Joanne Laws

The appellant appealed the supplementary assessment of a newly built residence on a lot partially abutting a golf course.

MPAC assessed the property at $402,000, while the appellant argued for a value of $305,000.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed comparable sales using the bracketing method and determined the current value to be $298,000.

The Board declined to make an equity reduction, finding that MPAC's equity study demonstrated properties in the vicinity were assessed near their current values.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their condominium unit for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years, arguing the current value should be based on their 2014 purchase price from the builder.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the builder sale as the best evidence of current value, preferring the respondent's evidence of six comparable resales within the same building.

The Board confirmed the returned assessment of $306,000 and found no equity reduction was required.

The appellant appealed omitted assessments for a newly constructed residential property in Richmond Hill.

MPAC assessed the property at $1,311,000 for the 2021 taxation year, while the appellant argued for a value of $1,200,000.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed comparable sales and determined the current value was actually $1,430,000.

However, because MPAC only sought confirmation of the assessed values and did not seek an increase, the Board confirmed the original assessed values.

The Board also found no equitable reduction was necessary.

The appellant appealed the property assessment for a mixed-use property for the 2017-2021 taxation years.

The Board first determined the current value of the property to be $286,000 using the cost approach.

The Board then considered whether an equitable reduction was warranted due to severe storm water flooding and water damage that negatively impacted the property compared to similar lands in the vicinity.

Finding that the property was inferior to comparable properties due to these issues, the Board granted an equitable reduction, lowering the assessed value to $127,000.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of two townhouse complexes, arguing they should be classified as 'new multi-residential' rather than 'multi-residential' under O. Reg. 282/98.

The properties underwent extensive renovations between 2012 and 2014 while vacant.

The Assessment Review Board found that the renovations did not meet the statutory requirement of being 'built' or 'converted from a non-residential use' pursuant to a building permit.

The Board held that the correct property class for the 2016 taxation year remained multi-residential.

The appellant company sought property tax relief for a hotel undergoing major renovations and rebranding in 2016 and 2017.

For 2016, the Board found it had no jurisdiction to consider a s. 357 appeal as none was filed, but granted a vacant unit rebate under s. 364 for the entire property from May to December, calculating the rebate based on the assessed value rather than a notional value.

For 2017, the Board found the property ineligible for relief under s. 357(1)(d)(ii) because the demolition occurred prior to 2017, and ineligible under s. 357(1)(g) due to the statutory exception for vacant unit rebate eligible properties.

The Board also found it lacked jurisdiction to grant a s. 364 rebate for 2017 as no such application was made.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessments for a large-format retail store for the 2017 to 2021 taxation years.

The central issue was the highest and best use (HABU) of the properties.

The respondent assessment corporation argued the HABU was high-rise mixed-use development, while the appellant argued it was the current use.

The Assessment Review Board found that the respondent failed to prove that a rezoning for high-rise development was reasonably probable within a reasonable timeframe, or that such development was financially feasible.

Consequently, the Board accepted the appellant's HABU of current use and adopted the appellant's cost approach valuation, reducing the assessments to a total of approximately $10.75 million.

The applicant requested the reinstatement of a property assessment application that was dismissed after he failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

The applicant provided affidavit evidence that he was too ill to attend the hearing or seek medical assistance due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Assessment Review Board found that the applicant met the threshold requirements for reinstatement and that his failure to attend was through no fault of his own due to illness.

Concluding that the balance of prejudice favoured the applicant, the Board granted the request and reinstated the application.

The moving party sought permission to file a late appeal of its 2020 property assessment.

The moving party provided affidavit evidence that it did not receive the November 2019 Property Assessment Notice and only became aware of the increased assessment in February 2021.

The Board found that the moving party met the requirements of Rule 26(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, as it was entitled to receive notice, did not receive it, and filed the request for a late appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment.

The motion for a late appeal was granted.

The Moving Party sought permission to file a late appeal of its 2020 property assessment, claiming it did not receive the assessment notices.

While the Board accepted that the notices were not received, the Moving Party failed to provide affidavit evidence establishing when it first became aware of the assessment, which is required under Rule 26(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The motion for a late appeal was denied.

The appellants appealed the property tax assessment of their condominium unit for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years, arguing the current value should reflect their purchase price of $404,048 rather than the assessed value of $528,000.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the appellants' reliance on minutes of settlement with the Canada Revenue Agency and found that the builder sale price did not reflect current value due to included incentives and a significant time lapse before closing.

Relying on comparable resale properties provided by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, the Board determined the correct current value was $564,000.

However, as no party sought an increase, the Board confirmed the returned assessment of $528,000 and found no equity reduction was warranted.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a vacant residential property, arguing the current value should reflect his $3,000 purchase price from a municipal tax sale.

The Assessment Review Board found the tax sale did not reflect current value as it was encumbered and motivated by recouping losses.

However, the Board found the property was inferior to the respondent's comparable sales due to its poor condition and 10-year vacancy.

The Board reduced the assessed value from $30,500 to $24,000.

The appellant appealed the 2020 and 2021 property assessments for a seasonal waterfront property on Leonard Lake.

MPAC recommended reducing the 2020 assessment from $1,091,000 to $1,082,000, which was the returned value for 2021.

The appellant argued the value should be between $500,000 and $860,000.

The Board admitted opinion evidence from MPAC's non-expert witness and applied the bracketing technique to evaluate comparable sales.

Finding that the subject property was superior to several comparables, the Board concluded its current value was not less than $1,218,000.

However, since no party requested a higher assessment, the Board accepted MPAC's recommended value of $1,082,000 and found no equitable reduction was warranted.

The appellant brought a motion to file a late property assessment appeal for the 2020 taxation year.

The appellant filed an affidavit stating the appeal was mailed before the deadline, but it was received late, potentially due to COVID-19 mail delays.

The Assessment Review Board accepted the uncontradicted affidavit evidence that the appeal was mailed on time.

The motion was granted and the appeal was deemed validly filed.

The moving party brought a motion to file a late appeal of a property assessment for the 2020 taxation year.

The Board found that while a request for reconsideration was not a prerequisite for this property class, the moving party failed to meet the requirements of Rule 26(b) for a late appeal.

Specifically, the moving party acknowledged filing the motion more than 30 days after becoming aware of the assessment notice.

The motion for a late appeal was denied.

The appellants appealed the 2019, 2020, and 2021 property assessments of their row house.

The respondent assessing corporation brought a motion to dismiss the appeals on the basis of issue estoppel, arguing that the issues of current value and equitable value for the same assessment cycle (January 1, 2016 valuation date) had already been decided by the Board in a 2018 decision.

The appellants brought a cross-motion to dismiss the respondent's motion because notice of the issue estoppel argument was provided late under the Board's Rules.

The Board dismissed the appellants' motion, finding no prejudice as they had adequate opportunity to respond.

The Board granted the respondent's motion, applying the three-part test for issue estoppel, and dismissed the appeals, confirming the property's current value at $483,000.

The property owner brought a motion for permission to file a late appeal of her property assessment for the 2020 taxation year.

She purchased the vacant lot in September 2020 and sought to change its classification from commercial to residential.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding that the owner failed to meet the mandatory requirements of Rule 26 of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, as she did not prove the appeal was sent within the statutory timeframe, nor did she file the request within 30 days of becoming aware of the classification.

The appellants appealed the property tax assessment of their newly built residential townhouse for the 2018 to 2021 taxation years, including an omitted assessment.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value of the property to be $314,000 based on comparable sales.

However, applying an equity analysis to similar lands in the vicinity, the Board reduced the assessed value to $295,000.

The omitted assessment for 2018 was correspondingly reduced from $214,000 to $195,000.

The moving party brought a motion to file a late appeal of its property assessment for the 2020 taxation year.

The Assessment Review Board determined that while a request for reconsideration was not a prerequisite for this appeal, the moving party failed to meet the requirements for a late appeal under Rule 26(b).

Specifically, the moving party did not file the appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment notice.

The motion was denied.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a residential property in Aurora for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years, arguing the assessment was too high due to the property's location near a busy street and transit station.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation presented comparable sales supporting a higher current value.

The Assessment Review Board found the current value to be $540,000, but confirmed the returned assessment of $516,000 because no notice to seek a higher assessment was filed.

The Board also found no equitable adjustment was required.