Marcelle Bourassa

The appellants appealed the 2018 property assessment of their single-family detached home in Toronto, arguing the current value was too high and inequitable compared to similar properties.

MPAC estimated the current value at $380,000 based on the direct comparison approach and found no equity adjustment was required.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value to be $381,317 based on the time-adjusted sale price of the subject property itself.

The Board found no evidence to support an equitable reduction.

Because MPAC did not provide notice seeking a higher assessment, the Board confirmed the returned assessment of $379,000.

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

MPAC had assessed the property at $1,128,000, which was recalculated to $1,044,000 during reconsideration.

The appellants argued the value should be $750,000 due to inequitable assessment compared to similar properties.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value to be $1,093,000 based on comparable sales.

Applying an Assessment to Sale Ratio (ASR) of 0.942 to achieve equity with similar properties in the vicinity, the Board reduced the assessment to $1,030,000.

The appellant appealed the 2018 property assessment of a purpose-built accessible home, arguing the $213,000 assessment was too high due to the poor condition of neighbouring properties.

MPAC recommended a reduction to $199,000 based on a lowered quality class rating.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed comparable sales and determined the current value to be $173,000.

The Board found no evidence to support a further equitable reduction under section 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act.

The assessment was reduced to $173,000.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their semi-detached home for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The appellants argued the assessment was too high due to an incorrect lot size measurement.

MPAC acknowledged the lot depth error and recommended a reduced current value of $496,000 based on the direct comparison approach.

The Town recommended $476,000.

The Assessment Review Board found the best comparable sales supported a current value of $470,000.

The Board also found no equitable adjustment was required under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act.

The assessment was reduced to $470,000 for both taxation years.

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

MPAC assessed the property at $886,000, while the appellant argued for a value of $800,000.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value of the property to be $917,000 based on comparable sales.

However, applying an equity analysis, the Board found that similar properties in the vicinity were assessed below their current value.

The Board applied a median Assessment to Sale Ratio of 0.911, resulting in an equitable assessment of $835,000.

The assessment was reduced accordingly.

The appellant applied for a property tax refund for the 2016 taxation year, claiming a gross or manifest clerical error because he missed the deadline to report the 2015 demolition of his dwelling.

The City denied the application, and the appellant appealed to the Assessment Review Board.

The Board dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of a clerical or factual error to justify relief under s. 323(1)(g) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

Furthermore, the Board held it had no jurisdiction to extend the statutory deadline for a demolition-based refund under s. 323(1)(d), and noted that the property's assessed value actually increased as vacant land.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a residential property with a pre-engineered industrial building for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $79,000 but recommended a reduction to $73,000 based on the direct comparison approach.

The appellant argued the value should be $60,000 or the 2012 assessed value of $63,000, noting the property lacked direct highway access and independent municipal water and sewer services.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC's proposed value failed to account for the access and servicing issues, meaning MPAC did not meet its statutory burden of proof.

Consequently, the Board reduced the assessment to the last uncontested value of $63,000.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of a residential property in Hornepayne for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $238,000 for 2017 and $205,000 for 2018, but requested the 2017 assessment be reduced to $205,000.

The appellant argued the current value should be $160,000 to $175,000 and sought an equitable reduction.

The Assessment Review Board found the current value to be $205,000 based on comparable sales.

However, the Board found that an equitable adjustment was required under section 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act.

Applying a median assessment-to-sales ratio of 0.948 derived from comparable properties, the Board reduced the assessment to $194,000 for both taxation years.

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

MPAC assessed the property at $1,422,000 and $1,414,000 respectively, while the appellants argued for a value of $1,100,000 based on land value and equity.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value to be $1,376,622 based on comparable sales.

The Board then applied an equity adjustment, finding that similar properties in the specific subdivision were assessed substantially below their current values (median Assessment to Sale Ratio of 0.82).

Applying this ratio, the Board reduced the assessment to $1,129,000 for both taxation years.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of her residential condominium townhouse for the 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value of the property as of the January 1, 2012 valuation date to be $535,000, and applied an equitable adjustment to reduce the assessment to $500,000 for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

For the January 1, 2016 valuation date, the Board determined the current value to be $659,000, and applied an equitable adjustment to reduce the assessment to $577,000 for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

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

The appellant argued the assessment was too high due to severe damage caused by former tenants, leaving the property in poor condition.

MPAC conceded the property was in poor condition and recommended a reduction in the assessment based on comparable sales adjusted for condition.

The Assessment Review Board found the current value of the property to be $205,000, lower than MPAC's suggested $216,000, based on the median sale value per square foot of comparable properties.

The Board declined to make a further equitable adjustment, finding the median Assessment to Sales Ratio of 0.95 fell within an acceptable range.

The appeal was allowed and the assessment was reduced.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of the Alt hotel at Pearson International Airport for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

The property was assessed at $20,614,000 based on a January 1, 2012 valuation date.

The appellant argued for a reduced assessment of $15,365,000, while MPAC's expert supported a value of $20,727,000 using the pro forma method of the income approach.

The Assessment Review Board preferred MPAC's expert evidence regarding the average daily rate, occupancy level, and capitalization rate, finding that the hotel's unique location and modern design gave it a significant competitive advantage.

The Board determined the current value to be $20,727,000, found no basis for an equitable reduction, and confirmed the returned assessment of $20,614,000.

The appellant owner of a drive-in movie theatre applied for a tax refund under s. 357(1)(b) of the Municipal Act for the off-season period when the property was closed and reverted to vacant land.

The municipality failed to make a decision, prompting an appeal to the Assessment Review Board.

The Board found consensus between the parties that no commercial use occurred during the 85-day closure period.

The appeal was allowed, and the owner was granted a tax refund of $803.30.

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

MPAC assessed the property at $2,064,000.

The Assessment Review Board rejected MPAC's valuation approach, which relied on vacant land sales in other municipalities to adjust for frontage, and instead preferred the appellant's approach based on comparable properties in a nearby neighbourhood.

The Board determined the current value to be $1,825,000.

Furthermore, the Board found that an equitable adjustment was required based on the assessment-to-sales ratio of similar properties in the vicinity, reducing the final assessment to $1,709,000.

The appellants appealed the 2017 and 2018 property assessments for their water-access cottage property on Lake Temagami.

MPAC had assessed the property at $331,000 for 2017 and $324,000 for 2018.

The appellants argued the assessment and quality of construction rating were too high, proposing a value between $270,000 and $285,000 based on comparable sales.

The Assessment Review Board rejected MPAC's time adjustment factors due to flawed comparable selection but maintained the quality of construction rating.

After analyzing comparable sales, the Board determined the current value to be $282,000.

The Board found no equitable reduction was required, as the median assessment-to-sale ratio for similar properties was within an acceptable range.

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

MPAC assessed the property at $441,000 and $415,000 respectively, but recommended a reduction to $389,000 based on an equity study.

The appellant argued the current value should be between $337,000 and $365,000.

The Assessment Review Board found the best sales evidence supported a current value of $365,000.

The Board declined to make a further equity adjustment, finding insufficient evidence that similar properties in the vicinity were assessed below their current values.

The assessment was reduced to $365,000 for both taxation years.

The appellant appealed the 2017 and 2018 property assessments for a residential dwelling in Vaughan, arguing the returned assessment of $2,963,000 was too high based on a 2014 purchase price.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value as of January 1, 2016, was $3,336,000 based on time-adjusted sales of comparable properties.

Applying an equity adjustment, the Board found the equitable value to be $3,096,000.

Because this equitable value remained higher than the returned assessment and MPAC did not seek an increase, the Board confirmed the assessment at $2,963,000.

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

MPAC assessed the property at $835,000.

The appellants argued the value should be lower due to market bias against lower elevation units and lack of sunlight.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable sales, particularly a neighbouring terrace unit, and determined the current value to be $814,000.

The Board found no equity adjustment was required.

The assessment was reduced to $814,000.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a residential dwelling in Toronto for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $1,702,000, while the appellant argued for a value of $1,414,000 and an equitable reduction to $1,315,000.

The Assessment Review Board evaluated the comparable sales provided by both parties and determined the current value to be $1,517,000.

The Board rejected the appellant's equity study and found no equitable reduction was warranted.

The assessment was reduced to $1,517,000.

The appellants appealed the 2017 property assessment of their single-family home, arguing the current value of $1,049,000 was too high due to exceptional inconvenience, noise, and dirt from the adjacent Eglinton LRT Chaplin Station construction.

The Assessment Review Board found that while the construction impact could not be precisely quantified as a separate adjustment, a comparable property subject to similar construction influences supported a lower valuation.

The Board reduced the current value to $970,000 but declined to make a further equitable reduction, finding the assessment-to-sale ratio of similar properties was within the acceptable range.