Joseph Wyger

The appellant appealed the 2013 and 2014 property tax assessments for a 43-unit apartment building, arguing that the Gross Income Multiplier (GIM) applied by MPAC was higher than that applied to similar properties in a nearby neighbourhood, resulting in an inequitable assessment.

The Assessment Review Board held a re-hearing solely on the equity issue.

The Board found that the appellant failed to demonstrate inequity, as differing GIMs do not inherently prove inequity if the resulting current values are correct.

The Board accepted MPAC's assessment-to-sale ratio (ASR) study as the best evidence, which confirmed that the correct current value was equitable relative to similar lands in the vicinity.

The assessment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a five-acre parcel containing a banquet hall for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

The appellant argued that the banquet hall sat on only a half-acre and that the building cost should be based on an architect's pre-construction estimate for a shell building.

The respondent MPAC provided a valuation report using an Automated Cost System (ACS) and evidence of a 2012 sale of the full five-acre parcel.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's valuation, finding the appellant's cost estimates lacked particularity and failed to account for the high-quality finishes evident in the banquet hall.

The Board reduced the assessment to $8,433,000 in accordance with MPAC's recommendation.

The moving parties brought a motion before the Assessment Review Board seeking the production of the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation's (MPAC) Industrial Mall Capitalization Rate Study.

The Board ordered MPAC to produce the requested information, including redacted income and expense information for specific properties, subject to the execution of Undertakings of Non-Disclosure by the moving parties' legal counsel and consultants.

The Township of White River and MPAC brought a motion to cancel or quash property assessment appeals for the 2009-2012 taxation years.

The previous owner, Domtar, had appealed the 2009 assessment but later sold the property to White River Forest Products Limited (WRFP) and settled its appeals, agreeing to withdraw them.

Due to an administrative error, the withdrawal was delayed, and the Board later reinstated the appeals at WRFP's request without notice to the other parties.

The Board found that it had jurisdiction to hear the motion under Rule 3.

It held that Domtar retained the right to withdraw the appeals despite the change in ownership, as the appeals were explicitly excluded from the asset purchase agreement.

The Board concluded that reinstating the appeals would cause greater prejudice to the Township, which had forgiven substantial tax arrears based on the settlement.

The motion was granted, and the appeals were cancelled.

The parties stated a question of law to the Assessment Review Board regarding whether the market value of the rights associated with an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) should be reflected in the current value of a landfill site for property assessment purposes.

The Board held that the principle established by the Court of Appeal in Restfulcare applies to landfills, meaning that where lands have an inherent capacity for a certain use and a government approval authorizes that use, the value of the approval is a component part of the value of the land.

Consequently, the Board concluded that the market value of the rights associated with the ECA must be reflected in the current value of the landfill site.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a commercial auto dealership, arguing that the land value should be based on a land table rate of $769,000 per acre rather than the assessor's higher valuation based on comparable sales.

The Assessment Review Board found that the assessor's comparable sales of vacant commercial land, which indicated a median value of $1,091,477 per acre, provided better market evidence than the land table.

The Board also accepted the appellant's lower calculation for the replacement cost of the structures.

Combining the accepted land value and structure cost resulted in a value slightly higher than the returned assessment.

As no party requested an increase, the Board confirmed the returned assessment of $5,939,000.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their seasonal waterfront cottage on Troutspawn Lake, arguing it was over-assessed compared to neighbouring properties.

The assessor valued the property at $291,000 for 2014 and $289,000 for 2015, relying on its 'elite' log cabin aesthetic and a quality class rating of 6.

The Assessment Review Board found the quality rating was overstated given the property's small size, inferior waterfront, and structural deficiencies.

After reviewing comparable sales and conducting an equity analysis, the Board reduced the current value to $280,000 and applied an equity adjustment, resulting in a final assessment of $268,000 for both taxation years.