Jennifer Griffith

The appellants appealed the property assessments for their seasonal dwelling for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC had issued omitted assessments following a 2015 building permit for an addition to the property.

The appellants argued the assessments were too high and questioned the retroactive application of the renovations to the valuation dates.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC's sales evidence supported current values higher than the returned assessments, but since MPAC did not seek an increase, the Board confirmed the returned assessments.

The Board also held that MPAC was required under section 33(1) of the Assessment Act to correct omissions and incorporate the renovations into the assessments.

The appellants appealed the returned assessment of $942,000 for their cottage property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

Although the appellants did not attend the hearing, MPAC recommended a reduced current value of $789,000 based on a revised square footage, condition change, and an equity reduction.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's recommendation and reduced the assessment to $789,000.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a residential triplex in Toronto for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $1,472,000 for 2017 and $1,295,000 for 2018, while the appellant argued the current value should be $950,000.

The Board rejected MPAC's methodology of using vacant lot sales to adjust for frontage differences in developed residential properties.

Relying on the median sale price of five comparable properties presented by MPAC, the Board determined the current value to be $1,026,000 and reduced the assessments for both taxation years accordingly.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their cottage property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years, arguing the current value should be $500,000 rather than the assessed $731,000.

MPAC presented comparable sales supporting a value of $821,000 but asked to confirm the returned assessment.

The Board rejected the appellants' evidence of a private sale and a financing appraisal letter.

Relying on MPAC's comparable sales, the Board found the current value to be $741,000, which supported the returned assessment.

The assessment of $731,000 was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of her single-family detached dwelling for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the current value at $606,000, but proposed a reduction to $570,000 at the hearing.

The appellant argued for a value of $526,000, contending that the ravine lot adjustment should not apply due to a steep slope limiting usable backyard space.

The Assessment Review Board reduced the ravine adjustment by half and applied an 8% market reduction, determining the current value to be $517,000.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their single-family detached dwelling for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the current value at $756,000 for 2017 and $718,000 for 2018.

The Assessment Review Board determined the correct current value to be $611,000 based on comparable sales and a water variable adjustment.

The Board further found that an equitable reduction was required under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, reducing the final assessed value to $556,000 for both taxation years.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of his single-family detached dwelling for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the current value at $393,000 for 2017 and $391,000 for 2018.

The appellant argued the value should be $321,000 and sought an equitable reduction.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable sales from both parties, rejecting those too far removed from the valuation date.

Based on the remaining sales, the Board determined the current value to be $352,000.

The Board found that an equitable reduction was not required as the level of appraisal for comparable properties fell within acceptable standards.

The assessment was reduced to $352,000 for both years.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a three-unit residential property in Kingston for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC had assessed the current value at $354,000.

The appellant argued for a value of $246,000, while MPAC submitted evidence supporting a value of $470,000 but recommended confirming the returned assessment.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed sales data and determined the correct current value to be $349,000.

Applying an undisputed equitable reduction factor of 0.844 pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, the Board reduced the final assessment to $294,000.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of his residential property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years, arguing the assessed values of $130,000 and $127,000 were too high due to structural damages.

The appellant sought a reduction to between $89,000 and $100,000.

MPAC presented evidence of comparable sales and recommended a reduced value of $119,000.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's recommendation, finding the appellant provided no sales evidence or professional estimates to support his lower valuation.

The assessment was reduced to $119,000 for both taxation years.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their single-family detached dwelling for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years, arguing the current value should be reduced from $887,000 to $780,000.

The appellants contended that bungalows are valued lower than semi-detached and two-storey homes, relying on general market statistics.

The Assessment Review Board rejected this argument, preferring the respondent's evidence of six comparable sales within the same homogeneous neighbourhood.

The Board confirmed the assessed value at $887,000 and found no equitable reduction was required.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their single-family detached dwelling for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years, seeking a reduction from the returned value of $1,114,000 to $1,036,000.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value of the property to be $1,309,000 based on comparable sales.

Applying an equitable reduction ratio of 0.93, the equitable assessment was calculated at $1,217,000.

Because this equitable assessment was higher than the returned assessment and the respondent had not filed a notice of intention to seek a higher assessment, the Board confirmed the returned assessment of $1,114,000.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their single-family home for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The main dispute centered on whether the total building area should be calculated using internal measurements (excluding open-to-above space) or external measurements.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's standard of using external measurements, finding the current value to be $700,000.

The Board also found that an equitable reduction was not required, as MPAC's equity analysis demonstrated the assessment fell within acceptable standards.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a single-family detached dwelling in Toronto for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the current value at $658,000, while the appellant argued for a value of $522,000 and an equitable reduction.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed sales data of comparable properties and found the current value to be $683,000, which supported MPAC's returned assessment of $658,000.

The Board also found that an equitable reduction was not required as the level of appraisal and coefficient of dispersion fell within acceptable standards.

The assessment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the MPAC property assessment of his single-family detached home for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years, arguing the assessed value of $904,000 was too high.

The appellant purchased the property from a builder for $851,000 in November 2015, shortly before the January 1, 2016 valuation date.

MPAC argued for a time-adjusted value of $914,000 and presented comparable sales.

The Assessment Review Board rejected MPAC's time adjustments and comparable sales, finding the actual open-market sale price of $851,000 to be the best evidence of current value.

The assessment was reduced accordingly.

The appellants appealed the current value assessment of their single-family detached dwelling for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $2,728,000 for 2017 and $2,610,000 for 2018.

The Assessment Review Board found that the best evidence of current value was the actual sale of the subject property for $2,600,000 one month prior to the valuation date, without the need for time adjustment.

The Board also found that an equitable reduction under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act was not required, as MPAC's equity analysis demonstrated that the level of appraisal and coefficient of dispersion fell within accepted industry standards.

The assessment was reduced to $2,600,000 for both taxation years.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their freehold townhouse for the 2017 and deemed 2018 taxation years.

The parties agreed to a reduced current value of $483,000.

The appellants sought a further equitable reduction under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, arguing for a 0.79% adjustment based on a vertical equity study.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the appellants' study as it relied on sales too far removed from the valuation date and unsupported inflationary adjustments.

The Board accepted MPAC's equity analysis, which showed the assessment fell within acceptable standards, and concluded no equitable reduction was required.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of her property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The appellant did not appear at the hearing.

MPAC recommended a reduction in the current value from the returned assessment of $393,000 to $378,000.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's recommendation and reduced the assessment accordingly.

The appellant appealed the returned assessment of $146,000 for their property for the 2016 taxation year, arguing the current value should be $100,000 and that the structures should be classified as farm land.

MPAC presented evidence supporting a current value of $142,000 based on comparable sales and a change in the condition of the structures from average to poor.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's recommended value of $142,000, finding the appellant failed to provide sales evidence to support a lower value or quantifiable evidence that the structures were used solely for farm purposes.

The assessment was reduced accordingly.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their seasonal waterfront property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the current value at $474,000 for 2017 and $454,000 for 2018, but took the position at the hearing that the value should be $454,000 for both years.

The appellants argued for a value of $400,000 based on general market trends and unquantified factors like winterization and privacy.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC provided the best sales evidence and confirmed the current value of $454,000 for both taxation years.

The appellant appealed the returned assessment of $898,000 for their residential property for the 2017 taxation year.

MPAC recommended a reduced assessment of $835,000 based on sales of similar lands, while the appellant argued for a value between $750,000 and $775,000 due to an allegedly incorrect site area and the property's poor condition.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's evidence regarding the site area and comparable sales, finding the appellant provided no cost to cure evidence for the property's condition.

The Board reduced the assessment to $835,000, finding it to be fair and equitable, and applied this decision to the deemed 2018 appeal.