Peter Andrews

The moving party, Golden Triangle Partnership Holdings Ltd., brought a motion before the Assessment Review Board to obtain disclosure from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) of financial information regarding a property in Cambridge.

Section 53 of the Assessment Act bars MPAC from providing this information absent a Board order.

The parties provided a draft order approved by MPAC and the City of Cambridge.

The Board granted the motion and issued the requested order for production of financial information.

The Applicant applied for a cancellation, reduction, or refund of property taxes for the 2015 taxation year under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, citing sickness or extreme poverty.

The Assessment Review Board found insufficient evidence of sickness.

Regarding extreme poverty, the Board noted the Applicant owned a home with net equity and had an income of $14,700.

The Board concluded the Applicant failed to demonstrate that no resources were available to meet basic necessities while paying property taxes, and dismissed the application.

The appellant appealed the property assessments for an industrial property for the 2013 to 2016 taxation years.

The property was initially assessed at $3,050,000.

Both parties agreed that the sales approach was the preferred method to determine current value and provided comparable properties.

The Assessment Review Board evaluated the comparable sales and determined the current value of the subject property to be $2,428,000.

No further adjustment for equity was required.

The assessment was reduced accordingly.

The Assessment Review Board held a pre-hearing telephone conference call regarding property assessment appeals by the appellant.

The Board ordered the rescission of a previous Board Order issued on September 16, 2015, and adjourned the matter to a new pre-hearing telephone conference call to determine status.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a residential property in Toronto for the 2013, 2014, and deemed 2015 taxation years.

The property was assessed at $1,308,000.

The appellant argued for a reduction to $1,071,000 based on the average assessed value of three nearby properties, while MPAC defended the assessment using comparable sales.

The Assessment Review Board found that the best evidence of current value was the average of two comparable sales, resulting in a current value of $1,266,000.

The Board found no evidence to support a further equity adjustment.

The assessment was reduced to $1,266,000.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a renovated residential property for the 2013, 2014, and deemed 2015 taxation years.

The property was assessed at $1,308,000.

The Board reviewed comparable sales provided by both parties and determined that the best evidence of current value was the average of two comparable properties, one renovated and one newly constructed.

The Board reduced the assessment to $1,266,000 and found no equity adjustment was required.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of an un-renovated residential property in Toronto, assessed at $716,000 for the 2013, 2014, and deemed 2015 taxation years.

The appellant argued the property's age and condition were not properly considered and suggested a value of $480,000 based on land value alone.

The Assessment Review Board accepted the evidence of MPAC's expert witness, who provided a comparable sale of an un-renovated property that supported the assessed value.

The Board confirmed the assessment at $716,000, finding it both correct and equitable.

The Appellants appealed the 2012 property tax assessment of the Buttonville Airport Lands.

MPAC had increased the assessment of the main airport parcel from $31.4 million to $63.6 million, arguing that the highest and best use of the land had changed from an airport to urban development land following the sale of a partial interest to a developer.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC is legally permitted to change its opinion of value during the four-year assessment cycle.

However, the Board held that MPAC failed to prove that the highest and best use of the land had changed as of the valuation date, given the significant regulatory hurdles and long development timeframes still required.

The Board concluded that the cost approach remained the most appropriate valuation method and reduced the 2012 assessment back to $31.4 million.