Mark Spraggett

The appellants appealed the current value assessment of their newly constructed residential property, assessed at $1,034,000 for the 2015 taxation year.

The appellants argued the assessment should be $926,000 based on their purchase price from the builder and other sales.

The Assessment Review Board found that builder sales are not the best indicator of current value due to the protracted time interval between negotiation and purchase.

Relying on the direct sales comparison approach and comparable properties provided by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, the Board confirmed the assessment at $1,034,000 and found no evidence to warrant an equity adjustment.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of a commercial property located at 2481 Yonge Street in Toronto for the 2014 and 2015 taxation years.

The original assessment was $1,711,000, which MPAC recommended reducing to $1,515,000.

The appellant sought a further reduction to between $1.3 and $1.4 million, citing the need for repairs and lack of parking.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC's comparable sales supported the recommended value of $1,515,000 and that the appellant's comparables were either outside the ideal time period or too far away.

The Board reduced the assessment to $1,515,000 for 2014 and confirmed it for 2015.

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 parties requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because the appellant's representatives were unable to obtain essential information due to unforeseen security delays.

The Assessment Review Board granted the adjournment and issued a procedural order setting the new hearing date for May 16, 2016, along with a schedule for the exchange of documents, witness statements, and expert reports.

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 appellant appealed the 2015 property assessment of a 53-unit multi-residential building in Toronto, arguing the returned assessment of $4,678,000 was too high.

The appellant contended the property should be assessed using a lower Gross Income Multiplier (GIM) of 8.0 based on similar properties.

MPAC defended the assessment using a GIM of 8.79.

The Assessment Review Board found the best evidence supported a GIM of 8.92, yielding a current value of $4,745,000.

As there was no appeal to increase the assessment, the Board confirmed the returned assessment of $4,678,000 and found no equity adjustment was warranted.

The appellants appealed the property assessments of their residential and farm properties for the 2011-2014 taxation years, arguing that the values should be reduced by 25% to 65% due to the potential impact of proposed industrial wind turbines and hydro-electric transmission lines in the area.

The Assessment Review Board found that as of the relevant valuation days (January 1, 2008 and January 1, 2012), there were no wind turbines in the immediate vicinity and the sales evidence supported the assessed values.

The Board reduced the residential property assessment slightly to account for the poor condition of outbuildings but otherwise confirmed the assessments, finding no evidence to support a reduction based on the proximity to wind turbines.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of a converted multi-tenant industrial building.

MPAC valued the property at $3,234,000 using the cost approach as a single occupier standard industrial property.

The appellants argued for the income approach, suggesting a value of $2,303,000, or alternatively, a lower cost approach value based on the property's smaller first-floor footprint.

The Assessment Review Board found insufficient evidence to apply the income approach but agreed that the ratio of first-floor size to total square footage affects value.

Using more appropriate cost approach comparables, the Board reduced the assessment to $2,776,000.

The appellant appealed the property assessments for an auto dealership in Whitby for the 2013, 2014, and deemed 2015 taxation years.

The appellant argued the assessment was too high due to functional obsolescence, narrow frontage, an unprofitable café, and excessive building height.

MPAC relied on the Cost Approach to determine a value of $9,933,000.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's valuation, finding no evidence to support the appellant's claims of functional obsolescence or negative impact from the building's height and layout.

The Board confirmed the assessment at $9,933,000 and found no equity adjustment was required.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a single detached house in Toronto for the 2014 and deemed 2015 taxation years.

MPAC offered to reduce the current value assessment from $5,825,000 to $5,200,000, which the appellant initially accepted but later rejected, seeking a further reduction to $4,040,000.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC's comparable sales supported a value of $5,200,000 and that the appellant's suggested comparables were too dissimilar.

The Board also found no evidence to support a further reduction based on equity and concluded that a +40% market adjustment applied by MPAC did not unfairly influence the correct current value.

The assessment was reduced to $5,200,000.