Marilyn Sharma

The appellant appealed the current value assessment of a standard industrial property for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

MPAC recommended a reduction in the assessment from $2,667,000 to $2,228,000 based on the Market Data Approach, which the appellant refused, arguing for a lower value based on the Income Approach and equity considerations.

The Assessment Review Board found that the Market Data Approach was the appropriate methodology for a standard industrial property with two or less tenants and that MPAC's comparable sales were suitable.

The Board accepted MPAC's recommended assessment of $2,228,000 and found no equity adjustment was required.

The Applicant appealed to the Assessment Review Board seeking a cancellation, reduction, or refund of her 2013 property taxes under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, citing an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty.

While the Board accepted that the Applicant was unable to work due to sickness, it found that she failed to demonstrate an inability to pay her property taxes.

The Board noted significant unexplained bank deposits, questionable bank statements, and non-essential expenditures, concluding that the Applicant's financial situation did not warrant tax relief.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of an industrial property in St. Catharines for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years.

MPAC had offered to reduce the assessment from $955,000 to $673,000 based on a "cost to cure" for required repairs, which the appellant rejected.

The Board found that MPAC's comparable properties were appropriate and determined the current value to be $698,000.

However, the Board accepted MPAC's standing offer to reduce the assessment to $673,000 and changed the 2013 classification from commercial to industrial.

The appellants appealed the 2016 property assessment of their waterfront home on Beaver Lake, arguing it was over-assessed compared to similar properties.

MPAC had initially assessed the property at $583,000, but offered to reduce it to $501,000 during the Request for Reconsideration process, factoring in a 9% equity reduction.

The appellants rejected this offer, seeking a further reduction due to an irregular shoreline, potential flooding from an adjacent septic system, and a restrictive municipal agreement regarding private lane maintenance.

The Assessment Review Board found the appellants' evidence insufficient to quantify any further diminution in value.

The Board determined the current value to be $626,000 based on comparable sales, but accepted MPAC's recommendation to reduce the final assessment to $501,000.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a seasonal dwelling in Minden, Ontario, arguing it was overvalued at $173,000 due to being incomplete and lacking amenities.

MPAC presented sales of comparable properties to support the assessment.

The Assessment Review Board found the appellant provided insufficient evidence to prove the property was incomplete.

Using MPAC's comparable sales, the Board calculated a current value of $280,000, adjusted to $269,000 for equity.

Since the calculated value exceeded the assessed value and no party requested an increase, the Board confirmed the assessment at $173,000.

The appellants appealed the 2016 property tax assessment of their waterfront residential property.

The property was initially assessed at $180,000.

During the Request for Reconsideration process, MPAC offered to reduce the assessment to $174,000 to correct an error regarding a half bathroom and the extent of renovations.

The appellants rejected the offer and appealed to the Assessment Review Board.

The Board reviewed comparable sales evidence and determined the current value to be $176,000, but accepted MPAC's standing offer to reduce the assessment to $174,000.

The Board found no further reduction was warranted for equity.

The applicant applied to the City of Hamilton for a cancellation of his 2015 property taxes under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, citing an inability to pay due to sickness.

The Assessment Review Board found that the applicant's medical reports confirmed his inability to work and that his fixed monthly income from the Ontario Disability Support Program was insufficient to cover his basic living expenses, leaving no room to pay property taxes.

The Board granted the application and cancelled the 2015 property taxes in the amount of $2,071.59.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of his residential townhouse condominium located at the Devil's Glen Country Club for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

The appellant argued the assessment of $369,000 was excessive compared to similar properties.

The Assessment Review Board found that based on sales of comparable properties in the same development, the current value was $375,000.

As the established current value was higher than the assessed value and no party requested an increase, the Board confirmed the assessment at $369,000 and dismissed the appeal.

The applicant sought a cancellation of her 2015 property taxes under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, citing an inability to pay due to sickness.

The applicant provided medical evidence establishing she is legally blind and recovering from a kidney transplant, rendering her unable to work.

The Board reviewed her income and expenses, finding her financial resources severely limited and her expenses reasonable.

The Board concluded the applicant demonstrated an inability to meet her tax obligations due to sickness and granted a full cancellation of the 2015 property taxes in the amount of $3,385.77.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their commercial property in Fort Erie for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

The property was initially assessed at $941,000 using the cost approach.

The assessor recommended a reduction to $819,000 to account for additional obsolescence, which the Board accepted as the current value.

The Board further found that an 11% equity adjustment was required under section 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act based on the Assessment to Sales Ratio of similar properties in the vicinity.

The assessment was therefore reduced to $729,000.

The moving party, MPAC, brought a motion seeking an order requiring the respondents to produce all lease documents related to the subject properties for the 2011, 2012, and 2013 fiscal years, as well as subsequent tenancies.

The respondents opposed the motion, arguing that MPAC already had the relevant information from statutory questionnaires and asserting confidentiality concerns.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion, finding that the leases had a 'semblance of relevance' to the income approach to valuation and were necessary to clarify ambiguities in the provided information.

The Board noted that confidentiality concerns could be addressed through conditions, but the respondents failed to propose any.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their commercial property in Fort Erie for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

The property was assessed at $941,000 using the cost approach.

The Assessment Review Board found that the assessor's recommended reduction to $819,000 for additional obsolescence was appropriate.

Furthermore, the Board applied an 11% equity adjustment based on the Assessment to Sales Ratio of comparable properties, reducing the final assessment to $729,000.

The appellant property owners appealed the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation's (MPAC) assessment of their residential property for the 2014 and 2015 taxation years, seeking a reduction from $648,000 to $548,294.

MPAC presented comparable sales evidence suggesting the property's current value was actually $730,000, but requested the Board confirm the returned assessment of $648,000.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the appellants' valuation analysis, which relied on percentage increases of neighbouring properties rather than valid sales data.

Finding that the best comparable sale supported a current value of $690,000, and noting no party requested an increase, the Board confirmed the assessment at $648,000 and found no equity reduction was warranted.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of her seasonal waterfront dwelling for the 2014 and 2015 taxation years.

The property was initially assessed at $1,041,000, which MPAC later agreed to reduce to $918,000.

The appellant argued the property was over-assessed based on recent sales and neighbourhood comparisons.

The Assessment Review Board found that based on the sales of two comparable properties, the current value of the subject property was $806,000.

The Board reduced the assessment accordingly and found no further adjustment was required for equity purposes.

The City of Sarnia appealed MPAC's decision to change the tax classification of a property owned by the United Church of Canada from Commercial to Residential.

The property was subject to a long-term ground lease to a commercial developer, which built an office building and leased it to a provincial government ministry.

The Assessment Review Board found that the property was occupied by a commercial tenant and used for commercial activities, disqualifying it from the residential class exemption for religious organizations under O. Reg. 282/98.

The Board reversed MPAC's decision and restored the Commercial tax classification.

The appellants appealed the 2015 property assessment of their seasonal waterfront property, which was assessed at $586,000.

MPAC had offered to reduce the assessment to $500,000, but the appellants refused, arguing the comparable properties used were winterized year-round dwellings.

The Assessment Review Board rejected five of MPAC's six comparable properties due to significant differences in lot size, building size, and age.

Relying on the single suitable comparable property, the Board determined the current value of the subject property to be $417,600.

The Board found no adjustment was required for equity purposes and reduced the assessment to $418,000 for the 2015 and deemed 2016 taxation years.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of a commercial property in Sarnia for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years, arguing that the assessment did not properly account for high vacancy rates and expenses.

MPAC offered to reduce the assessment from $416,000 to $297,000 by applying the maximum allowable vacancy and expense allowances, but the appellant refused the offer.

The Assessment Review Board found that the income approach was the appropriate valuation method and that MPAC's offer was reasonable.

The Board accepted MPAC's recommendation and reduced the assessment to $297,000.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their multi-residential property for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years.

They argued that the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) used an inappropriate Gross Income Multiplier (GIM) and Gross Potential Income (GPI), and incorrectly applied the New Tax Class Premium to the entire structure rather than just the newly constructed portion.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC's GIM of 12.50 was reasonable and that the New Tax Class Premium correctly applied to the entire property because the tax incentive increased the overall value.

However, MPAC agreed to accept the appellants' lower GPI estimate of $231,300 due to a unique violent incident at the property.

The Board reduced the assessment from $3,477,000 to $2,891,250 based on MPAC's offer.

The Applicant applied for a cancellation, reduction, or refund of her 2014 property taxes under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, citing an inability to pay due to sickness.

While the Assessment Review Board accepted that the Applicant was unable to work due to illness, it found that she had significant financial resources, including equity in the property, investments, and an expected income tax refund, which could have been used to pay the taxes.

The Board concluded that the Applicant failed to demonstrate an inability to pay and dismissed the application.

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

They argued that a newly constructed garage, assessed at $65,000 as an omitted assessment, should have been included in a prior Request for Reconsideration (RFR) settlement that reduced the property's value to $833,000.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC was unaware of the completed garage during the RFR inspection and properly levied the omitted assessment.

The Board also reviewed comparable sales and determined the property's current value was actually higher than the assessed value.

As no party requested an increase, the Board confirmed the assessment at $898,000, which included the $65,000 garage.