Mark Spraggett

The appellants appealed the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation's (MPAC) current value assessment of their residential property for the 2016 taxation year.

MPAC assessed the property at $7,399,000, while the appellants argued for a value of $5,600,000 based on locational disadvantages such as being on a corner lot with less privacy.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the appellants' expert evidence due to a lack of supporting analysis and reliance on outdated sales.

The Board preferred MPAC's comparable sales evidence and confirmed the assessment at $7,399,000.

The appellants appealed the 2015 and 2016 property assessments of their residential property in Toronto.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) originally assessed the property at $735,000 but revised its recommendation to $640,000 at the hearing, acknowledging the property's need for renovations.

The appellants argued for a value of $595,000 but failed to provide sufficient or corroborated evidence to support their valuation.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's comparable sales analysis as the best evidence and reduced the Current Value Assessment to $640,000.

The appellants appealed the 2015 and 2016 property tax assessments for a motel property, arguing the Current Value Assessment (CVA) of $446,000 should be reduced to $421,000.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appellants provided insufficient evidence to support a reduction.

The Board accepted MPAC's valuation, which relied on the Income Approach and was cross-checked with the Direct Sales Comparison method.

The appeal was dismissed and the CVA of $446,000 was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessments for a large industrial warehouse property for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

The Board determined that the income approach was the most reliable method for valuing the property.

After reviewing expert evidence from the appellant, MPAC, and the municipality, the Board preferred the appellant's income approach analysis, subject to a minor adjustment to the capitalization rate.

The Board reduced the current value assessment to $58,668,000 and found no basis to apply an equity reduction.

The appellant appealed the Current Value Assessment (CVA) of its auto dealership property for the 2013 to 2016 taxation years, arguing the assessment of $1,421,000 was too high and should be reduced to $769,500.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appellant's evidence, which relied on unadjusted price per square foot values and an incomplete analysis of comparable properties, was unreliable.

The Board accepted the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation's valuation, which used both the Cost Approach and Direct Comparison Approach, confirming the CVA at $1,421,000.

The Board also found insufficient evidence to warrant an equitable reduction under section 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act.

The appellant appealed the current value assessment (CVA) of a neighbourhood shopping centre for the 2013 to 2016 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $3,905,000 using the income approach, while the appellant argued for a value of $1,717,200 based on a comparable sales approach.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appellant's suggested comparables were not similar properties and that MPAC's income analysis was persuasive.

The Board confirmed the CVA at $3,905,000 and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessments for a large industrial warehouse property for the 2013 to 2016 taxation years.

The Board determined that the income approach was the most reliable method for valuing the property, rejecting the municipality's reliance on the cost approach.

After adjusting the capitalization rate based on comparable sales, the Board reduced the current value assessment to $58,668,000.

The Board found insufficient evidence to warrant a further reduction for equity.

The appellants appealed the Current Value Assessment (CVA) of their commercial condominium unit for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

MPAC had assessed the property at $375,000 for 2015 and $299,000 for 2016, but at the hearing submitted the correct CVA was $284,000.

The appellants argued for a CVA of $226,000, citing lack of parking, poor visibility, and absence of a loading door.

The Assessment Review Board found MPAC's comparable sales analysis, which included a 14% premium for storage space, to be the best evidence of value.

The Board rejected the appellants' MLS listings as they were not executed sales and were too far removed from the valuation date.

The Board determined the correct CVA to be $299,000 for both taxation years and found no basis for an equitable reduction.

The appellant appealed the current value assessment of his lakefront property for the 2016 taxation year, arguing it should be reduced from $668,000 to $600,000 due to drainage issues and based on comparable properties.

The Assessment Review Board found the appellant's comparables unreliable and the drainage issues unsubstantiated.

However, the Board reduced the assessment to $666,000 based on an agreed-upon error in the calculation of the second-floor area.

The appellant appealed the 2016 property assessment of a semi-detached residential property, arguing the current value assessment of $520,000 was too high.

MPAC proposed a reduced value of $462,000 based on a nuisance factor from a nearby power transformer, using five vacant land sales as comparables.

The appellant argued that MPAC's comparables had significantly larger lot sizes and proposed a value of $298,054 based on a price-per-square-foot analysis.

The Assessment Review Board found the appellant's analysis persuasive, noting MPAC failed to account for the significant disparity in lot area.

The Board reduced the assessment to $298,054 and found no equity adjustment was required.

The appellant appealed the supplemental assessment for the 2015 taxation year and the current value assessment for the 2016 taxation year for a residential property with a newly built addition.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's revised supplemental assessment of $80,000 for 2015, down from $322,000, reflecting the incomplete state of the addition.

For the 2016 taxation year, the Board confirmed the current value assessment of $938,000, finding MPAC's comparable sales evidence more reliable than the appellant's unanalyzed real estate data, and found no equity adjustment was required.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their newly built home for the 2014, 2015, and 2016 taxation years, arguing the value should be reduced to $360,000 due to construction deficiencies and wear and tear.

MPAC recommended confirming the assessment at $373,000 based on comparable sales and equity analysis.

The Assessment Review Board found the appellants provided no sales evidence or costings to support a reduction.

The Board accepted MPAC's comparable sales and equity analysis, confirming the assessment at $373,000.

The appellant registered a plan of subdivision and conveyed a portion of its lands to the municipality.

Having paid the full property taxes for the year, the appellant applied for a tax rebate under section 357(1) of the Municipal Act for the conveyed lands.

When the municipal council failed to make a decision, the appellant appealed to the Assessment Review Board.

The Board found that the appellant was entitled to a prorated refund based on the assessment per acre method, ordering a refund of $24,861 less the $3,202.65 already credited by the municipality.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their seasonal waterfront dwelling for the 2015 taxation year, arguing the assessed value of $521,000 was too high.

The appellants provided listings of unsold properties as comparables, which the Board could not consider as they did not reflect actual sales.

The Board accepted the respondent's comparable sales evidence, finding the best comparable supported a value of $540,000.

As the respondent only sought to uphold the returned assessment of $521,000, the Board confirmed the assessment at that amount and found no equity adjustment was required.

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 2015 and 2016 property tax assessments for three semi-detached triplex properties that were purchased together in a bulk estate sale.

The appellant argued the purchase price was the best indicator of current value.

MPAC argued the estate sale was not an arm's length transaction and that a bulk sale results in a discounted price.

The Assessment Review Board found the sale was arm's length, but agreed that the bulk sale structure prejudiced the individual properties from realizing a higher open market price.

Using the direct sales comparison approach, the Board determined the current values were actually higher than the returned assessments.

As no party requested an increase, the Board confirmed the assessments as returned.

The appellants appealed the 2015 and 2016 property assessments of their semi-detached home in Toronto, seeking a reduction of the current value assessment from $510,000 to $400,000 due to the property's age and deteriorating condition.

MPAC provided sales comparables indicating the property was actually under-assessed and its true current value was between $626,919 and $651,693.

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

Because the property was under-assessed, no equity reduction was warranted under section 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act.

The Board confirmed the returned assessment of $510,000.

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 appellants appealed the property assessment of their newly built home, which was assessed at $1,151,000 for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years.

The appellants argued the property was over-assessed and relied on the builder's price list and two other sales on the street.

MPAC provided comparable sales evidence supporting the assessment.

The Assessment Review Board found that builder sales and price lists are not the best indicators of current value and preferred MPAC's comparable sales evidence.

The Board confirmed the assessment at $1,151,000 and found no evidence to warrant an equity adjustment.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of a 34-unit multi-residential building for the 2014 and 2015 taxation years, arguing the current value should be reduced to $3,000,000 due to building condition and vacancy issues.

The Assessment Review Board confirmed the returned assessment of $3,261,000, finding that a recent arm's length sale of the property for $3,250,000 shortly after the valuation date, along with the Gross Income Approach calculations, supported the assessed value.

The Board found insufficient documentary evidence to support the appellants' claims regarding necessary repairs or abnormal vacancy rates, and no evidence was presented to warrant an equity adjustment.