Marcelle Bourassa

The appellant appealed the 2015 and 2016 property assessments for 12 vacant residential lots, arguing that their value was significantly reduced because the municipality refused to issue building permits or finalize a subdivision agreement.

MPAC agreed that a temporary reduction was warranted and recommended a 75% reduction from the 2012 Current Value Assessments.

The appellant sought a greater reduction, arguing the lots should be assessed as a single property.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's recommendation, finding insufficient evidence to support the appellant's nominal valuation, and reduced the assessments for all 12 lots by 75% for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

The appellants appealed the 2016 current value assessment of their residential condominium, which was returned at $511,000.

The appellants argued for a reduced assessment of $357,000, citing the costs of condominium fees and reserve fund contributions for services not provided by the municipality.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value of the property to be $551,808 based on comparable sales within the same development.

However, applying an equity analysis using the median assessment-to-sales ratio of similar properties in the vicinity, the Board found the assessment was not equitable and reduced it to $492,000 for the 2017 taxation year.

The appellant appealed the property assessments for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years for a waterfront property on Clear Lake, seeking a reduction from $467,000 to $369,000.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed sales of comparable properties and found the assessed value to be reasonable given the property's age, condition, and building size.

The Board also considered the Assessment to Sales Ratios for properties in the vicinity and concluded that no equity adjustment was warranted.

The assessments were confirmed.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a standard industrial property in Mississauga for the 2013 to 2016 taxation years.

The property was assessed at $10,187,000.

The appellant argued for a reduced assessment of $7,640,000 based on sales comparables.

The Assessment Review Board found the respondent's evidence, which utilized both cost and direct comparison approaches, to be more persuasive and evidence-based.

The Board confirmed the assessment at $10,187,000, finding it reflected the current value and was equitable relative to similar properties in the vicinity.

The appellants appealed the supplementary assessment of their single-family detached home following extensive renovations.

MPAC originally issued a supplementary assessment bringing the total assessment to $1,482,000, but recommended a revised current value of $1,289,000 based on corrected structure data and sales.

The appellants argued the value should be between $1,000,000 and $1,050,000.

The Assessment Review Board found that the revised value of $1,289,000 reflected the correct current value based on comparable sales and that no equity adjustment was required.

The supplementary assessment was reduced accordingly.

The appellants appealed the 2016 property assessment of their freehold townhome in Toronto, assessed at $720,000.

They argued the assessment was inequitable compared to other units in the complex because the common areas and laneway were attached to their roll number, increasing their effective site area.

The Assessment Review Board found that the current value of the property as of January 1, 2012, was $750,000, supported by the December 2011 sale of the subject property for $750,000.

The Board also found that the assessment was equitable based on the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation's equity analysis, which produced a median assessment-to-sales ratio of 0.99.

The Board confirmed the assessment at $720,000 and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants appealed the 2015 property assessment of their fully renovated home.

Following a major renovation, MPAC initially issued a supplementary assessment of $2,156,000, but later corrected the quality class rating and removed a negative adjustment, increasing the assessment to $2,673,000 prior to the return of the assessment roll.

The appellants argued this was an impermissible change of opinion under s. 32(1.1) of the Assessment Act.

The Assessment Review Board held that MPAC had broad authority under s. 32(1) to correct any error or misstatement before the annual roll return.

The Board further found that the assessed value of $2,673,000 accurately reflected the current value based on comparable sales and was equitable with similar properties in the vicinity.

The assessment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of her semi-detached home in Toronto, arguing that the current value of $1,100,000 was inequitable and that she was entitled to further negative variable adjustments for proximity to heavy traffic and a multi-residential property.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable sales and found that the current value was within the range of similar properties.

The Board applied a negative 4% adjustment for proximity to a multi-residential property, bringing the calculated value to $1,130,094, which supported the assessed value of $1,100,000.

The Board found no inequity and confirmed the assessment.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of her semi-detached home in Toronto, arguing that the current value assessment of $1,100,000 was inequitable and should be reduced to between $878,000 and $950,000.

MPAC defended the assessment using the direct sales comparison approach and an equity analysis.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable sales and the appellant's concerns regarding property condition, lack of parking, and proximity to a multi-residential property.

The Board found that the current value of the property was $1,100,000 and that there was no evidence to conclude the assessment was inequitable relative to similar lands.

The assessment was confirmed.

MPAC brought a motion for issue estoppel to prevent the appellants from re-litigating the current value of two properties for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

The Board had previously determined the current value of the properties as of the January 1, 2012 valuation date in an appeal for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years.

The Board found that the three pre-conditions for issue estoppel were met: the parties were the same, the issue of current value as of January 1, 2012 was the same, and the previous decision was final.

As there was no evidence of physical changes to the properties, the Board applied issue estoppel and confirmed the assessments.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their newly built single-family home, which was assessed at $1,381,000 for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

The appellants argued the value was significantly diminished due to a large, licensed medical marijuana grow operation located immediately next door, which produced unbearable odors and nuisance.

The Assessment Review Board agreed that the neighboring grow operation was a unique circumstance that negatively impacted the subject property's market value.

The Board reduced the current value assessment to $1,024,000, reflecting a midpoint between comparable sales and the assessed value of the neighboring grow house property.

The Board found no further equity reduction was required.

The appellants appealed the 2016 property assessment of their waterfront home in North Bay, originally assessed at $589,000.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable sales and the property's specific features, including its shoreline and topography.

The Board found that the best evidence of current value was the property's actual sale price of $565,000 in May 2015.

The Board reduced the assessment to $565,000 and found no further equity adjustment was required.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a seasonal dwelling located on Crown land in the Cache Bay Wetland Conservation Reserve.

The appellant argued the assessment was too high given the property's limitations, including lack of services, water access only, and its status as a land use permit on Crown land.

The Assessment Review Board found that the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation's recommended assessment of $45,000 reflected the current value of the property based on comparable sales.

The Board also determined that no equity adjustment was warranted, as the assessed value was equitable relative to similar lands in the vicinity.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a single-family detached home in North Bay for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $499,000 for 2015 and $475,000 for 2016.

The appellant argued the assessment was too high, suggesting a value of $460,000, citing the high value placed on a detached garage and various nuisances.

The Assessment Review Board found that the sales comparables provided by MPAC were not sufficiently comparable to enable a direct comparison.

Using an Assessment to Sale Ratio (ASR) analysis, the Board determined the current value to be $461,000.

The Board found no further equity adjustment was required and reduced the assessment to $461,000 for both taxation years.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a seasonal water-access island property, which was assessed at $231,000 for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

The appellant argued the value should be $180,000, citing damage to white pine trees from a pine false web worm infection.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable sales and found one relatively comparable property that sold for a time-adjusted price of $211,000.

The Board added $5,000 for the value of permanent docking on the subject property, setting the current value at $216,000.

The Board declined to make a further equity adjustment, finding the assessment to sale ratio of similar properties was within the acceptable standard.

The appeal was allowed in part.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their seasonal island dwelling for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years.

MPAC had offered to reduce the assessment from $150,000 to $92,000 during the Request for Reconsideration process, which the appellants rejected, arguing for a value of $70,000.

The Assessment Review Board found that the best available evidence of current value was the sale of a neighboring island, and in the absence of quantitative evidence supporting a further reduction, set the current value at $92,000.

The Board also found that no equity adjustment was required.

Canadian Tire Corporation brought a motion to disqualify Municipal Tax Equity Consultants Inc., MTE Paralegal Professional Corporation, and their expert consultant from acting for various municipalities in assessment appeals.

The expert had previously worked for Canadian Tire's consultant on the same appeals and had access to confidential information and strategy.

The Assessment Review Board found it had jurisdiction to disqualify representatives to prevent abuse of process.

Applying the MacDonald Estate and Stewart tests, the Board concluded the expert received confidential information, the presumption that this information was imparted to the new firm was not rebutted, and the risk of prejudice required their removal from the record.

The Assessment Review Board held a pre-hearing telephone conference regarding property assessment appeals for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years.

The Board found the appellant in default of a previous order requiring the service of a Statement of Issues.

The Board ordered the appellant to serve the Statement of Issues on MPAC and the municipality and file proof of service by February 1, 2016, failing which the appeals would be dismissed without further notice pursuant to section 8.2 of the Assessment Review Board Act.

The Assessment Review Board held a pre-hearing telephone conference call regarding property assessment appeals.

The Board found the appellant in default of a previous order requiring the service and filing of a Statement of Issues.

The Board ordered the appellant to serve and file the Statement of Issues by February 1, 2016, failing which the appeals would be dismissed without further notice pursuant to section 8.2 of the Assessment Review Board Act.

The Assessment Review Board held a pre-hearing telephone conference regarding property assessment appeals for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years.

The appellant was found in default of a previous order requiring the service of a Statement of Issues.

The appellant's former representative advised they were no longer retained.

The Board ordered the appellant to serve the Statement of Issues by February 29, 2016, failing which the appeals would be dismissed without further notice.