Joseph Jebreen

The applicant property owner applied to the City of Brampton for a vacancy tax rebate under section 364 of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The City granted a partial rebate but denied the rebate for the period from July 1, 2016, to September 15, 2016, because the property was leased during that time.

The applicant filed a complaint to the Assessment Review Board, arguing that the property was vacant during the leased period because it was undergoing renovations and the tenant was granted a rent-free period.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that under clause 1(5)(b) of O. Reg. 325/01, a property is not eligible for the vacancy rebate if a tenant is in possession of the leasehold interest, regardless of whether the tenant is paying rent or fully occupying the space.

The appellant appealed the property assessments for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

MPAC proposed a current value of $36,500 for 2017 and 2018, and $38,500 for 2019, relying on the direct comparison approach.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC failed to meet its statutory burden to prove the correctness of the current value, as its comparable sales were not truly comparable and its computer model adjustments were unsupported by evidence.

Because the appellant also failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove a particular current value, the Board reduced the assessments to the last uncontested assessed value of $19,800.

The appellants appealed the property tax assessments of their newly built semi-detached infill properties for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC failed to meet its burden of proving the correctness of its proposed current values, as it relied on a computer model rather than a proper direct comparison approach.

The Board accepted the appellants' evidence of their purchase prices from the builder as the best evidence of current value, setting it at $925,000 for both properties.

Furthermore, the Board found that similar properties in the vicinity were assessed at an average of 85% of their current values.

To ensure equity, the Board applied this ratio and reduced the assessments of both properties to $786,000.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of his residential property for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

MPAC returned an assessment of $495,000 but proposed a current value of $492,000 based on the direct comparison approach.

The appellant argued the value should be approximately $445,000, based on his purchase price of the property in 2014.

The Assessment Review Board found that while MPAC met its initial burden of proof, the correct current value was $472,000, representing the midpoint between the appellant's purchase price and MPAC's most comparable sale.

No equitable adjustment was warranted.

The appellant appealed the property assessment for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

The property included 202 acres, of which approximately 75% was designated as provincially significant wetlands or buffer zones.

MPAC proposed a current value of $306,000 using the direct comparison approach, but the Board found the selected properties were not comparable due to differences in lot size, distance, and the absence of wetlands.

As MPAC failed to meet its burden of proving the correctness of the current value, and the appellant's evidence was insufficient to prove a specific value, the Board reduced the assessment to the last uncontested assessed value of $282,000.

The appellants brought a motion to extend the time to file a request for reconsideration for property assessments, while MPAC brought a motion to dismiss several appeals created by the Board's administrative staff.

The Board dismissed the appellants' motion as moot because the extension had already been granted.

The Board granted MPAC's motion to dismiss the appeals for the 2016 and 2017 land assessments because the appellants failed to file the mandatory requests for reconsideration.

The Board also dismissed the appeals for the 2015-2017 structure assessments because the parties had signed minutes of settlement, which the Board has no jurisdiction to set aside.

The Board noted that its administrative staff erred in deeming appeals for prior taxation years without notice to MPAC.

The appellants appealed the 2018 and 2019 property assessments of their residential property, which MPAC had assessed at $819,000.

MPAC proposed a revised current value of $761,000 based on a median assessment-to-sales ratio adjustment, which the Board rejected as an invalid valuation methodology.

The appellants submitted an appraisal report suggesting a value of $740,000, but the Board gave it limited weight due to missing justifications and the appraiser's absence.

Relying on the 2014 purchase price of the subject property plus the cost of subsequent renovations, as well as comparable sales, the Board determined the current value to be $745,000 and reduced the assessment accordingly.

No equitable reduction was granted.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their waterfront property for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

They argued that issue estoppel should prevent MPAC from seeking a higher assessment based on a previous Board decision and a previous unappealed assessment.

The Board rejected the issue estoppel argument, finding that the valuation dates were different and MPAC assessments are not judicial decisions.

On the issue of current value, the Board rejected the appellants' cost approach and their reliance on the assessment of a neighbouring property.

Using the direct comparison approach, the Board analyzed the comparable sales provided by both parties, noting the property's private road access as a significant factor.

The Board determined the current value of the property to be $344,000, reducing the assessments from $427,000 and $445,000.

The appellants appealed the 2018 property assessment of their 100-acre property, which included a hunt cabin and significant swamp area.

MPAC assessed the property at $138,000, while the appellants argued for a value between $94,500 and $132,000.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC failed to discharge its statutory burden to prove the correctness of the current value, as its comparable sales were not truly comparable due to differences in access, utilities, and distance.

As the appellants also failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove a specific current value, the Board reduced the assessment to the last uncontested assessed value of $102,000.

The appellants appealed the assessment of their property, arguing it should be classified entirely in the farm property class rather than partly residential.

The Assessment Review Board found that subsection 19(5) of the Assessment Act applied to the entire 35.28 acres, including the non-farmable land and the residence, as the property was leased to a bona fide farmer and used for farm purposes.

The Board also found that MPAC failed to meet its burden of proving its proposed current value of $423,000.

Relying on the appellants' 2013 purchase price, the Board determined the current value to be $400,000 and reduced the assessment accordingly.

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

MPAC had assessed the property at $387,000 but recommended a value of $351,000 at the hearing based on the direct comparison approach.

The appellant argued for a value of $260,740 using various alternative methods and raised numerous allegations of human rights violations and deceptive practices by MPAC.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the appellant's valuation methods and allegations, but found that based on the comparable sales evidence, the correct current value was $335,000.

The Board found no evidence to support a further reduction for equity purposes.

The appellant appealed the 2017 and 2018 property assessments of his single-family home in Ottawa.

MPAC returned an assessment of $484,000 but argued for a current value of $477,000 based on the direct comparison approach.

The appellant argued for a value between $440,000 and $450,000, primarily seeking an equitable reduction because similar properties in his neighbourhood were assessed lower.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value to be $472,000.

The Board further found that an equitable adjustment to 93% of the current value was warranted for the 2017 taxation year, reducing the assessment to $439,000.

No equitable adjustment was warranted for the 2018 taxation year, resulting in an assessment of $472,000.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of his residential property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC returned an assessment of $252,000 but submitted the correct current value was $237,000 based on the direct comparison approach.

The appellant argued for a value of $200,000, citing increased traffic patterns.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC met its burden of proving its suggested current value, but after analyzing the comparable sales, determined the correct current value was $219,000.

The Board found no equitable adjustment was warranted under section 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act.

The assessment was reduced to $219,000.

The appellant appealed the 2017 and 2018 property assessments for her single-family detached dwelling in Toronto.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC met its burden of proving its proposed current value, but rejected MPAC's time adjustment study.

The Board determined the current value to be $1,134,000 based on the mean of six comparable sales.

Applying the test for similar lands in the vicinity, the Board found that an equitable adjustment to 89% of the current value was warranted, reducing the 2017 assessment to $1,009,000.

The 2018 returned assessment of $999,000 was confirmed as MPAC did not seek an increase.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their seasonal waterfront property, arguing the current value should be $110,900 rather than MPAC's assessed value of $143,000.

The Board reviewed comparable sales provided by both parties, noting the subject property's lack of electricity and limited seasonal access.

The Board found MPAC's primary comparable sale to be superior due to its year-round access and electricity.

After analyzing the most comparable sales, the Board determined the current value to be $110,000.

The Board also found that no equitable adjustment was required under section 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act.

The Appellants appealed the property assessment of their home for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

MPAC proposed a current value of $310,000 based on the direct comparison approach, while the Appellants argued for a value of $212,000.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC failed to discharge its statutory burden under s. 40(17) of the Assessment Act to prove the correctness of its proposed value, as its comparable sales did not logically support the proposed amount.

The Board also found the Appellants' evidence insufficient to establish a specific current value.

Following established framework, the Board reduced the assessment to the last uncontested value of $169,000.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their home, which MPAC had assessed at $263,000 for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC failed to meet its statutory burden under s. 40(17) of the Assessment Act to prove the correctness of the current value, as it could not explain how it arrived at its proposed value using the direct comparison approach.

The Board also found the appellants' evidence insufficient to establish a new current value.

Following established framework, the Board reduced the assessment to the last uncontested value of $137,000.

The moving party, a property owner appealing her property assessment, brought a motion for an order to summons the written testimony of the original MPAC assessor who had carriage of her file before going on maternity leave.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that a summons to witness is not available in written hearings under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Board also declined to exercise its discretion to order a written examination of the original assessor, finding the request disproportionate because a replacement assessor had already answered the moving party's questions and there was insufficient evidence that the original assessor's answers would be different.

The appellants appealed the MPAC assessment of their residential property, arguing the current value should be $148,000 rather than MPAC's assessed value of $158,000.

The Board found that MPAC met its initial burden of proving its proposed value using the direct comparison approach.

The Board admitted the appellants' appraisal report despite the appraiser's absence, but gave it no weight because the appraiser could not be cross-examined and the report lacked explanations for its adjustments.

After conducting its own qualitative analysis of the comparable sales provided by both parties, the Board determined the current value to be $157,000.

The Board also rejected MPAC's time adjustment factors due to methodological flaws.

The assessment was reduced to $157,000.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of his seasonal island property on Lake Rosseau for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the current value at $681,000, while the appellant argued for a value of $450,000.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable sales data and determined that the correct current value as of January 1, 2016, was $520,000.

The Board also conducted an equity analysis and concluded that no equitable adjustment was warranted.

The assessment was reduced accordingly.