Leslie Flemming

The appellants appealed the 2017 and 2018 property assessments of their waterfront home, which MPAC had assessed at $410,000 and $409,000 respectively.

MPAC recommended a reduction to $377,000 based on an equity analysis, but the Board found that MPAC failed to meet its statutory burden of proving the correctness of the current value under s. 40(17) of the Assessment Act, as the comparable sales provided were not truly comparable.

Consequently, the Board reduced the assessment to the last uncontested value of $289,000 for both taxation years.

The appellants appealed the 2017 and 2018 property tax assessments of their 157-acre farm property, arguing the assessed value of $321,000 was too high due to poor soil quality and limited workable land.

MPAC defended the assessment using a cost approach and direct sales comparison, suggesting the value should actually be $446,568 but acknowledging an erroneous discount had been applied.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed comparable sales and determined the correct current value was $374,000.

However, because MPAC had not formally applied to increase the assessment, the Board confirmed the original assessed value of $321,000.

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

MPAC assessed the property at $401,000, while the appellant argued for a value of $360,000 based on a previous offer to purchase and an independent appraisal.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC's comparable sales did not adequately account for the property's complex access issues, which involved a temporary license for a private road when water levels were low.

The Board reduced the current value assessment to $360,000 for both taxation years.

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

MPAC assessed the property at $511,000, while the appellants argued for a value of $424,780 based on comparable sales and the lack of municipal services in their township.

The Assessment Review Board found that the best comparable sale supported a value of $425,000, noting that the lack of fire services and distance from the highway offset the subject property's superior features.

The appeal was allowed and the assessment was reduced to $425,000.

The appellant appealed the 2017 property assessment of a single-family home in Toronto, arguing the current value of $2,988,000 was too high.

MPAC sought to increase the value to $3,604,360 based on sales ratio trend analysis.

The Assessment Review Board found MPAC's proposed value excessive and determined the current value to be $3,200,000 based on the median per-square-foot value of comparable sales.

Applying an agreed-upon equitable reduction of 9.6% under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, the Board reduced the final assessed value to $2,892,800 for the 2017 and deemed 2018 taxation years.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a 17.46-acre island in the Ottawa River for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC initially assessed the property at $184,000, later reducing it to $93,000.

The appellant argued the value should be $3,650 because the property is landlocked, lacks waterfront ownership (the shoreline is owned by Ontario Power Generation), and is virtually inaccessible.

The Assessment Review Board found that the best evidence of value was the 1995 purchase price of the property, as landlocked properties incapable of development generally do not increase in value.

The Board reduced the assessment to $9,700 and found no equitable reduction was required.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their single-family home for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years, arguing the current value of $774,000 was too high and should be $693,000.

MPAC argued the value should be between $984,000 and $1,054,000 based on comparable sales.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value to be $1,024,000 and found an equitable reduction to $858,112 was warranted.

However, because MPAC did not give notice of an intention to seek a higher assessment, the Board confirmed the original assessment of $774,000.

The appellant appealed the MPAC assessment of his 121.09-acre vacant property enrolled in the Managed Forests Program for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $65,000 based on the regulated value for managed forests, which was lower than its estimated likely sale value of $72,000.

The appellant argued the value should be between $40,000 and $50,000 due to timber quality and a higher percentage of wetland, but provided no evidence to substantiate this valuation.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's comparable sales evidence and confirmed the current value at $65,000.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a 121.09-acre vacant parcel enrolled in the Managed Forests Program for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $65,000 based on the regulated value for managed forests, which was lower than its estimated likely sale value of $72,000.

The appellant argued the value should be between $40,000 and $50,000 due to timber quality and wetland features, but provided no evidence to substantiate this valuation.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's comparable sales and methodology, confirming the current value at $65,000 and finding no equitable reduction was required.

The appellant appealed the 2017 and 2018 property assessments of his single-family detached residence, as well as a supplementary assessment for the addition of an in-ground swimming pool.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable sales evidence provided by the appellant, the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC), and the Town of Oakville.

The Board found that the current value for 2017, prior to the pool installation, should be reduced to $1,276,000.

The Board also reduced the supplementary assessment for the pool to its actual cost of $39,000, resulting in a 2018 current value of $1,315,000.

No equitable reduction was required.

The appellant appealed the 2017 property assessment of his single-family home in Mississauga, arguing the current value of $1,209,000 was too high compared to the average increase in his neighbourhood.

MPAC provided comparable sales evidence supporting the $1,209,000 valuation but recommended an equitable reduction to $1,184,000 based on an analysis of similar properties in the vicinity.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's evidence, finding the current value to be $1,209,000 and applying the equitable reduction to set the final assessment at $1,184,000.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of her home for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years, arguing the current value should be reduced to $400,000-$500,000 due to severe disrepair and a raccoon infestation.

MPAC assessed the property at $779,000, having already applied a 20% functional obsolescence deduction to account for the poor condition.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC's valuation was reasonable and supported by comparable sales, noting that the appellant provided no evidence to quantify the cost to cure the deficiencies.

The assessment was confirmed.

The appellants appealed the MPAC property assessment of their seasonal recreational home on Oliver Lake for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $246,000 for 2017 and $221,000 for 2018, while the appellants argued the correct value was $190,000 due to its smaller lot size and limited waterfront compared to similar properties.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC's comparable sales did not adequately account for the subject property's smaller waterfront and site area.

The Board averaged the time-adjusted sale values of the two most comparable properties and reduced the assessment to $192,000 for both taxation years.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of an 18-acre vacant parcel classified as Managed Forests for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the value at $100,000.

The appellant argued the value should be $82,500 based on the regulated rate.

The Board applied O. Reg. 282/98, determining the likely sales value was $446,000, and 31% of that value ($138,260) was greater than the regulated rate ($82,500).

Therefore, the current value under the regulation was $138,260.

However, since MPAC did not request an increase, the Board confirmed the returned assessment of $100,000.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their single-family residential property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the current value at $1,156,000, while the appellants argued for $1,050,000, citing lack of sunlight and poor feng shui.

The Assessment Review Board found MPAC's valuation of $1,156,000 to be correct based on the direct comparison approach.

However, based on MPAC's equity analysis showing similar properties in the vicinity were assessed lower than their current values, the Board granted an equitable reduction, setting the final assessment at $1,077,000.

The appellant appealed the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation's (MPAC) current value assessment of his rural residential property for the 2016 taxation year.

MPAC initially assessed the property at $404,000 but recommended a reduction to $359,000 at the hearing.

The appellant argued for a further reduction to $316,500, citing the negative impact of dust and traffic from an adjacent operational gravel pit.

The Assessment Review Board found that while the subject property was of superior construction and size compared to nearby sales, its proximity to the gravel pit negatively impacted its value.

The Board reduced the assessment to $339,000.

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

MPAC initially assessed the property at $725,000 but revised its position to $690,000 during the hearing to account for a failing swimming pool.

The appellant argued for a value of $680,000 based on older sales data.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed comparable sales provided by MPAC, the Town of Oakville, and the appellant, finding that a base value of $750,000 was supported by the most similar properties.

After applying a $35,000 reduction for the cost to cure the deteriorating swimming pool, the Board determined the correct current value to be $715,000 and reduced the assessment accordingly.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their residential duplex for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years, arguing the assessed value of $1,311,000 was too high.

The respondent assessment corporation defended the valuation using the direct sales comparison method, providing eleven comparable properties.

The Board found the respondent's comparable properties instructive and determined the median value of the five most suitable comparables was $1,329,000.

As no application was made to increase the assessment, the Board confirmed the returned assessment of $1,311,000 and found no equitable reduction was required.

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

MPAC assessed the current value at $376,000, while the appellants argued for a value between $340,000 and $355,000.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC's direct sales comparison evidence supported the assessed value, noting the subject property's larger lot and building area compared to similar homes in the neighbourhood.

The Board confirmed the assessed value of $376,000 and found no equitable reduction was required.

The appellants appealed the MPAC property assessment of their seasonal, water-access island cottage on Lake Temagami for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the current value at $316,000, while the appellants argued for a value of $235,000 due to the property's basic construction, lack of hydro, and distance from the access point.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed comparable sales provided by both parties.

The Board concluded that the property's correct current value was $300,000, reducing the assessment accordingly.