S. Light

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a mixed-use retail and office complex in Toronto for the 2013 to 2016 taxation years.

The parties agreed on the income approach to value, capitalization rate, vacancy rate, and expense rates, but disputed the classification of certain units and the fair market rent for retail and office spaces.

The Assessment Review Board preferred the respondent's blended average fair market rent approach over the appellant's stratified approach, finding the respondent's expert evidence more reliable and compliant with established case law.

The Board determined the current value to be slightly higher than the returned assessment but confirmed the returned assessment of $21,279,000 as the respondent did not seek an increase.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a commercial property in Mississauga for the 2014, 2015, and 2016 taxation years.

MPAC had assessed the property at $1,977,000, but recommended a reduction to $1,506,000.

The appellant argued the current value should be $1,200,000, based on the purchase price of the property as part of a land assembly.

The Assessment Review Board found that the sale of the subject property for $1,200,000 was the best evidence of its current value.

The Board rejected the equity analyses presented by both parties and reduced the assessment to $1,200,000 for all three years, while also changing the classification to Commercial Vacant Land for 2016.

The appellant appealed the property assessments for a commercial property in Whitby for the 2011, 2012, 2014, 2015, and 2016 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board applied the income approach to value the newly constructed commercial portion of the property, determining a fair market rent of $8.50 per square foot.

The Board reduced the assessments for the industrial vacant land for 2011 and 2012 based on a 2007 arm's length sale.

The Board confirmed the excess land assessments and adjusted the supplementary assessments for the commercial new construction based on the commencement of use.

The appellant appealed the 2016 supplementary assessment of his residential property, arguing it was incorrectly classified as Quality Class 7 instead of Quality Class 6 following renovations.

The Assessment Review Board accepted the evidence of the MPAC property valuation specialist that the extensive interior upgrades supported a Quality Class 7 classification.

Relying on a comparable sale, the Board reduced the supplementary assessment to $253,000 and the total assessment to $831,000, as recommended by MPAC.

The applicants sought a cancellation, reduction, or refund of their property taxes for the 2014 and 2015 taxation years under section 323(1)(h) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, due to home renovations that prevented normal use of the property.

The applications were filed after the statutory deadlines of February 28, 2015, and February 29, 2016.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the appeals, finding that it has no inherent or equitable jurisdiction to modify or extend the mandatory statutory filing deadlines.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of his residential condominium unit for the 2016 taxation year, seeking a reduction from the returned value of $324,000 to between $300,000 and $305,000 based on the purchase price and comparable sales.

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

The Board found the appellant's comparable sales were either significantly smaller or sold too far from the valuation date, and concluded the returned assessment of $324,000 was correct and equitable.

The appeal was dismissed and the assessment confirmed.

The appellant appealed the property assessments for an industrial property in Etobicoke for the 2013 to 2016 taxation years, which MPAC had returned at $1,738,000.

The appellant argued the value should be reduced to $1,535,000.

The Assessment Review Board preferred the valuation analysis provided by the appellant's expert, finding that the comparable sales relied upon were more similar to the subject property in terms of lot and building size.

The Board reduced the assessment to $1,535,000 and found no adjustment for equity was required.

The appellants appealed the 2015 and 2016 property assessments for seven commercial condominium parking space units.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) originally assessed the units at $20,000 and $15,000 each, but recommended a reduction to $3,000 based on a sales analysis.

The appellants argued the units had no independent value or should be valued at $900 based on a bulk sale, and requested the roll numbers be consolidated with their retail units.

The Assessment Review Board reduced the assessment to $3,000 per unit, accepting MPAC's valuation evidence, and found it had no authority to consolidate the separate condominium parcels.

The appellants appealed the 2016 property assessment of their seasonal waterfront dwelling, which was returned at $529,000.

The appellants argued the assessment was too high based on their own sales research, while MPAC relied on comparable sales to support the returned value.

The Assessment Review Board found MPAC's comparable sales more reliable, noting the appellants' comparables involved significantly older and inferior structures.

The Board confirmed the assessment at $529,000, finding no adjustment for equity was warranted.

The appellant appealed the 2015 property tax assessment of a vacant commercial lot used for mall parking, which was assessed at $989,000.

The Assessment Review Board rejected MPAC's land residual analysis due to insufficient data verification.

Instead, the Board accepted the appellant's direct comparison approach, determining the current value to be $806,387.

The Board further reduced the assessment to $580,599 based on equity considerations, applying a median assessment-to-sales ratio of 0.72 derived from comparable properties in the vicinity.

The decision also applied to the deemed 2016 appeal.

The appellant appealed the 2014 and 2015 property assessments of a newly constructed single-family home in Toronto, originally assessed at $1,622,000.

MPAC recommended a reduction to $1,465,000 based on comparable sales, while the appellant argued for a reduction to $950,000 based on a cost approach.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the cost approach, preferring the sales comparison approach.

Relying on the average adjusted sale price of two comparable properties on the same street, the Board reduced the assessment to $1,427,000 and found no further reduction was warranted on equity grounds.