPAC lacked the authority to issue a second omitted assessment under s. 33 of the Assessment Act for the 2019 taxation year.

MPAC had initially issued an omitted assessment for the parent property, but subsequently issued another to account for the property's conversion into condominium units.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the appeal, finding that the registration of the condominium plan created new 'lands' that had been omitted from the assessment roll, thereby obligating MPAC to issue the subsequent omitted assessments to correct the roll.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessments for a large retail building centre for the 2018 through 2022 taxation years.

The parties agreed on the value of the improvements but disputed the land value.

The appellant argued for a lower current value based on an alternative approach averaging their expert's cost approach and a time-adjusted appraisal report.

The Board rejected the appellant's evidence, finding the comparable sales used were too small and the appraisal report was unreliable as its author did not testify and its effective date was outside the valuation date.

The Board accepted the respondent's expert evidence of land value based on comparable sales, which supported a higher current value than the returned assessment.

As the respondent did not seek an increase, the Board confirmed the returned assessments.

The appellant filed a tax appeal of the Municipal Council's decision to increase taxes levied for the 2017 taxation year.

At the hearing, the parties advised the Board that an agreement in value had been reached prior to the hearing.

The Board issued an interim decision directing the parties to advise whether the appeal would be withdrawn or if Minutes of Settlement would be filed, and to provide the amount of any agreed refund to be incorporated into a final decision.

The Assessment Review Board held a settlement conference regarding property assessment appeals for a Bell switching station in Toronto.

The parties agreed on the current use valuation, replacement cost, and capitalization rate, but disputed the fair market rent, vacancy allowance, expense allowance, and equity.

The Board issued a case management order setting the hearing dates, witness schedule, and procedural directions for the upcoming video conference hearing.

The appellant appealed the returned property assessments for the 2021 and 2022 taxation years, arguing the current value should be based on the 2016 time-adjusted sale price of the property.

The Assessment Review Board found that the property had undergone extensive renovations and a change in use to fully commercial after the sale.

Adding the estimated renovation costs to the time-adjusted sale price resulted in a current value higher than the returned assessment.

As the respondent did not seek an increase, the Board confirmed the returned assessments and updated the tax class apportionment.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a custom-built home in Brampton for the 2020, 2021, and 2022 taxation years.

The appellant argued that the quality of construction rating was too high, the vicinity for comparable sales should be limited to the city, and the current value should be reduced to $3,500,000.

The Assessment Review Board found that the quality rating of 9 was correct and that expanding the vicinity for comparable sales was appropriate given the unique nature of the property.

Applying the direct comparison approach, the Board determined the correct current value to be $4,546,000, reducing the returned assessment of $4,768,000.

The Board declined to apply an equitable reduction.

The appellants appealed the returned assessment of $857,000 for their residential property for the 2021 and 2022 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board considered the direct comparison approach and found that the best sales evidence supported the returned assessment.

The Board also rejected the appellants' request for an equitable reduction under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, finding that the respondent's equity analysis of 30 similar properties in the immediate vicinity demonstrated an acceptable level of appraisal.

The returned assessment of $857,000 was confirmed.

The appellants appealed the current value assessment of their commercial property in Toronto for the 2017 through 2022 taxation years.

The appellants argued the assessment of $6,928,000 was too high and proposed a value between $3,100,000 and $4,000,000, citing prolonged vacancies and lack of BIA grants.

MPAC presented sales of comparable properties supporting a value of $11,371,000 but requested the returned assessment be confirmed.

The Assessment Review Board found MPAC's sales evidence to be the best indicator of current value and confirmed the returned assessment of $6,928,000.

The appellants appealed the property tax assessments for three properties comprising a big box shopping centre in Vaughan for the 2017 to 2021 taxation years.

The Board determined the correct current value using the income approach, analyzing fair market rent, vacancy allowance, expense allowance, and capitalization rate.

The Board preferred the respondent MPAC's evidence, which relied on comparable properties in the same vicinity, over the appellants' mass appraisal study of properties across the Greater Toronto Area.

The Board ordered reductions for two of the properties based on MPAC's revised calculations and confirmed the assessment for the third property.

The appellants appealed the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation's current value assessment of their property for the 2021 taxation year.

The property was assessed at $3,757,000, which the appellants argued was too high.

The Assessment Review Board applied the direct comparison approach, relying on a comparable property in the same neighbourhood, and determined the correct current value to be $3,113,000.

The Board ordered the returned assessment reduced accordingly.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a single-family detached residential property for the 2021 taxation year.

The returned assessment was $1,942,000, which the appellant argued should be reduced to $1,578,000 based on previous assessment models.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation presented a direct comparison approach using three comparable sales, suggesting a value of $1,815,000 but noting a median time-adjusted sale price of $1,723,000.

The Assessment Review Board preferred the sales evidence over the appellant's reliance on past assessment models and reduced the current value to $1,723,000.

The appellant appealed property assessments for the 2017-2021 taxation years.

The appellant failed to serve its Statement of Issues by the amended due date of August 24, 2020.

The appellant's representative argued the delay was due to a cybersecurity attack in June 2021.

The Board found that the due date had passed long before the cyberattack and that the appellant had failed to comply with the Schedule of Events.

The Board dismissed the appeals for non-compliance.

The appellant appealed the returned assessment of $318,000 for her seasonal waterfront property for the 2021 taxation year.

MPAC revised the assessment to $301,000 due to a correction in the property's frontage.

The appellant argued for a current value of $244,000 based on the average time-adjusted sale price per square foot of comparable properties.

MPAC argued for a current value of $383,000 based on bracketing the time-adjusted sale prices of comparable properties, but did not seek an increase above the revised assessment.

The Board found that the comparable properties were not sufficiently similar to use a price per square foot analysis and accepted the bracketing method, determining the current value to be $336,000.

Since MPAC did not seek an increase, the Board ordered the assessment reduced to the revised amount of $301,000.

The appellant appealed the supplementary and returned assessments for their property for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board determined the correct current value of the property to be $371,000 based on the direct comparison approach, relying on the median time-adjusted sale price per square foot of four comparable properties presented by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation.

The Board rejected the appellant's proposed comparable properties and cost estimates, and ordered reductions to the supplementary and returned assessments accordingly.

The appellant appealed the returned property tax assessment of $3,587,000 for a single-family detached home in Toronto for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board applied the direct comparison approach, preferring the median time-adjusted sale price of six comparable properties in the same homogeneous neighbourhood to determine a current value of $3,304,000.

The Board declined to apply an equitable reduction under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, finding the respondent's equity analysis demonstrated the assessment to sales ratio fell within acceptable standards.

The appeal was allowed in part and the assessment was reduced to $3,304,000.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a residential property in Toronto for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value of the property to be $2,743,000 based on the direct comparison approach, relying on five comparable sales in the same homogeneous neighbourhood.

The Board also found that an equity reduction was required pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, applying an agreed-upon assessment-to-sales ratio of 0.93 to arrive at an equitable value of $2,550,000.

The returned assessment was ordered reduced accordingly.

The Appellants appealed the property tax assessment of their industrial building for the 2017 to 2021 taxation years, arguing the current value should be reduced from $3,804,000 to $1,100,000 due to environmental contamination.

The Board excluded the Appellants' expert reports and cost-to-cure evidence because they were not disclosed in accordance with the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure and no exceptional circumstances were shown.

Without quantitative evidence of remediation costs, the Board accepted MPAC's uncontested replacement cost new less depreciation valuation.

The Board confirmed the returned assessment of $3,804,000 and found no basis for an equitable reduction.

The appellants filed appeals regarding the returned assessment of a property for the 2017 through 2021 taxation years.

A settlement conference was scheduled, but the appellants failed to attend or respond to communications from the respondent and the Board.

The respondent requested that the appeals be dismissed for abandonment.

The Board found that the appellants had abandoned the appeals by failing to comply with the Board's Rules and dismissed the appeals for all taxation years.

The appellants appealed the property tax assessments for their single-family detached home for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years.

They argued the current value assessment was too high and sought an equity reduction.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed comparable sales and found the correct current value was higher than the returned assessment, but confirmed the returned assessment because the respondent did not seek an increase.

The Board also dismissed the request for an equity reduction, finding the respondent's equity analysis more reliable.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a single-family detached home in Toronto for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years, seeking an equity reduction.

The Assessment Review Board found that the correct current value based on the direct comparison approach was higher than the returned assessment, but confirmed the returned assessment of $3,663,000 because MPAC did not seek an increase.

The Board also found that an equity reduction was not required, as the assessment to sales ratio of similar properties fell within acceptable standards.