Sonia Light

The appellants brought a motion for the disclosure of various documents from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) relating to the application of economic obsolescence and market adjustment factors for large distribution centres.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding that while the requested documents might have some relevance, the probative value was unclear and the extensive volume of documents required to be produced would be disproportionate to the importance and complexity of the issues in the proceeding.

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 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 Municipal Property Assessment Corporation brought a motion to apply the doctrine of issue estoppel to outstanding assessment appeals for the 2014, 2015, and 2016 taxation years, based on a previous Board decision regarding the 2013 taxation year.

The previous decision found that the subject property did not qualify as farm lands used only for farm purposes and changed its classification to vacant land/commercial, increasing its assessment.

The Board applied the discretionary factors from Danyluk and found no material change in circumstances or compelling reasons to re-open the issues.

The motion was granted, issue estoppel was applied, and the previous findings on current value and classification were applied to the 2014, 2015, and 2016 appeals.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of an industrial property located at 75 Westmore Drive for the 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 taxation years.

MPAC returned the assessment at $4,474,000 but recommended a reduction to $4,147,000 based on a sales analysis.

The appellant argued for a further reduction to $3,763,000.

The Assessment Review Board found MPAC's comparable sales analysis and adjusted sale price per square foot of $54 to be appropriate.

The Board reduced the assessment to $4,147,000 and found no basis for an equity adjustment.

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

The returned assessment was $5,376,000.

The Board reviewed comparable sales data provided by the parties and determined that the current value of the property should be reduced to $4,803,000, with $417,000 apportioned to industrial excess land.

The Board found no evidence to support a further reduction based on equity considerations.

The appellants appealed the 2015 and 2016 property assessments for an auto service garage in Mississauga.

MPAC recommended a revised current value of $1,052,842 based on a land residual sales analysis, which the appellants did not dispute.

However, the appellants sought a further reduction based on equity, arguing that similar properties in the vicinity were assessed at lower values.

The Assessment Review Board accepted the revised current value but dismissed the request for an equity reduction, finding that the appellants' notional sales analysis and assessment-to-sales ratios provided insufficient data to demonstrate an inequity.

The appellant appealed the tax classification of its property for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years, arguing it should be classified as Commercial (CT) rather than Industrial (IT).

The appellant also sought a refund for the 2014 taxation year under the Municipal Act, claiming the IT classification was a gross or manifest factual error.

The Assessment Review Board found that the property was not completely unused after the previous industrial tenant vacated, meaning the previous IT classification did not continue under Ontario Regulation 282/98.

The Board granted the appeals for 2015 and 2016, changing the classification to CT.

However, the Board dismissed the 2014 refund application, finding that the classification was a matter of judgment and not a clerical or factual error.

The appellant appealed the 2015 and 2016 property assessments for a residential structure converted to commercial use, arguing the returned value of $505,000 was too high and inequitable compared to a neighbouring property.

The Assessment Review Board found that the cost approach supported a current value of $515,000.

The Board also found no basis for an equity reduction, as the appellant's single comparable was an anomaly and MPAC's equity study showed no trend of under-assessment for similar properties.

The assessments were confirmed at $505,000, as MPAC did not seek an increase.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation brought a motion on consent to cancel and replace a previous order with values provided in minutes of settlement.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion, finding it advisable to cancel the previous decision to finally resolve the proceedings for the 2009-2016 taxation years and avoid a multiplicity of further proceedings.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessments for an industrial property for the 2013 to 2016 taxation years, arguing the returned value of $18,474,000 was too high and should be reduced based on the direct comparison approach.

The respondent MPAC argued the cost approach was more appropriate for a purpose-built single-tenant building and supported the returned value.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's expert evidence that the cost approach was the best indicator of value and found no basis to adjust the assessment for equity.

The appeals were dismissed and the assessments were confirmed.

The moving party (MPAC) brought a motion for the production of documents relating to the sale and valuation of the subject property.

On consent, the Assessment Review Board ordered the respondents to produce the purchase and sale agreement.

The Board further ordered the production of environmental reports and remediation costs to clarify the actual price paid, rent rolls to permit consideration of an income approach to valuation, and a co-tenancy agreement to determine if the sale was between unrelated parties.

The motion was granted.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their farm, arguing that MPAC incorrectly classified one acre of land and a shed used to sell farm produce as commercial.

MPAC classified the farm as 'value added' and applied the commercial classification to the retail portion.

The Assessment Review Board found MPAC's policy reasonable and confirmed the commercial classification of the one acre and shed, dismissing the appeal.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of a standard industrial property in Mississauga for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years.

MPAC originally assessed the property at $1,780,000 and recommended a reduction to $1,674,000.

The appellants argued for a reduction to $1,320,000 based on comparable sales.

The Assessment Review Board found MPAC's cost approach evidence unreliable and preferred the comparable sales evidence, determining a current value of $1,452,000.

Applying an equity adjustment based on a median assessment to sales ratio of 0.90, the Board further reduced the assessment to $1,306,800.

The appellant appealed the 2015 property assessment of a single-family detached home, originally assessed at $1,866,000.

The appellant's expert appraiser provided evidence of comparable sales in close proximity to the subject property, supporting a current value of $1,300,000.

The respondent relied on comparable properties located further away and with a higher quality of construction classification.

The Assessment Review Board accepted the appellant's expert evidence, finding the current value to be $1,300,000, and reduced the assessment accordingly.

A further reduction based on equity was deemed unwarranted.

The appellants appealed the 2015 property assessment of their residential condominium unit in Toronto.

MPAC originally assessed the property at $1,481,000 but recommended a reduction to $1,393,000 at the hearing.

The appellants argued for a reduction to $1,043,000 based on their purchase price and a time adjustment.

The Assessment Review Board found that the purchase price of $1,315,000 (including HST) and comparable sales of similar units in the building supported a current value of $1,315,000.

The Board reduced the assessment to $1,315,000 and found no further reduction was warranted on equity grounds.

The appellants appealed the property tax assessments of several condominium units in Mississauga for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years.

MPAC recommended reducing the 2013 assessments to the 2014 levels, supported by a valuation report and comparable sales data.

The appellants' representative argued the assessments were too high but failed to provide qualified opinion evidence or comparable sales to support further reductions.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's recommendations for most units, finding them supported by time-adjusted sale prices.

However, the Board reduced the assessment for one larger unit, finding MPAC failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify its higher valuation compared to a similar unit.

The Board found no basis for further reductions based on equity considerations.

The appellants appealed the property assessments for several condominium units for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years.

MPAC recommended reducing the 2013 assessments to the 2014 levels and confirming the 2014 assessments.

The Board accepted MPAC's valuation evidence, which was supported by comparable sales, and rejected the appellants' representative's arguments as he lacked expert qualifications and failed to provide comparable sales or demonstrate flaws in MPAC's methodology.

The Board ordered the assessments be set at the amounts recommended by MPAC.

The Assessment Review Board issued a procedural order setting the hearing dates and production schedule for a property assessment appeal brought by the appellant against the City of Markham and MPAC.

The municipality did not serve a Statement of Response and was deemed to have elected not to participate actively.

The appellants applied for the cancellation and refund of $203,145.85 charged by the City of Vaughan in 2005 to recover a shortfall in property taxes from 2003 and 2004.

The appellants argued the charge constituted an overcharge due to a gross or manifest clerical error under section 334 of the Municipal Act.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the application, finding that the City's deliberate request to recover the undercharge based on its legal interpretation of section 331 was not an inadvertent clerical or factual mistake on the 2005 tax roll that the Board had the authority to correct.