Mark Spraggett

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their residential dwelling in Toronto for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the current value at $1,164,000, while the appellants argued for a value of $949,000.

The Assessment Review Board found the appellants' evidence of comparable properties lacked detailed information and time adjustments.

The Board accepted MPAC's direct comparison approach and bracketing analysis as the best evidence of value.

The appeal was dismissed and the assessed value of $1,164,000 was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of her residential dwelling in Kenora for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years, arguing the current value should be $285,000 rather than the assessed $325,000.

MPAC relied on the direct comparison approach using six comparable properties to support its valuation.

The appellant relied on a third-party appraisal, but the author did not attend the hearing and the Board found the appraisal data unreliable.

The Assessment Review Board found MPAC's returned value to be a reasonable reflection of current value and confirmed the assessment at $325,000.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of a residential dwelling in Mississauga for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years, seeking a reduction from the returned value of $1,371,000 to $990,000.

MPAC presented a Direct Comparison Approach analysis supporting a higher value but asked the Board to confirm the returned value.

The appellant did not submit evidence to contradict MPAC's analysis and relied on an argument that MPAC's valuation analyst provided an opinion rather than fact.

The Assessment Review Board found MPAC met its burden of proof, confirmed the returned value of $1,371,000, and determined no equity adjustment was required.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of a residential duplex in Toronto for the 2017 to 2019 taxation years.

While the parties agreed on the current value of $1,509,000, the appellant sought an equitable reduction under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, arguing that similar lands in the vicinity were assessed at a lower value.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appellant failed to meet the burden of proof to establish that an equitable reduction was warranted.

The Board preferred MPAC's equity study, which relied on a larger sample size and demonstrated that the median assessment to sale ratio did not require an adjustment.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a single-family residential dwelling for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years, arguing the current value should be $60,000 based on a 2015 estate sale.

MPAC argued the correct current value was $92,000, relying on the direct comparison approach with six comparable properties.

The Assessment Review Board found the 2015 estate sale was not an open market transaction and accepted MPAC's comparable properties as the best evidence of value.

The Board determined the correct current value of the property to be $92,000.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of their single-family home, seeking an equitable reduction under section 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act.

While the parties agreed on the current value of $1,450,000, the appellant argued that similar properties in the vicinity were assessed at a lower value.

The Assessment Review Board rejected MPAC's equity study, which relied on a broad 30-property sample, and instead preferred a smaller 5-property sample that demonstrated an average assessment-to-sale ratio of 0.93.

The Board applied this ratio to the current value, granting an equitable reduction to $1,348,000.

The appellants appealed the supplementary assessment of their property for the 2017 taxation year under section 34 of the Assessment Act.

The property, formerly vacant land, had a newly built detached raised bungalow.

MPAC assessed the current value at $962,000, representing a supplementary increase of $705,000.

The appellants argued the current value should be between $750,000 and $800,000 based on their comparable properties.

The Assessment Review Board found the appellants' comparable properties to be inferior in age and requiring too many adjustments.

The Board accepted MPAC's evidence, finding that the correct current value was at least $962,000, and confirmed the supplementary increase of $705,000.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a single-family residential property in Toronto for the 2017-2019 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the current value at $2,974,000, but sought an increase to $3,250,000 at the hearing.

The appellant sought an equitable reduction to $2,300,000.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC failed to provide the required notice to seek a higher assessment, fixing the current value at $2,974,000.

The Board also dismissed the appellant's request for an equitable reduction, finding that the median assessment-to-sale ratio of comparable properties fell within the acceptable standard range, indicating no adjustment was necessary.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a single-family residential property for the 2017-2019 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the current value at $2,974,000 but sought an increase to $3,250,000 at the hearing.

The Board rejected the increase because MPAC failed to provide the required notice under the Board's Rules.

The appellant sought an equitable reduction to $2,300,000, arguing that similar properties in the vicinity were assessed at a lower value.

The Board analyzed the assessment-to-sale ratios of 18 comparable properties and found the median ratio was 0.96, which falls within the acceptable standard range.

Therefore, the Board concluded no equitable reduction was required and confirmed the assessment at $2,974,000.

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

The appellants argued for a lower current value based on a 10% traffic adjustment and their own comparable properties.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the appellants' comparable properties as lacking sufficient detail and comparability, and rejected the 10% traffic adjustment for lack of evidence.

The Board accepted the respondent's comparable properties and determined the current value to be $1,325,000 for 2017 and $1,341,000 for 2018 and 2019.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their waterfront property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $891,000, applying a 21% reduction for the unfinished state of the newly constructed dwelling.

The appellants argued the property was only 50% complete and should be valued at $500,000.

The Assessment Review Board rejected MPAC's comparable properties and mass appraisal valuation of the building component, preferring the appellant's detailed evidence regarding the extent of construction and negative property features.

The Board determined the correct current value of the property to be $540,000.

The appellants appealed the MPAC assessment of their residential condominium unit for the 2016 taxation year, arguing the current value should be reduced from $678,000 to $636,145 based on factors such as floor height, customization, and parking.

MPAC relied on builder sales of comparable units in the same building to support its assessment.

The Assessment Review Board found that while the appellants' arguments regarding floor height and customization were plausible, their monetized values were arbitrary and unsupported by evidence.

The Board determined that the best comparable properties supported a value of at least $673,216 before accounting for an additional parking spot, which would increase the value beyond MPAC's assessment.

The Board therefore confirmed the assessed value of $678,000.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of an industrial property for the 2014, 2015, and 2016 taxation years.

The appellant argued that the current value should be $425,000, based on the 2015 purchase price of the property, which allegedly accounted for potential environmental contamination.

The respondent assessed the property at $1,280,000 using a modified cost approach and supported it with a comparable property sale.

The Assessment Review Board found that the 2015 sale was not an arm's length, open-market transaction and that there was no persuasive evidence of actual contamination on the property.

The Board accepted the respondent's comparable sales evidence and confirmed the assessment at $1,280,000.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of a newly built residential home for the 2017 taxation year, arguing the current value should be $810,990 based on the builder sale price.

MPAC assessed the property at $919,000 using a mass appraisal model and supported this value with comparable builder sales.

The Assessment Review Board found that builder sales tend to be lower than market-driven sales and accepted MPAC's comparable sales analysis, which suggested a higher value but confirmed the assessed value of $919,000.

The appeal was dismissed, and the decision was deemed to apply to the 2018 taxation year.

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

MPAC assessed the current value at $5,410,000, while the appellant argued for a value of $4,382,000.

Both parties relied on the Direct Comparison Approach but disagreed on the appropriate comparable properties and adjustments, particularly regarding building height, age, lot coverage, and mezzanine space.

The Board preferred the appellant's expert evidence, finding that lot coverage was a better determinant of value than lot size and rejecting MPAC's statistical models for height and age adjustments.

Relying on four mutually agreed comparable properties, the Board determined the correct current value to be $4,723,000.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their farm property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

At the hearing, the appellants agreed that the returned value of $346,000 was within their acceptable range of current value.

As the appellants consented to the respondent's opinion of value and took no position on the classification, the Assessment Review Board confirmed the returned assessment on consent.

The appellants appealed the property tax assessment and the denial of a tax relief application for their residential property, which sustained land damage from a severe rainstorm that eroded an abutting ravine.

They sought a tax reduction under s. 323(1)(h) of the City of Toronto Act, arguing the damage prevented normal use of the land, and a reduction in the assessed value under the Assessment Act.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed both appeals.

The Board found that the primary residential use of the property was not interrupted, disqualifying it from tax relief.

Furthermore, the Board upheld MPAC's assessed value of $1,384,000, finding that MPAC had already appropriately adjusted the assessment downward to account for the damaged land and loss in market value.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their farm property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years, arguing the current value should be $300,000 rather than the assessed $360,000.

MPAC defended the assessment using the cost and direct comparison approaches.

The Assessment Review Board found MPAC's direct comparison approach using two comparable properties to be the best evidence, yielding a value of $371,000.

Since MPAC did not seek a higher assessment, the Board confirmed the returned assessment of $360,000 and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants appealed the property tax assessment of their custom-built residential dwelling for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the current value at $846,000, while the appellants argued for a value between $790,000 and $800,000, primarily disputing MPAC's linear trend line method for calculating the time adjustment factor (TAF).

The Assessment Review Board found MPAC's TAF derivation more persuasive than the appellants' proposed polynomial function approach.

After reviewing the comparable properties submitted by both parties, the Board concluded that MPAC's assessed value of $846,000 fell within the appropriate range of values and confirmed the assessment.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of her residential property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

After an initial adjournment due to her representative's sudden illness, the Board scheduled a peremptory hearing date.

Neither the appellant nor her representative appeared at the peremptory hearing, nor did they file any documents.

Consequently, the Board granted the respondent's request to dismiss the appeals for non-attendance.