Jennifer Griffith

The appellants appealed the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation's (MPAC) current value assessment of their single-family detached home for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years.

The property was assessed at $4,422,000.

The appellants argued for a lower valuation based on sales evidence and sought an equity reduction.

MPAC presented evidence supporting a higher value but only asked the Board to confirm the returned assessment.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed the direct comparison approach evidence and determined the correct current value to be $4,224,000.

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

The appeal was allowed in part, and the assessment was reduced to $4,224,000.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their single-family detached home in Toronto for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years.

The property was assessed at $4,027,000.

The appellants argued for a reduction to $3,496,000 based on sales evidence, while MPAC argued the value should be $4,850,000 but asked to confirm the returned assessment.

The Assessment Review Board found the best evidence of current value was three comparable ravine properties, determining the correct current value to be $3,937,000.

The Board also found that an equity reduction was not required, as MPAC's evidence showed the assessment to sales ratio fell within acceptable standards.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the assessment was reduced to $3,937,000.

The appellant filed appeals regarding a vacancy rebate application for the 2010 taxation year.

At the scheduled telephone conference hearing, representatives for the municipality appeared, but no one appeared for the appellant.

The Assessment Review Board noted that the hearing had been previously adjourned at the appellant's request and that proper notice had been given.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the appeals for non-attendance.

The appellants appealed the returned property tax assessment of $4,777,000 for their single-family detached home for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board evaluated the direct comparison approach evidence provided by both parties, focusing on sales of similar ravine properties.

The Board determined the correct current value to be $4,248,000 based on the best comparable sales evidence.

The Board also found that an equitable reduction under section 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act was not required, as the assessment to sales ratio of similar properties fell within acceptable standards.

The appellants appealed the City of Hamilton's apportionment of property taxes for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 taxation years, arguing that the relative assessed values used were incorrect and should be retroactively reduced based on a 2019 Request for Reconsideration settlement.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the appeal, finding it lacked jurisdiction under section 356(1)(b) of the Municipal Act because the apportioned taxes had already been paid in full.

The Board further held it had no jurisdiction to alter the relative assessment values, as that authority rests exclusively with the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation under section 356(2).

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a single-family detached dwelling for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value of the property to be $3,312,300 based on the direct comparison approach using five comparable sales.

The Board also applied an equity reduction pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, resulting in an equitable value of $2,981,000.

The returned assessment was ordered reduced accordingly.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a farm with commercial/industrial operations for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years.

The appellant argued that issue estoppel should apply based on a 2014 Board decision, and that the current value should be $180,000.

The Board dismissed the issue estoppel argument because the valuation dates and issues were different.

The Board accepted MPAC's evidence based on the cost approach and direct comparison approach, finding the correct current value was $1,278,000.

However, since MPAC did not seek an increase, the Board confirmed the returned assessment of $847,000.

The appellants appealed the omitted and returned assessments of their condominium unit for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years, arguing the current value should be based on their 2019 purchase price of $508,047.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the 2019 sale as it was a builder's sale not fully exposed to the open market and occurred well after the January 1, 2016 valuation date.

Applying the Direct Comparison Approach, the Board found the current value to be $566,000, but confirmed the returned assessment of $537,000 because MPAC did not seek an increase.

The Board also dismissed the appellants' request for an equitable reduction, finding MPAC's Assessment to Sales Ratio analysis demonstrated the assessment was equitable.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a custom-built home in Brampton for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years, arguing the quality of construction rating was too high and the current value should be reduced based on sales in the city.

The Assessment Review Board found the quality rating of 10 was correct and accepted MPAC's expanded vicinity for comparable sales due to the property's unique characteristics.

The Board determined the correct current value was $6,318,000 but confirmed the returned assessment of $5,832,000 because MPAC did not formally seek an increase.

The Board also found no equitable reduction was required.

The appellants appealed the supplementary and returned property assessments for their custom-built home for the 2019, 2020, and 2021 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board first dismissed a preliminary motion challenging the respondent's unlicensed representative, finding she qualified under the in-house exemption.

On the merits, the Board upheld the quality of construction rating of 8.5 but reduced the current value assessment from $2,246,000 to $2,195,000 based on the median sale price of comparable properties.

The Board declined to apply negative adjustments for proximity to a transit station or other property characteristics.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a commercial property for the 2018, 2019, and 2020 taxation years.

The appellant argued for a lower current value based on a time-adjusted sale price of the subject property, while the respondent MPAC argued for a value based on the Cost Approach.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the appellant's time-adjusted sale price as unreliable and found the Cost Approach provided the best evidence of value.

The Board ordered a decrease in the returned assessment from $2,548,000 to $2,437,000.

The appellants appealed the 2020 property assessment of their 86.64-acre property, which included both farmed and non-farmed land.

MPAC assessed the current value at $486,000, while the appellants argued for a value of $359,000 based on a neighbouring property's assessment and various negative property features such as poor drainage and swampy areas.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC's direct comparison approach, using six comparable sales with a median time-adjusted sale price of $492,683, provided the best evidence of current value.

The Board noted that the appellants provided no sales evidence and no quantitative evidence to support a reduction for the negative features, which MPAC had already accounted for by applying lower soil class ratings to the non-farmed acreage.

The returned assessment of $486,000 was confirmed.

The appellants appealed the current value assessment of their residential property for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $1,456,000, while the appellants argued for a value between $1,200,000 and $1,400,000.

The Assessment Review Board determined the correct current value to be $1,498,000 based on comparable sales.

However, applying an equity reduction pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, the Board reduced the assessment to $1,399,000.

The appellant appealed the property assessments for the 2017 to 2020 taxation years, including omitted assessments for 2017 and 2018 following the demolition and rebuilding of the subject property.

The Assessment Review Board determined the correct current value of the property to be $2,691,000 based on the direct comparison approach, relying on four comparable sales.

Consequently, the Board reduced the omitted assessments for 2017 and 2018 to $1,290,000 and the returned assessments for 2019 and 2020 to $2,691,000.

The Board found no further reduction for equity was required.

The City of Toronto appealed the property assessment of a vacant commercial land parcel, seeking an increase in its current value from $8,495,000 to $12,812,000 for the 2017-2020 taxation years.

The assessed owner argued the property's sale price was a 'hold out' premium and not reflective of open market value.

The Assessment Review Board found that the time-adjusted sale price of $12,812,000 was the best indicator of current value, supported by the direct comparison approach using other properties in the same development assembly and similar development sites in the vicinity.

The Board ordered the assessment increased to $12,812,000.

The requester sought to reinstate a deemed property assessment appeal for the 2020 taxation year after it was dismissed.

The 2020 appeal was deemed from a 2019 appeal that had been dismissed due to the requester's failure to attend a hearing.

The Board found that the requester failed to update her contact information or inquire about the status of her appeals.

Because the request to reinstate the 2019 appeal was filed late and dismissed, the Board held that the 2020 deemed appeal could not be reinstated, as its dismissal flowed directly from the 2019 appeal.

The request for reinstatement was denied.

The appellants appealed the property tax assessment of their vacant residential land for the 2018, 2019, and 2020 taxation years.

They argued the property should be consolidated with an adjacent parcel and assessed at a lower value.

The respondent agreed to consolidate the parcels for the 2021 taxation year and offered an alternative current value of $3,000, down from the original assessments of $9,200 and $8,500.

The Board accepted the $3,000 valuation based on the direct comparison approach and the parties' agreement that the value should not exceed $3,000.

The Board found no further equitable reduction was required under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act.

The appellant appealed the City of Mississauga's decision to deny a commercial vacancy rebate for the 2018 taxation year.

The City had requested specific evidentiary documents to support the application, but the appellant failed to provide complete information within the prescribed 30-day statutory deadline.

The Assessment Review Board held that the appellant did not comply with the evidentiary requirements under section 364 of the Municipal Act and section 27 of O. Reg. 325/01.

The Board further held that it lacked the discretion to extend the statutory timeline or waive the evidentiary requirements.

The appeal was dismissed, and the vacancy rebate was determined to be zero.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a seasonal dwelling for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years, arguing the current value should be $250,000 rather than the assessed values of $651,000 and $578,000.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed sales data provided by both parties and determined that the best evidence of current value was a time-adjusted sale price of $594,000 based on comparable properties.

The Board found no quantitative evidence to support a negative adjustment for nuisances and concluded that an equity reduction was not required.

The assessment was reduced to $594,000 for 2019 and confirmed at $578,000 for 2020.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of their single-family detached home on water for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years.

The appellant argued the current value of $427,000 was too high and should be reduced to $277,500 based on their private purchase price of $300,000.

MPAC argued the value should be $425,000 based on comparable sales.

The Assessment Review Board found the private sale was not the best evidence of current value as it was not exposed to the open market and was significantly lower than similar properties.

Relying on two comparable sales on the same street, the Board reduced the assessment to $353,000.

The Board declined to apply an equitable reduction under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, finding MPAC's level of appraisal fell within acceptable standards.