Leslie Flemming

The appellants appealed the 2018 and 2019 property tax assessment of their 9.85-acre vacant, unbuildable lot, which was assessed at $19,500.

The appellants argued the property was virtually inaccessible and unusable, proposing a value between $3,450 and $10,000 based on the assessed values of other properties.

The Assessment Review Board preferred the respondent's direct sales comparison approach, which demonstrated that similar vacant, unbuildable lots in the district sold for comparable or higher per-acre amounts.

The Board found the assessment was justified and confirmed the current value at $19,500.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their 47-acre waterfront property for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years, which was assessed at $275,000.

MPAC relied on the direct sales comparison method and applied a 20% equity reduction to arrive at the assessed value.

The appellants argued the value was too high due to the home's distance from the water, the lake's quality, and the partial collapse of a shed in 2019.

The Board found MPAC's base valuation and equity reduction were supported by comparable sales.

However, the Board reduced the 2019 assessment by $6,000 to account for the collapsed shed, resulting in a final 2019 assessment of $269,000.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a seasonal-residential home on Bigwin Island for the 2017 to 2019 taxation years.

The appellant argued the current value should be $1,800,000, while MPAC assessed it at $2,317,000.

The Board reviewed comparable sales provided by both parties and found that the size, quality, and features of the subject property supported MPAC's assessment.

The Board confirmed the current value of the property at $2,317,000 and found no equitable reduction was required.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of her waterfront home for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years, arguing the assessed value of $1,039,000 was too high.

MPAC conceded the value should be reduced to $975,000 based on a recent inspection that revealed a smaller living area than previously recorded.

The appellant sought a further reduction to $845,662, arguing her property was inferior to comparable sales due to its irregular shape and steep topography.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed six comparable sales and concluded that MPAC's revised valuation of $975,000 accurately reflected the property's current value, as it was newer and had larger garages than the inferior comparables, but was slightly inferior to the higher-valued comparables.

Following a successful property assessment appeal regarding the classification of their land as managed forests, the self-represented moving parties sought costs against the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC).

They alleged MPAC engaged in frivolous, vexatious, unreasonable, and bad faith conduct by classifying portions of the property as residential.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding no evidence of unacceptable behavior.

The Board noted that MPAC was applying proper classifications based on Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry eligibility determinations, and a mere difference of opinion on assessment does not constitute bad faith or unreasonable conduct.

The appellant appealed the property assessments for a 90-acre dual-use farm with a purpose-built canola oil manufacturing facility for the 2014 to 2019 taxation years.

MPAC used the cost approach to determine the current value, which the appellant challenged, arguing for a sales comparison approach and a significantly lower value.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC met its burden of proof and that the cost approach, checked against available market data, produced a reasonable current value.

The Board upheld MPAC's assessments and found no adjustment for equity was required.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessments for a dual-use farm with a newly built, idle canola oil manufacturing facility for the 2014 to 2019 taxation years.

MPAC used the cost approach to determine the current value, which the appellant challenged, arguing for a lower value based on a sales comparison approach.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC met its burden of proof and that the cost approach, validated by market data, produced a reasonable current value.

The Board upheld MPAC's assessments and found no adjustment for equity was required.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their waterfront home for the 2017 to 2019 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $765,000, while the appellants argued for a value of $689,000.

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 significantly lower in value and the subject property was 'overbuilt' for the area.

The Board also found the appellants' evidence insufficient to prove their proposed value.

Applying the Patry Enterprises framework, the Board reduced the assessment to the last uncontested assessed value of $687,000.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of his 63.53-acre farm and custom-built residence for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC initially assessed the property at $1,231,000, later revising its position to $1,004,000 based on the cost approach.

The appellant argued the value should be between $820,000 and $850,000, providing evidence of the actual construction costs from his builder.

The Assessment Review Board accepted the appellant's evidence of actual construction costs over MPAC's manual-based estimates, reducing the total assessed value to $800,500.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their 80-acre vacant land registered in the Managed Forest Tax Incentive Plan for the 2017 to 2019 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $33,000 for 2017 and $34,500 for 2018-2019, classifying one acre as residential due to an outbuilding.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC failed to meet its burden of proving the current value, as its comparable sales were residential lands unsuitable for comparison.

Applying the regulated rate under O. Reg. 282/98, the Board determined the current value to be $24,400 as 100% managed forest property, finding the outbuilding was used for forest operations and thus eligible land.

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

MPAC originally assessed the property at $190,000 and $183,000, but recommended a reduction to $150,000 at the hearing.

The appellant argued for a value between $100,000 and $125,000, providing comparable sales of smaller and older properties.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed the comparable sales and determined the current value to be $132,000.

The Board also found that similar properties in the vicinity were underassessed, warranting an equitable reduction under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, resulting in a final assessed value of $124,000.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a seasonal recreational dwelling on Gold Lake for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $393,000, later recommending a reduction to $378,000, while the appellant argued for a value between $260,000 and $300,000 due to the property's poor condition and lack of amenities.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed comparable sales provided by both parties, noting the subject property lacked a septic system, insulation, and modern plumbing.

The Board concluded the correct current value was $325,000 and reduced the assessment accordingly.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their single-family detached home in Marathon for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The appellants did not provide any evidence or submissions at the hearing.

MPAC presented evidence using the direct sales comparison method, recommending a current value of $137,000 for both years.

The Board accepted MPAC's evidence, reducing the 2017 assessment from $139,000 to $137,000 and confirming the 2018 assessment at $137,000.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of his 165.4-acre farmland for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $31,500 for 2017 and $47,000 for 2018, using the cost approach.

The Board found that MPAC failed to meet its statutory burden of proving the correctness of the current value, as its evidence regarding soil classification values was inconsistent and lacked a clear path from comparable sales to the subject property's value.

As the appellant also failed to provide sufficient evidence of value, the Board applied the principle from Patry and reduced the assessment to the last uncontested value of $15,600 for both years.

The appellant appealed the 2017 and 2018 property assessments for a 7.28-acre farm property.

MPAC used the cost approach for improvements and comparable sales for land value, but failed to adequately explain the connection between the comparable properties and the subject property's land value.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC did not meet its statutory burden of proving the correctness of the current value under s. 40(17) of the Assessment Act.

As neither party provided sufficient evidence to establish the current value, the Board reduced the assessment to the last uncontested assessed value of $102,000.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their hunt camp property on Wah Wash Kesh Lake for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC originally assessed the property at $503,000 for 2017 and $465,000 for 2018, but recommended a reduction to $415,000 at the hearing.

The appellants argued for a value between $320,000 and $350,000, relying on a comparable island property.

The Assessment Review Board found that the subject property's unique characteristics placed its value between the appellants' comparable and MPAC's superior comparable, determining the correct current value to be $400,000 for both taxation years.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of his 160-acre farm for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $32,000 for 2017 and $54,000 for 2018, while the appellant argued the value should be $11,000 due to poor soil quality.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC failed to meet its statutory burden of proving the correctness of the current value, as its comparable sales evidence was inconsistent and did not clearly support the assessed value.

Applying the principle from Patry, the Board reduced the assessment to the last uncontested value of $11,000 for both taxation years.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a vacant water-access residential property on McGregor Bay for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC had assessed the property at $280,000 for 2017 and $159,000 for 2018, but recommended a reduction to $118,000 at the hearing.

The appellant argued for a value of $70,000 based on distance from access points and comparable sales.

The Assessment Review Board found that a comparable island property which sold for $100,000 was the best indicator of value, and reduced the assessment to $99,000 for both taxation years.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their farm property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $804,000 for 2017 and $618,000 for 2018, arguing that the appellants' recent purchase of the property for $425,000 was a forced estate sale and not indicative of market value.

The appellants argued the purchase was an arm's length transaction on the open market and that the soil quality was poor due to shallow bedrock, making it unsuitable for cash crops.

The Assessment Review Board agreed with the appellants, finding the recent sale price to be the best indicator of value, and reduced the assessment to the time-adjusted purchase price of $456,000.

The appellant appealed the MPAC assessment of his waterfront property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years, arguing that the main residence was incomplete and therefore not assessable, and that the current value was too high.

The Assessment Review Board found that incomplete structures are assessable under the Assessment Act.

The Board accepted MPAC's base valuation of $788,000 for the property if it were 74% complete, but agreed with the parties that the structure was only 40% complete.

Applying the 40% completion rate to the base value, the Board reduced the assessment to $426,000.