Leslie Flemming

The appellant appealed the property assessment of his seasonal recreational dwelling for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years, arguing the assessed value of $255,000 was too high.

MPAC presented evidence using the direct sales comparison method, suggesting a current value of $325,000.

The Assessment Review Board found MPAC's comparable properties were generally superior to the subject property.

By calculating the average square foot value of the most comparable structures, the Board determined the correct current value was $307,000.

Because no party applied to increase the assessment, the Board confirmed the assessment at $255,000.

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

MPAC assessed the current value at $248,000 but recommended an equitable reduction to $216,000 based on an equity analysis of similar properties in the vicinity.

The appellants argued for a value of $206,000.

The Assessment Review Board found that the current value was $248,000, supported by comparable sales, but applied the equitable reduction under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, reducing the assessed value to $216,000.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their single-family detached residence, seeking a reduction in value from $1,969,000 to $1,562,000 based on the sale price of a neighbouring property.

The Assessment Review Board found that relying on a single sale was insufficient to establish market value and preferred the median value per square foot of three comparable properties on the same street.

The Board determined the correct current value was $2,036,430, but since no notice was served to increase the value, the original assessment of $1,969,000 was confirmed.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their condominium unit in Thunder Bay for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the current value at $929,000, while the appellants argued it should be $696,750.

The Assessment Review Board found that the direct comparison approach was appropriate but rejected MPAC's reliance on two resale properties that were inferior to the subject property.

Instead, the Board relied on four builder sales of comparable penthouse units, calculating a median time-adjusted sales amount of $402.50 per square foot.

Applying this to the subject property's 2,250 square feet, the Board determined the correct current value to be $905,625 and reduced the assessment accordingly.

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

MPAC assessed the current value at $316,000, while the appellants argued for $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 and determined that the subject property's current value was $300,000, reducing the assessment accordingly.

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

The property featured a unique design with a very small living area and a disproportionately large, high-quality attached garage.

The Assessment Review Board found that the unique characteristics made finding comparable properties difficult.

By calculating an average price per square foot for the living area based on comparable sales and adding a separate valuation for the high-quality garage space, the Board determined the current value was lower than assessed.

The appeal was allowed and the assessment was reduced to $220,000.

The appellants appealed the property tax assessment of their single-family detached home for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years, arguing the assessed value of $778,000 was too high.

MPAC had already reduced the initial assessment to $768,000 due to the basement's square footage detracting from value.

The Board reviewed comparable sales and the appellants' evidence regarding the basement's low ceiling and bulkhead.

The Board found that the current value of $768,000 was supportable and lower than the average time-adjusted value of comparable properties.

The assessment was reduced to $768,000 for both taxation years.

The appellant appealed the MPAC assessment of her seasonal, water-access-only property for the 2016 taxation year.

MPAC assessed the property at $187,000 using a direct sales comparison approach.

The appellant argued the value should be between $100,000 and $125,000, relying on an appraisal report and evidence of the property's poor condition and lack of services (hydro and septic).

The Assessment Review Board preferred the appellant's appraisal evidence, noting it included an interior inspection and better accounted for the property's condition and lack of services.

The Board reduced the assessed value to $125,000.

The appellant appealed the MPAC assessment of their residential property at $1,000,000 for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The appellant argued the current value should be $831,000 based on comparable sales, while MPAC maintained its assessment was correct.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed the comparable sales evidence provided by both parties.

Finding all nine comparable sales suitable, the Board calculated the mean of the adjusted sale prices to determine a current value of $944,000.

The assessment was reduced accordingly.

The appellant appealed the 2017 property assessment of a residential condominium unit, which MPAC assessed at $155,000.

MPAC relied on the comparable sales method, presenting six sales of similar units in a neighbouring complex.

The appellant argued the value should be $143,000, citing the unrepaired collapse of a nearby gabion wall and potential flood risks, but provided no comparable sales evidence.

The Assessment Review Board found MPAC's comparable sales lacked sufficient detail to justify the $155,000 assessment, as all six time-adjusted sales were lower than the subject property's assessed value.

The Board averaged the six comparable sales provided by MPAC and reduced the current value of the subject property to $145,000 for the 2017 and deemed 2018 taxation years.

The appellant appealed the 2017 property assessment of a 68-acre seasonal/recreational property, arguing the assessed value of $105,000 was too high.

The property featured a small hunt camp with no plumbing or electricity and poor seasonal access.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable sales provided by MPAC and the appellant's evidence regarding the property's limitations.

The Board rejected the appellant's average per-acre calculation but applied the per-acre value of the most comparable property, resulting in a reduced current value of $80,000.

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

The property suffered from major structural issues due to a deteriorating foundation.

MPAC initially assessed the property at $105,000 and $102,000, but after inspecting the property and considering previous repair estimates, recommended applying a $60,000 'cost to cure' reduction.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's recommendation and reduced the current value of the property to $73,000.

MPAC brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's property assessment appeals due to her failure to comply with the Board's Schedule of Events, specifically failing to provide disclosure and participate in a mandatory settlement meeting.

The appellant, a practicing lawyer, argued she did not receive the notices because she had vacated the subject property and did not receive couriered documents.

The Board found that the appellant had a duty to keep her address current, especially as a member of the Law Society.

However, the Board concluded that failing to participate in a settlement meeting was not, in itself, sufficient grounds to dismiss the appeals.

The motion was denied, but the appellant was precluded from adducing documents or raising new issues at the hearing due to her failure to provide disclosure.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's property assessment appeals due to her failure to comply with procedural steps, including exchanging disclosure and attending a mandatory settlement meeting.

The appellant, a practicing lawyer, argued she did not receive the notices because she had vacated the subject property and did not receive forwarded mail.

The Assessment Review Board found that while the appellant had a duty to keep her address current, her failure to participate in the settlement meeting alone was not sufficient grounds to dismiss the appeals.

The motion was denied, but the appellant was precluded from adducing documents or raising new issues at the hearing.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of a single-family detached residential property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The parties agreed on the current value of $3,718,000 but disputed the appropriate equitable reduction under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act.

The Assessment Review Board preferred MPAC's methodology of using time-adjusted sales to calculate the assessment to sale ratio (ASR) over the appellant's approach of limiting the sales value range without time adjustments.

The Board applied a median ASR of 0.89 derived from 48 comparable sales, reducing the assessed value to $3,309,000.

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

The property was uninhabitable, gutted, and lacked municipal services.

MPAC assessed the property at $162,000, applying a 90% negative adjustment to the structure, but failed to adequately explain the valuation or provide comparable uninhabitable properties.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC failed to meet its statutory burden of proof under s. 40(17) of the Assessment Act.

Accepting the appellant's evidence and experience, the Board reduced the current value assessment to $115,000 and found no equity adjustment was required.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their seasonal recreational home in the Township of Tiny for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $2,100,000, while the appellants argued for a value of $1,555,639.

Both parties presented comparable sales evidence.

The Assessment Review Board preferred MPAC's evidence, finding its comparable properties more consistent with the subject property in overall value, quality, and size.

The Board confirmed the assessment at $2,100,000 and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants brought a motion for the disclosure of various documents from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) relating to the application of economic obsolescence and market adjustment factors for large distribution centres.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding that while the requested documents might have some relevance, the probative value was unclear and the extensive volume of documents required to be produced would be disproportionate to the importance and complexity of the issues in the proceeding.

The appellant appealed the 2016 property assessment of his rural residential property, which was assessed at $244,000.

The appellant argued the assessment was too high due to nuisance factors including a nearby quarry, road changes, a police firing range, and unsightly hydro lines.

The Assessment Review Board found that the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation met its burden of proof by providing comparable sales that supported the assessed value.

As the appellant provided no evidence to quantify the impact of the nuisance factors on the property's value, the Board confirmed the assessment at $244,000.

The applicants brought a motion for a declaration that there were palpable errors in the assessment roll regarding the lot size of their property for the taxation years 2003 to 2013, and sought an extension of time to bring late appeals under s. 40.1 of the Assessment Act.

MPAC had incorrectly recorded the lot size as 7,405.2 sq. ft. larger than its actual size due to a 1963 calculation error.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the error was not 'palpable' because it was not plain and obvious, having gone unnoticed by the owners and MPAC for decades.

Consequently, the statutory precondition for exercising discretion to allow late appeals was not met.