Joanne Laws

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

MPAC had issued a supplementary assessment which was dismissed on consent.

For the main assessment, MPAC recommended a reduction to $1,637,000 based on an assessment to sale ratio analysis, while the appellant argued for a value between $1,334,000 and $1,450,000 based on comparable sales in the specific neighbourhood with water views.

The Board rejected MPAC's use of the level of assessment to determine current value, preferring the appellant's comparable sales approach.

The Board determined the current value to be $1,479,000 and found no adjustment was required for equity.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of their single-family detached home for the 2017 taxation year, which was assessed at $877,000.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value of the property to be $949,000 based on the average sale price per square foot of similar properties.

However, applying an assessment to sale ratio of 0.915 to ensure equity with similar properties in the vicinity, the Board reduced the assessment to $868,000 for both the 2017 and deemed 2018 taxation years.

The appellant appealed the property assessments for three commercial lots in downtown Kitchener for the 2013 to 2016 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board found that valuing the lots together with two other related parcels and then apportioning the value was appropriate, as it resulted in a lower assessment.

While the Board accepted the current values determined by MPAC, it found that an equity adjustment was required because the median assessment-to-sale ratio of comparable properties was below 1.00.

The Board applied a ratio of 0.94, reducing the assessments for all three properties.

The appellants appealed the 2015 property assessment of their vacant lot, arguing that its value was reduced after a tornado destroyed many mature trees on the property.

The Assessment Review Board found no evidence that the loss of trees decreased the property's market value, noting that a cleared lot might be more desirable to prospective purchasers.

The Board accepted the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation's recommended assessment of $194,000, which was supported by comparable sales and included a reduction for an abutting public walkway.

The Board also found no adjustment was necessary for equity.

The Assessment Review Board held a pre-hearing telephone conference regarding property assessment appeals for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years.

As settlement discussions had reached an impasse and the parties were not prepared for a full hearing, the Board scheduled a peremptory full hearing for September 2016.

The Board also issued a procedural order setting deadlines for the exchange of Statements of Issues and Responses, and scheduled a further pre-hearing conference for April 2016.

The Assessment Review Board held a pre-hearing telephone conference call regarding property assessment appeals.

The parties advised that settlement discussions had reached an impasse and requested an adjournment.

The Board granted the adjournment, scheduled a peremptory two-day hearing for September 2016, and issued a procedural order setting out deadlines for the exchange of statements of issues and responses, as well as property inspections.

The appellants appealed the supplementary property assessment for the 2014 taxation year and the regular assessment for the 2015 taxation year of their newly built rural residential home.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the 2014 appeal because the appellants failed to file a mandatory Request for Reconsideration within the 90-day deadline and did not request an extension during the 2014 taxation year.

For the 2015 taxation year, the Board reviewed comparable sales evidence and reduced the property's assessed current value from $482,000 to $416,000.

The Board declined to make any further reduction based on equity, finding insufficient evidence that the mass appraisal model over-assessed similar properties in the vicinity.

The applicant sought relief from paying property taxes due to sickness or extreme poverty under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act.

The applicant attended the hearing without supporting evidence despite receiving prior instructions.

The Assessment Review Board granted an adjournment to allow the applicant another opportunity to prepare and ordered the applicant to disclose documentary evidence regarding income, expenses, assets, and debts to the municipality by a specified date.

The applicant sought relief from paying property taxes due to sickness or extreme poverty under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act.

At the hearing, the applicant failed to provide sufficient supporting evidence despite receiving prior instructions.

The Assessment Review Board granted an adjournment to allow the applicant another opportunity to prepare and submit the required documentary evidence, including income, expenses, assets, and debts.

The Board ordered the applicant to disclose this evidence to the municipality by a specified date.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a 27.71-acre property in Lincoln, Ontario, for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years.

MPAC sought a higher assessment and a change in property class apportionment, arguing that the majority of the land was used for a commercial landscape business rather than farming.

The appellant argued that the land should remain in the farm tax class and that its value was diminished by a Ministry of Environment contamination order.

The Assessment Review Board found that the majority of the land defaulted to the commercial excess land class due to its actual use.

However, the Board accepted MPAC's recommendation to reduce the current value to reflect the cost of the contamination, resulting in a reduced total assessment of $789,000.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a property improved with a retail garden centre and farmed land.

MPAC sought an increased assessment and a revised apportionment between the commercial and farm tax classes based on a property inspection.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's overall valuation but adjusted the apportionment of one building to reflect its primary use for farming.

The Board increased the total assessment to $918,000, apportioned as $451,500 to the commercial tax class and $466,500 to the farm tax class.

The appellants appealed the omitted assessment of their newly built residential property for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value of the property to be $639,000 based on comparable sales.

However, the Board accepted MPAC's recommendation to apply a 5% equity reduction to the building portion, resulting in a final assessed value of $607,000 for the 2013, 2014, and deemed 2015 taxation years.

The appellant appealed the property assessments for two abutting surface parking lots in Burlington's downtown core for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed comparable sales presented by both parties, rejecting those that were dissimilar in size, located outside the downtown core, or too far from the valuation date.

The Board determined the current value of each property to be $1,042,000, reducing the assessments from $1,324,000 and $1,457,000 respectively.

The Board found no adjustment was required for equity, as the median assessment-to-sale ratio of comparable properties indicated the model was not under-assessing similar lands.