Marilyn Sharma

The appellants appealed the 2015 property assessment of their newly constructed single-family home, arguing the $316,000 assessment was excessive due to incomplete municipal services in their developing neighbourhood.

The Assessment Review Board found that while the lack of services could not be directly quantified without expert evidence, an analysis of comparable sales in the neighbourhood yielded an average sales value of $178 per square foot.

Applying this to the subject property, the Board determined the current value to be $295,000 and reduced the assessment accordingly, finding no further adjustment for equity was required.

The appellants appealed the 2015 property assessment of their seasonal waterfront property, which was assessed at $445,000.

They argued the assessment should reflect their 2014 purchase price of $370,000.

MPAC provided two comparable sales from 2011 and 2012 to support the assessment.

The Assessment Review Board found that the 2014 sale was too far removed from the January 1, 2012 valuation date.

Using the average sales value per square foot of MPAC's comparable properties, the Board determined the current value of the subject property to be $422,000.

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

The applicant, acting as the Estate Trustee for the deceased property owner, applied for relief of property taxes under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, citing extreme poverty.

The applicant argued that his personal financial situation should be considered because he was paying the property taxes out of his own limited income.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the application, finding that while the applicant was eligible to apply as an occupant, he could not substitute his personal financial condition for that of the deceased owner or the estate.

The Board noted that the tax obligation belonged to the estate, which had ample equity in the property to meet the debt.

The appellants appealed the 2015 property tax assessment of their waterfront residential property, arguing it was over-assessed at $1,072,000 due to poor water frontage, difficult access, and large building size.

The Assessment Review Board found that while the current value of $1,072,000 was supported by comparable sales, an adjustment was required for equity purposes based on the median Assessment to Sales Ratio (ASR) of similar properties in the vicinity.

The Board applied MPAC's previous offer to reduce the assessment for equity and ordered the assessment reduced to $965,000.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their vacant residential/recreational lakefront property, arguing that the 10% reduction applied by MPAC for a Hydro One corridor easement was insufficient.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appellants provided no credible evidence to support a further reduction.

The Board determined the current value of the property to be $177,450 based on a comparable sale, but accepted MPAC's recommendation to reduce the assessment from $154,000 to $138,000 to account for the easement.

The appellant appealed the 2015 property assessment of a newly constructed single-family home in Oshawa, arguing the $363,000 assessment was too high due to incomplete municipal services and new development fees.

The Assessment Review Board found that the current value of the property was $367,000 based on comparable sales, but since no party requested an increase, the Board confirmed the original assessment of $363,000.

The Board also found no adjustment was required for equity purposes.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of her single-family detached home for the 2014 and 2015 taxation years, arguing it was over-assessed due to incomplete construction and defects.

The Assessment Review Board found the current value to be $1,017,200 based on comparable sales, but accepted the assessor's recommendation to reduce the assessment by 10% to account for the home being only 90% complete.

The assessment was reduced from $961,000 to $865,000.

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

They argued that the assessment was excessive and failed to account for the negative impact of a nearby cell tower and wind turbines on the property's value.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appellants failed to provide convincing evidence that the cell tower or wind turbines negatively impacted the property's value.

The Board determined the current value based on the sale of a comparable property and confirmed the assessments for 2013 and 2014 at $174,000, and for 2015 at $190,000, reflecting corrections to the property's age and the presence of central air conditioning.

The appellant appealed the 2015 property assessment of her single-family detached residential property in Windsor, Ontario, arguing it was over-assessed at $94,000.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable sales provided by both the appellant and the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC).

The Board determined the current value of the property to be $89,900 based on the average sales value per square foot of similar properties in the neighbourhood.

The assessment was reduced accordingly, with no adjustment required for equity.

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

They argued that 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 and application of the New Tax Class Premium were appropriate.

However, based on MPAC's offer during the hearing to accept the appellants' lower GPI estimate, the Board reduced the assessment from $3,477,000 to $2,891,250.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of a commercial property in Sarnia for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board found that the income approach was the appropriate methodology to determine the current value.

The Board accepted MPAC's fair market rent, vacancy allowance, expense allowance, and capitalization rate.

The Board reduced the 2013 assessment from $3,169,000 to $2,648,000, and confirmed the 2014 assessment at $2,311,000 and the 2015 assessment at $2,648,000.

The appellant appealed the supplementary assessment of a newly constructed house, arguing that the assessment should be based on the actual cost of construction rather than the Direct Sales Approach used by MPAC.

The Assessment Review Board held that the Assessment Act requires supplementary assessments to be based on the increase in current value, not the cost of construction, and affirmed the Direct Sales Approach as the appropriate methodology.

Based on comparable sales, the Board slightly reduced the supplementary assessment from $1,412,000 to $1,402,000.

The appellants appealed the property assessments for three licensed rooming houses in Toronto for the 2013, 2014, and deemed 2015 taxation years.

MPAC had classified the properties as multi-residential "Bachelorette Apartments" and assessed their value using the Gross Income Multiplier (GIM) methodology.

The Assessment Review Board found that the properties were municipally-licensed rooming houses and should be classified in the residential property class pursuant to O. Reg 282/98.

The Board also rejected the GIM methodology as inappropriate for rooming houses due to municipal rent controls and transient clientele.

The Board reduced the assessments based on the average assessed value per square foot of similar rooming houses in the vicinity.

The applicant sought a cancellation, reduction, or refund of his 2013 property taxes under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, citing sickness and extreme poverty.

While the Assessment Review Board accepted that the applicant's end-stage renal failure satisfied the 'sickness' criterion, it found that he failed to demonstrate an inability to pay his property taxes.

The Board noted that the applicant's household expenses included discretionary spending, such as maintaining two vehicles and high telecommunication costs, which indicated sufficient resources to meet his tax obligations if managed scrupulously.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the 2015 property assessment of her single-family residential property in Toronto, which was assessed at $618,000.

The appellant argued the assessment was excessive compared to similar properties in the neighbourhood.

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

The Board rejected most comparables but accepted one provided by MPAC located on the same street.

Applying the sale price per square foot of the accepted comparable to the subject property, the Board determined the current value to be $544,000.

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

The appellants appealed the property assessment of a vacant parcel of land in Barrie, Ontario, for the 2014 and deemed 2015 taxation years.

The property had been rezoned to allow for a 13-storey residential condominium.

The appellants argued the assessment of $1,084,000 was excessive due to the property's proximity to a wastewater treatment plant and potential contamination.

The Assessment Review Board found the current value to be $1,601,459 based on a comparable sale, and applied a 20% negative adjustment for location, resulting in a value of $1,281,167.

As this was higher than the returned assessment and MPAC did not request an increase, the Board confirmed the assessment at $1,084,000.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a vacant industrial lot, arguing that its value was negatively affected by landfill contamination and a stagnant market.

The respondent assessment corporation presented comparable sales evidence supporting the assessed value of $54,000.

The Board rejected the appellant's arguments due to a lack of supporting evidence and accepted the respondent's comparable sales.

The Board determined the current value to be $61,140 but confirmed the assessment at $54,000 since no party requested an increase.

The appellants appealed the 2013 property assessment of their single-family detached home in Whitby, arguing it was assessed too high compared to similar properties.

MPAC had assessed the property at $533,000.

The Board reviewed comparable sales provided by both parties, rejecting several due to significant differences in lot size.

Based on the most comparable properties, the Board determined the current value to be $524,104.

After applying adjustments for a pool and proximity to a commercial property, the Board reduced the final assessment to $511,000.