Subuola Awoleri

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of a newly constructed but incomplete single-family dwelling, arguing the assessment should remain at the pre-construction value of $966,000 because the property lacked an occupancy permit.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) argued that the property had commenced to be used for storage, triggering a supplementary assessment under section 34 of the Assessment Act, and proposed a reduced current value of $2,296,000 based on comparable sales.

The Assessment Review Board agreed with MPAC, finding that the property's use for storage authorized the supplementary assessment, and accepted MPAC's comparable sales evidence to set the current value at $2,296,000.

The Board also found no equity adjustment was required.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessments for a large-format retail food store in Toronto for the 2013-2025 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property based on a highest and best use (HABU) as a mixed-use redevelopment site, resulting in significantly higher values.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC failed to prove a reasonable probability of rezoning within a reasonable timeframe of the valuation dates, noting the lack of a precinct plan and compatibility issues with a nearby sugar refinery.

The Board concluded the HABU was the property's current use and reduced the assessments to $28,731,000 for the 2012 base year and $43,260,000 for the 2016 base year, using the cost approach.

The appellant appealed the property assessments for a residential waterfront property and an adjacent vacant lot for the 2023, 2024, and 2025 taxation years.

The appellant argued the assessments should be significantly reduced due to an oil spill contamination that occurred in 2012.

The Assessment Review Board determined the base current values using comparable sales, then applied a reduction based on the sale of a similarly contaminated property, which sold for 36.84% of its uncontaminated market value.

The Board reduced the assessment of the subject property from $369,000 to $88,000, and the vacant property from $158,000 to $39,000.

The appellants appealed the 2024 property assessment of their vacant land condominium to the Assessment Review Board, arguing the assessed value of $396,000 was too high and should be $332,000.

The Board found that the correct current value of the property as of the January 1, 2016 valuation day was $396,000, based on comparable sales provided by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation.

However, the Board determined that an equitable reduction was warranted because similar properties in the vicinity were assessed at a median Assessment to Sales Ratio of 0.88.

The Board applied this ratio to the current value, reducing the assessment to $348,000 for the 2024 taxation year.

The appellants appealed the 2024 property assessment of their single-family detached home to the Assessment Review Board, arguing the assessed value of $239,000 was too high and should be $188,840.

The Board reviewed comparable sales data provided by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) and the appellants.

Finding that MPAC's closest comparable property in the same homogenous neighbourhood was the most reliable indicator of value, the Board determined the correct current value to be $211,000.

The Board further found that no equitable reduction was warranted based on MPAC's equity analysis.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the assessment was reduced to $211,000.

The applicant applied to cancel her 2023 property taxes under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, citing an inability to pay due to sickness.

The Assessment Review Board conducted a contextual analysis of her income, expenses, assets, and liabilities.

The Board found that while the applicant demonstrated an inability to pay, she had spent $2,277.76 on discretionary expenses (cigarettes and music store purchases) which could have been used toward her property taxes.

Consequently, the Board allowed the application in part, cancelling $3,290.41 of the $5,568.17 requested, finding the inability to pay that portion was due to sickness.

The appellants appealed the 2022 and 2023 omitted assessments and the deemed 2024 assessment of their newly built single-family detached dwelling in Wasaga Beach.

The Assessment Review Board determined the correct current value of the property as of the January 1, 2016 valuation day to be $613,000 based on comparable sales.

The Board then applied an equity reduction under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, reducing the assessment to $528,000 to align with the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity.

Consequently, the omitted assessments for 2022 and 2023 were reduced to $415,000.

The appellant property owner appealed the City's failure to process its application for property tax relief under s. 357(1)(g) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The City argued that the application was not processed because no building permit was issued for the repairs.

The Assessment Review Board held that a building permit is not a pre-requisite for tax relief under the Act.

Finding that repairs and renovations prevented the normal use of the property as a warehouse for at least three months, the Board granted the appeal and ordered a tax refund of $15,600 on consent.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their residential property for the 2023 and 2024 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value of the property as of the January 1, 2016 valuation day by analyzing comparable sales provided by both parties.

The Board reduced the assessment to $318,000 for both taxation years but found no evidence to support a further reduction for equity with similar lands in the vicinity.

The applicants applied for a reduction, cancellation, or refund of their 2023 property taxes under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, claiming an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The Assessment Review Board applied a two-stage analysis, first examining whether the applicants were able to pay their taxes.

The Board reviewed the applicants' income, expenses, assets, and liabilities, noting that they had received a substantial loan from a family member.

The Board found that the applicants used these funds for discretionary expenses rather than prioritizing their property tax obligations.

Concluding that the applicants had financial resources available to pay their taxes, the Board dismissed the application without needing to consider the second stage of the analysis regarding sickness or extreme poverty.

The appellant appealed the 2023 supplementary assessment and 2024 current value assessment of a newly built residential property in Toronto.

MPAC assessed the property at $2,807,000 for 2024 and issued a supplementary assessment of $1,811,000 for 2023.

The appellant argued for a lower value based on location and comparable sales.

The Assessment Review Board found that some of MPAC's comparable sales were superior and the appellant's comparable sale was inferior.

The Board determined the correct current value to be $2,740,000 and reduced the supplementary assessment to $1,744,000.

No equitable reduction was granted.

The appellant property owner appealed the City of Markham's denial of its application for property tax relief under s. 357(1)(g) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The appellant sought relief on the basis that repairs and renovations to a second-floor office space prevented its normal use for at least three months during the 2022 taxation year.

The City argued that the alteration permit was issued less than three months before the end of the year.

The Assessment Review Board found that the repairs and renovations had commenced prior to the permit issuance date, satisfying the three-month requirement.

The appeal was allowed and a tax refund of $8,227.16 was ordered.

The appellants appealed the 2022 property assessments of two identical residential properties to the Assessment Review Board, arguing the current value should be $891,446 rather than the assessed $1,121,000.

The appellants challenged the building size measurements used by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) and relied on builder sales as comparables.

The Board accepted MPAC's measurements and non-builder comparable sales, finding the assessed value of $1,121,000 to be correct.

The Board also found no evidence to support an equitable reduction under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, as MPAC's equity analysis demonstrated that similar properties in the vicinity were assessed at or near their sale price.

The assessments were confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 2023 and 2024 property assessments of a newly built residential property in Toronto, arguing the assessed value of $4,042,000 was too high.

The Assessment Review Board determined the correct current value to be $4,089,000 based on comparable sales.

However, applying an equity analysis under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, the Board found that similar properties in the vicinity were assessed at a lower ratio to their market value.

Consequently, the Board ordered an equitable reduction, lowering the assessment to $3,737,000 for both taxation years.

The appellant appealed the 2023 and 2024 property assessments of their residential property, arguing the value should be reduced due to nuisances caused by abutting commercial properties.

The Assessment Review Board found insufficient evidence to quantify the nuisance impact and relied on the respondent's comparable sales data to determine a current value of $1,140,000.

The Board then applied an equity reduction based on the median assessment-to-sales ratio of similar properties, resulting in a final equitable assessment of $1,060,000, which increased the original assessment.

The appellants sought property tax relief for the 2021 and 2022 taxation years under s. 357(1)(d)(ii) and s. 357(1)(g) of the Municipal Act, 2001, arguing that demolition and renovations prevented the use of their property as a warehouse.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the 2021 appeal, finding that the demolition and renovations did not occur during the 2021 taxation year or the preceding year after the return of the assessment roll, which is a statutory requirement for relief.

For the 2022 taxation year, the Board found the property eligible for relief under s. 357(1)(g) but upheld the Town's calculation of the tax refund using the cost to cure approach, dismissing the appeal to vary the quantum.

The appellant appealed the 2022 and 2023 property classifications of two leased properties to the Assessment Review Board.

Following an interim decision that reclassified the basement of one property to the residential class, the parties provided a consent apportionment.

The Board ordered the current value of the first property reduced to $2,102,000, apportioned between the commercial and residential classes, and the second property reduced to $2,173,000, remaining entirely in the commercial class.

The appellant appealed the 2021, 2022, and 2023 property assessments of a commercial retail store, arguing the current value assessment of $420,000 was too high and should be reduced to $357,000 with a further equity reduction to $332,000.

The Board rejected the respondent's valuation methodology of using assessed values to adjust time-adjusted sale prices.

Applying the direct comparison approach using two comparable sales, the Board determined the correct current value to be $376,000.

The Board declined to make a further equity reduction, finding the respondent's equity analysis demonstrated that similar properties in the vicinity were assessed at or near their current value.

The applicant applied to the City of Mississauga for a reduction, cancellation, or refund of his 2022 property taxes due to sickness or extreme poverty under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the application because the applicant failed to comply with a procedural order requiring him to provide sufficient financial documentation, such as bank statements, to prove his inability to pay.

The Appellant, a not-for-profit organization, appealed the commercial classification of two leased properties (a detached bungalow and a surface parking lot) for the 2022 and 2023 taxation years, arguing they should be classified as residential.

The Assessment Review Board found that the basement of the bungalow was used for residential purposes and should be reclassified to the residential property class.

However, the main floor of the bungalow was substantially used as a place of worship, and the parking lot was shared with a commercial entity.

Therefore, the main floor, the remainder of the bungalow, and the parking lot were correctly classified in the commercial property class.