Letizia Filippazzo

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of a newly constructed but incomplete single-family dwelling, arguing the assessment should remain at the pre-construction value of $966,000 because the property lacked an occupancy permit.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) argued that the property had commenced to be used for storage, triggering a supplementary assessment under section 34 of the Assessment Act, and proposed a reduced current value of $2,296,000 based on comparable sales.

The Assessment Review Board agreed with MPAC, finding that the property's use for storage authorized the supplementary assessment, and accepted MPAC's comparable sales evidence to set the current value at $2,296,000.

The Board also found no equity adjustment was required.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their vacant land, arguing it should not be classified as 'land on water' because they did not have a right of way over the abutting Ontario Power Generation property to access the Ottawa River.

MPAC assessed the property at $127,000 based on waterfront access.

The Assessment Review Board found that while the appellants could obtain a licenced access to the waterfront, it was not a permanent right of way.

The Board rejected MPAC's comparable properties and the appellants' comparable properties, instead selecting two of MPAC's comparables that were in the immediate vicinity and had similar licenced access.

The Board determined the correct current value of the property to be $69,367 and found no equitable adjustment was required.

The appellants appealed the current value assessment of their rural residential property for the 2025 and 2026 taxation years.

MPAC had issued a supplementary assessment increasing the value from $1,019,000 to $1,197,000 due to improvements, including a large secondary detached garage.

The appellants argued the assessment was too high and proposed a value of $800,000 based on comparable sales.

The Assessment Review Board rejected MPAC's proposed comparables due to differences in location, zoning, and servicing.

Relying on a comparable property submitted by both parties, the Board determined the correct current value of the property, including the secondary garage, to be $793,092.

The Board found no equity adjustment was required.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a waterfront single-family dwelling for the 2024, 2025, and 2026 taxation years, arguing the current value assessment of $850,000 was too high and proposing a value of $474,000.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) proposed a value of $702,000 based on comparable sales.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the appellant's proposed comparables as they were based on assessed values rather than sales.

Relying on two of MPAC's comparable sales, the Board determined the correct current value to be $687,747.

The Board also found that no equitable reduction was required.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion for disclosure and an order for property inspection in the context of appeals concerning the 2024 and 2025 property assessments of an apartment building.

The appellant opposed the motion, arguing the requests were out of time and irrelevant because the current value was not in dispute.

The Assessment Review Board granted an extension of time due to exceptional circumstances, noting the appellant had recently served an expert report providing an opinion of value.

The Board granted most of the disclosure requests and ordered the property inspection, finding them relevant to the income approach valuation and highest and best use analysis, but denied one request as overbroad.