Jennifer Griffith

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a residential dwelling located near Lake Ontario for the 2017 taxation year.

MPAC originally assessed the property at $2,067,000 but recommended a reduction to $1,779,000 during the hearing to account for the lack of a parking space.

The appellant argued for a value of $950,000 based on the assessed values of vacant land and other properties on the street, but provided no sales evidence.

The Board accepted MPAC's sales evidence and recommended value, reducing the assessment to $1,779,000 for the 2017 and deemed 2018 taxation years.

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

MPAC initially assessed the property at $482,000, reduced it to $466,000 upon reconsideration, and further recommended $443,000 at the hearing after discovering the property lacked a garage.

The Board accepted MPAC's comparable sales evidence and rejected the appellant's argument that the assessment increase was disproportionate to neighbouring properties.

The Board reduced the assessment to $443,000.

The appellants appealed the returned assessment of $2,007,000 for their residential property for the 2017 and deemed 2018 taxation years.

They argued the value attributed to the outdoor pool was too high, the property had fewer bathrooms than assessed, and the building area was incorrectly measured.

MPAC presented sales evidence supporting a higher current value of $2,479,000 and defended its use of external measurements.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's external measurement methodology and sales evidence, finding the current value to be $2,479,000.

As MPAC did not seek an increase, the Board confirmed the returned assessment of $2,007,000.

The appellants appealed the 2017 property assessment of their residential property, arguing that the returned value of $945,000 was too high because it failed to account for the negative impact of nearby train tracks.

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

The Board found that the appellants' comparable sales on the same street supported a current value of $965,000, and that no adjustment for the train tracks was warranted as the property was not sufficiently proximate.

As the determined current value was higher than the returned assessment and MPAC did not seek an increase, the Board confirmed the returned assessment of $945,000.

The Board also found the assessment to be equitable based on MPAC's equity analysis.

The appellant appealed the 2017 property assessment of her water-access island property in Georgian Bay, which MPAC had assessed at $593,000.

The appellant argued the value should be lower due to its legal non-conforming status and building restrictions.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed comparable sales and determined the current value to be $576,000.

The Board declined to make a further equitable reduction, finding that MPAC's assessment-to-sale ratio study demonstrated that similar properties in the vicinity were assessed equitably.

The assessment was reduced to $576,000 for the 2017 and deemed 2018 taxation years.

The appellants appealed the 2017 property assessment of their single-family detached home in Toronto, arguing the returned value of $945,000 was too high due to the nuisance of nearby train tracks.

MPAC presented sales data supporting a higher value, while the appellants presented comparable sales on the same street.

The Assessment Review Board found the appellants' comparable sales supported a current value of $965,000 and rejected the train track nuisance argument for lack of quantifiable evidence.

As MPAC did not seek an increase, the Board confirmed the returned assessment of $945,000 and found it to be fair and equitable.

The appellant appealed the returned assessment of $2,807,000 for a commercial property for the 2016 taxation year.

The appellant argued for a reduction based on an Assessment to Sales Ratio (ASR) analysis, while MPAC supported the returned assessment using a sales analysis of similar properties.

The Assessment Review Board found MPAC's evidence of current value and equity to be the best evidence, determining a current value of $6,358,000 and an equity-adjusted value of $5,786,000.

Since the adjusted value was significantly higher than the returned assessment and the appeal did not seek an increase, the Board confirmed the returned assessment of $2,807,000.

The Assessed Person appealed the returned assessment of $1,923,000 for an industrial warehouse property for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years.

The Board reviewed sales evidence presented by both parties to determine the current value as of January 1, 2012.

The Board found the respondent's sales evidence most compelling and determined the current value to be $1,793,000.

The Board further found that an equity adjustment was not required, as the assessment-to-sales ratio fell within acceptable standards.

The assessment was reduced to $1,793,000.

The appellant appealed the property assessments of $598,000 for 2014 and $564,000 for 2015 for an indirect waterfront property.

The Board determined the current value to be $631,000 based on comparable sales, and applied an equity adjustment reducing the value to $571,000.

The Board ultimately accepted MPAC's recommended value of $564,000, reducing the 2014 assessment and confirming the 2015 assessment.

The appellant appealed the 2015 property assessment of a custom-built home in the Bridle Path area, assessed at $10,839,000.

The appellant argued for a reduced value of $10,130,000 based on a revised equity study.

The Assessment Review Board found that the returned assessment fell within the range of open market sales prices for comparable properties and was therefore at current value.

The Board also rejected the appellant's equity argument, finding that the median assessment to sales ratio of comparable properties in the vicinity fell within acceptable standards.

The assessment was confirmed.

The Town of Caledon appealed the 2015 returned assessment of $419,000 for a property located at 12532 Highway 50.

All parties agreed that the returned assessment was incorrect and that the tax class should be changed from Residential to Commercial Vacant Land.

The Assessment Review Board evaluated competing time-adjustment factors and comparable sales to determine the current value.

The Board concluded the current value was $1,299,000 as of the January 1, 2012 valuation date, and found no equity adjustment was warranted.

The appellants appealed the property assessments for two properties zoned agricultural but assessed with commercial and residential apportionments.

The appellants argued the properties should be assessed as farm lands used for farm purposes.

The Assessment Review Board found insufficient evidence of farming use, noting a previous minor variance for a golf driving range.

However, based on the respondent's vacant land sales evidence, the Board reduced the total assessments for both properties.

No equity adjustment was granted.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of $10,450,000 for a luxury residential property in Toronto for the 2015 taxation year.

The appellant argued the assessment failed to account for unfinished areas and relied on an unclosed Agreement of Purchase and Sale to suggest a value of $7,280,000.

MPAC defended the assessment based on comparable sales and a prior settlement.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the appellant's proposed value, finding the unclosed sale unreliable and the unfinished areas unquantified.

The Board confirmed the current value at $10,450,000 and found no equity adjustment was required.

The appellant appealed the 2015 property assessment of a 53-unit multi-residential building in Toronto, arguing the returned assessment of $4,678,000 was too high.

The appellant contended the property should be assessed using a lower Gross Income Multiplier (GIM) of 8.0 based on similar properties.

MPAC defended the assessment using a GIM of 8.79.

The Assessment Review Board found the best evidence supported a GIM of 8.92, yielding a current value of $4,745,000.

As there was no appeal to increase the assessment, the Board confirmed the returned assessment of $4,678,000 and found no equity adjustment was warranted.

The appellants appealed the property assessments for two properties in Toronto, arguing they should be assessed as farm lands based on their agricultural zoning.

MPAC argued the properties were not used for farm purposes and presented sales of vacant industrial land to support the land value.

The Assessment Review Board found insufficient evidence that the properties were used for farm purposes during the relevant taxation years.

However, based on MPAC's sales evidence, the Board reduced the assessments for both properties to reflect their current value as of the valuation date.

No equity adjustment was found to be required.

The appellants appealed the returned property assessment of $2,317,000 for a commercial property in Toronto for the 2014 and 2015 taxation years.

MPAC revised its assessment to $2,267,000 after discovering a smaller finished basement area during an inspection.

The appellants argued for a lower value based on the property's condition, drainage issues, and income analysis.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the appellants' income analysis and drainage arguments due to lack of factual evidence, but applied an assessment-to-sales ratio from comparable properties to MPAC's revised value.

The Board determined the current value to be $1,938,000 and found no equity adjustment was required.

The appellant appealed the property assessments for an auto dealership in Whitby for the 2013, 2014, and deemed 2015 taxation years.

The appellant argued the assessment was too high due to functional obsolescence, narrow frontage, an unprofitable café, and excessive building height.

MPAC relied on the Cost Approach to determine a value of $9,933,000.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's valuation, finding no evidence to support the appellant's claims of functional obsolescence or negative impact from the building's height and layout.

The Board confirmed the assessment at $9,933,000 and found no equity adjustment was required.