Jennifer Griffith

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a waterfront residential property for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years, arguing the current value of $523,000 was too high and seeking an equitable reduction.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed sales of comparable properties and determined the correct current value to be $489,000.

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

The assessment was reduced to $489,000.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of their waterfront residential property for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) assessed the property at $1,090,000, while the appellant argued for a value of $510,000.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed comparable sales and determined the correct current value to be $740,000.

Applying an equitable reduction pursuant to section 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, the Board further reduced the assessment to $670,000.

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

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) originally assessed the property at $602,000 but revised its position to $562,000 due to a change in the quality class rating.

The appellants argued for a current value of $520,000 based on comparable properties.

The Assessment Review Board found that the best evidence of current value was the builder's sale of the subject property in 2016 for $697,517.

However, as the Board will not increase the returned assessment, it accepted MPAC's revised assessment of $562,000 and reduced the assessment accordingly.

The appellants appealed a decision of the City of Mississauga denying their application for property tax relief under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act.

The appellants sought an exemption on the basis that the subject property was a philanthropic organization or charitable institution.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the appeal, finding that neither the City nor the Board has jurisdiction under s. 357(1)(d.1) to grant such an exemption, and that the appellants must apply to the Superior Court of Justice under s. 46 of the Assessment Act.

The Appellant filed property assessment appeals for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years but failed to serve a Statement of Issues by the deadline set in the Schedule of Events.

At a peremptory default hearing, the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation moved to dismiss the appeals.

The Appellant requested an adjournment to retain a representative, claiming a lack of understanding of the Board's process.

The Assessment Review Board denied the adjournment, finding that the Appellant's failure to seek assistance over two years did not constitute exceptional circumstances under Rule 82.

The appeals were dismissed.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of his single-family detached dwelling in Ottawa for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years.

MPAC had issued a supplementary assessment increasing the property's value from $659,000 to $909,000 due to a building addition.

The appellant argued the addition was incomplete and the value should remain at $659,000, presenting assessments of neighbouring properties.

MPAC relied on a valuation report and comparable sales outside the immediate neighbourhood.

The Assessment Review Board found that the best evidence of current value was the market-tested sales presented by MPAC, which supported a value of at least $909,000.

The Board rejected the appellant's argument that an incomplete dwelling cannot be assessed, confirming the assessment at $909,000.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their vacant commercial land for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years, arguing the current value should be reduced from $1,829,000 to $822,285.

MPAC presented evidence suggesting a higher value but requested the Board confirm the returned assessment.

The Board reviewed the direct sales comparison evidence and found the correct current value supported by the best comparable sales was $2,302,000.

However, since MPAC only sought to confirm the returned assessment of $1,829,000, the Board accepted that value and confirmed the assessment.

The appellant appealed the 2019 property tax assessment of a residential property in Toronto, arguing the assessed value of $685,000 was too high.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable sales evidence provided by both parties.

The Board found that the best evidence of current value was a set of four comparable properties presented by the respondent, which indicated a value of $626,000.

The Board reduced the assessment to $626,000 and declined to apply the reduction retroactively to the 2017 and 2018 taxation years as no appeals had been filed for those years.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of a neighbourhood shopping centre in Kitchener for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the current value at $1,842,000 for 2017 and $1,536,000 for 2018 and 2019.

The appellants argued for a value of $1,067,000 based on actual rents, while MPAC proposed $1,533,000 based on fair market rents, and the City of Kitchener proposed $1,500,000 based on open-market sales.

The Assessment Review Board preferred the direct comparison sales approach, determining the current value to be $1,507,000.

The Board also found that an equitable reduction was required under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, applying a median assessment-to-sales ratio of 0.89 to arrive at a final equitable value of $1,341,000 for all three taxation years.

The appellant appealed the 2019 property assessment of her residential property, arguing the current value should be reduced from $977,000 to $721,529 due to ongoing flooding, mold, and neighbour disputes.

MPAC presented sales evidence supporting a value of $1,333,000 but did not seek an increase.

The Assessment Review Board found the appellant's evidence of repair costs unsupported and too far removed from the valuation date.

Relying on MPAC's sales data, the Board determined the correct current value was $1,280,000.

However, because MPAC did not serve notice to seek a higher assessment, the Board confirmed the returned assessment of $977,000.

MPAC brought a motion to dismiss the appellants' property assessment appeals for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years due to non-compliance with statutory requirements and Board Rules.

The appellants failed to file a Request for Reconsideration for the 2015 appeal, which is a statutory precondition under s. 40(3) of the Assessment Act.

The 2016 appeals, deemed from the invalid 2015 appeal, were also found non-compliant.

Furthermore, the appellants failed to file a Statement of Issues and documentary evidence as required by the Board's Schedule of Events.

The Board granted the motion and dismissed the appeals.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their seasonal dwelling for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years, arguing the current value should be reduced due to a deeded right-of-way, included chattels, and realtor fees.

MPAC argued the current value was $390,000 based on the time-adjusted sale price of the property in 2016, but did not seek an increase from the returned assessments of $349,000 and $332,000.

The Assessment Review Board found the best evidence of current value was the 2016 sale price of $390,000, rejecting the appellants' arguments for deductions.

As MPAC did not file a notice to seek a higher assessment, the Board confirmed the returned assessments.

The appellant appealed an overdue tax bill of $225,535.43 resulting from the City's late processing of phase-in assessment values for the 2009 to 2017 taxation years.

The appellant argued that the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) and the City failed to comply with implied statutory time limits under the Assessment Act and the City of Toronto Act, 2006, and that the late processing constituted an error.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the appeal, finding no expressed or implied legislative time frames for MPAC to provide the phase-in values or for the City to process them, and concluded there was no error or prejudice to the appellant.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of a 40-acre vacant residential property for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the current value at $25,500, while the appellant argued for a value between $10,340 and $10,810.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value to be $26,000 based on comparable sales.

Applying an equitable reduction pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, the Board reduced the final assessed value to $24,000.

The appellants appealed the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation's (MPAC) assessment of their residential property for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the current value at $675,000, later revised to $659,000 based on a remeasurement of the building area.

The appellants argued for a value of $618,000, relying on the builder's sale price and one comparable property.

The Board rejected the builder's sale as it was not an open-market transaction and included non-typical adjustments like a private road bonus and HST rebate.

Relying on the average sale price of MPAC's four suggested comparable properties, the Board determined the correct current value to be $639,000 and reduced the assessment accordingly.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their waterfront property for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years, arguing the assessed value of $208,000 was too high compared to similar properties.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed sales data and determined the correct current value to be $177,000.

The Board further applied an equitable reduction based on the Assessment to Sales Ratio of similar properties, reducing the final assessed value to $167,000.

The Appellants appealed the property assessments for their newly constructed home for the 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

They argued the assessments were too high due to unfinished construction and poor well water quality.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed sales of comparable properties and applied a 5% negative adjustment for the water quality issues.

The Board reduced the current value for the 2016 taxation year to $333,000 and for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years to $341,000.

The appellants appealed the property assessments for their newly constructed home for the 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

They argued the assessed values were too high due to unfinished construction and poor well water quality.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed sales of comparable properties and applied a 5% negative adjustment for the poor water quality.

The Board reduced the current value for the 2016 taxation year to $333,000, and for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years to $341,000, adjusting the supplementary and returned assessments accordingly.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a vacant residential lot for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

The appellant argued that the assessed value of $83,000 (and $80,000 for 2019) was too high due to the presence of solid bedrock and a poor view, which required a cost to cure.

The Assessment Review Board agreed that a negative adjustment was warranted for the bedrock, applying a $15,000 cost to cure to the average sale price of comparable properties.

The Board reduced the current value assessment to $71,000 for all three taxation years.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessments for a vacant residential lot in North Bay for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $115,000, $99,000, and $95,000 respectively, while the appellant argued the value should be $50,000 due to solid bedrock and lack of municipal services.

The Assessment Review Board found that the property was not designated unbuildable and was serviceable, but applied a $15,000 cost-to-cure adjustment for blasting bedrock to the average comparable sale price of $88,000.

The Board reduced the current value assessment to $73,000 for all three taxation years.