Subuola Awoleri

The applicant applied for a cancellation of $1,935.69 in property taxes for the 2022 taxation year, citing extreme poverty under section 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

The applicant owned two investment properties and claimed financial hardship due to rogue tenants who failed to pay rent.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed the applicant's financial resources, including income, family support, assets, and expenses.

The Board found that the applicant had substantial equity in his properties, unexplained bank deposits, and significant discretionary expenses, demonstrating an ability to pay the property taxes.

The application was dismissed.

The Applicant applied to the City of Toronto to have his 2022 property taxes reduced, cancelled, or refunded under section 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, claiming an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The Assessment Review Board found that the Applicant had sufficient financial resources, including monthly financial support from family and significant net assets, to pay the property taxes while affording basic necessities and discretionary expenses.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of a surface parking lot for the 2017 to 2020 taxation years.

The appellant argued for a value of $929,000 using the income approach, while MPAC requested a value of $1,618,000 using the direct comparison approach.

The Board rejected the appellant's income approach due to a lack of supporting data and evidence.

Using MPAC's vacant land sales data under the direct comparison approach, the Board determined the correct current value of the subject property to be $991,000.

The appellant appealed the 2016 taxation year assessment of a unique waterfront property, arguing the current value should be reduced to $6,700,000 with a further equity adjustment.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) argued the correct current value was the 2012 sale price of $13,000,000.

The Assessment Review Board found that the 2012 arm's-length sale of the subject property, which occurred four months after the valuation day, was the best evidence of its current value.

The Board rejected the appellant's proposed comparable sales due to arbitrary, unquantified adjustments.

The Board also found no evidence to support an equity adjustment, concluding the correct current value for the 2016 taxation year was $13,000,000.

The Appellants appealed the classification of their property, a honey extraction facility, arguing it should be classified in the farm property class rather than the commercial property class.

The Assessment Review Board found that while the scale of the beekeeping operation was sufficient and it was unreasonable to require 50 beehives on the small property due to biosecurity risks, the property was not used 'only' for farm purposes.

Because the property was also used for retail sales and the production of beeswax candles, it did not meet the strict requirement of section 19(5) of the Assessment Act.

The appeal was dismissed and the commercial classification was confirmed.

The City of Guelph brought a motion to prohibit the appellant from raising new issues in its Amended Statement of Issues that were not raised in its Original Statement of Issues, or alternatively to strike the amended pleading.

The appellant had originally pleaded that the property's assessment should be reduced due to the COVID-19 pandemic, but its amended pleading abandoned this issue and raised entirely new issues regarding valuation methodology.

The Assessment Review Board found that while the City had standing to bring the motion and the amended pleading was filed within an agreed-upon extension, allowing such a significant amendment at a late stage of the proceeding would violate procedural fairness and cause significant prejudice to the City.

The Board prohibited the appellant from raising the new issues or presenting related evidence.

The applicant applied to the municipality to have his 2021 property taxes cancelled, reduced, or refunded due to an inability to pay caused by sickness or extreme poverty under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act.

The municipality delegated the application to the Assessment Review Board.

The Board reviewed the applicant's financial situation, noting a deficit net income, no discretionary expenses, and significant liabilities.

The Board found that the applicant had utilized all available financial resources and was unable to pay the taxes due to sickness.

The Board ordered the cancellation of the $2,056.63 in property taxes levied in 2021.

The appellants appealed the 2021 supplementary assessment and the 2022 current value assessment of their newly built residential property.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation had assessed the property at $726,000 for 2022 and issued a supplementary assessment of $614,000 for 2021.

The appellants argued for a lower value based on the cost approach and lower quality of construction.

The Assessment Review Board preferred the direct comparison approach and found the quality of construction to be 7.5.

The Board reduced the current value to $621,000 and the supplementary assessment to $509,000, finding no evidence to support an equitable reduction.

The appellant appealed the 2017 to 2022 property tax assessments for a multi-residential property in Waterloo.

The parties agreed on the current value of the property at $7,616,902 based on the income approach, leaving equity as the sole issue.

The appellant argued that similar properties in the vicinity were assessed below their current value, presenting an Assessment to Sales Ratio (ASR) analysis.

The Assessment Review Board found that an equitable reduction should be applied to the agreed current value rather than the returned assessment.

Applying the median ASR of 0.87 from five comparable sales near the valuation date, the Board reduced the assessment to $6,627,000.

The appellant appealed the 2020 and 2021 property tax assessments of a single-family detached home in Toronto, arguing the returned assessment of $1,903,000 was too high.

The Board analyzed comparable property sales presented by both parties and determined the correct current value to be $2,205,000.

After applying an equitable reduction based on the assessment-to-sales ratio of similar properties in the vicinity, the value was reduced to $1,978,000.

Because this equitable value remained higher than the returned assessment, and the respondent did not seek an increase, the Board confirmed the assessment at $1,903,000.

The appellant appealed the 2020 and 2021 property tax assessments of a single-family detached home in Toronto, arguing the assessed value of $2,524,000 was too high.

The Assessment Review Board evaluated comparable property sales presented by both the appellant and the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation.

The Board determined the correct current value of the subject property to be $2,482,000.

Applying an assessment-to-sales ratio equity analysis, the Board further reduced the assessment to $2,336,000 to ensure equity with similar lands in the vicinity.

The appellants appealed the 2020 and 2021 property assessment of their single-family detached home in Toronto, assessed at $2,560,000.

The Assessment Review Board determined the correct current value to be $2,521,000 based on comparable sales, particularly noting the property's corner lot status and building size.

The Board further applied an equitable reduction under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, using an Assessment to Sales Ratio of 0.940 derived from 33 comparable properties, resulting in a final reduced assessment of $2,370,000.

The appellant appealed the 2021 property assessment of a waterfront residential dwelling to the Assessment Review Board, arguing the current value should be between $320,000 and $330,000.

The property was assessed by MPAC at $516,000, though MPAC requested a reduction to $500,000 based on comparable sales.

The Board analyzed the comparable properties presented by both parties, finding some inferior and one superior to the subject property.

The Board determined the correct current value to be $439,000 based on the mid-point of the time-adjusted sale prices of the comparable properties.

The Board also found no equitable adjustment was necessary under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, as the median assessment-to-sales ratio of similar properties was 0.98.

The appellants appealed the 2020 and 2021 property tax assessments of their single-family detached home in Toronto.

The property was assessed at $3,129,000.

The appellants argued for a reduced current value of $2,909,291, further reduced for equity.

MPAC argued the current value was $3,779,000 but requested the Board confirm the returned assessment.

The Board analyzed comparable sales and determined the current value to be $3,382,000.

Applying an agreed-upon assessment-to-sales ratio of 0.92, the Board ordered an equitable reduction of the assessment to $3,111,000.

The Appellants appealed the property tax assessment of their industrial building for the 2017 to 2021 taxation years, arguing the current value should be reduced from $3,804,000 to $1,100,000 due to environmental contamination.

The Board excluded the Appellants' expert reports and cost-to-cure evidence because they were not disclosed in accordance with the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure and no exceptional circumstances were shown.

Without quantitative evidence of remediation costs, the Board accepted MPAC's uncontested replacement cost new less depreciation valuation.

The Board confirmed the returned assessment of $3,804,000 and found no basis for an equitable reduction.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of an industrial property in Woodstock for the 2017 through 2021 taxation years.

The Board found that the best indicator of current value for 2017-2020 was the time-adjusted sale price of the subject property itself, determining a value of $5,615,000.

For the 2021 taxation year, following the severance and sale of two parcels of land, the Board reduced the assessment to $3,706,000.

The Board also determined the correct classification and apportionment among industrial, industrial excess land, and commercial classes, and found no evidence to support an equity reduction.

The applicant applied to the City of Hamilton for a cancellation of her 2020 property taxes under section 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, citing an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The Assessment Review Board conducted a contextual analysis of the household's income, expenses, and assets, including Ontario Disability Support Program funds and student grants.

The Board found that the applicant was unable to pay a portion of the taxes due to the sickness of multiple household members.

The Board ordered a reduction of the 2020 property taxes by $5,072.93.

The appellant appealed the 2020 and 2021 property assessments of their waterfront property, arguing the current value assessment was too high.

The property lacked access to hydro.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable property sales and determined the correct current value was $335,000, reducing it from the assessed values of $499,000 and $464,000.

The Board found no evidence to support a further equitable reduction.

The appellant appealed the 2019-2021 property assessment of their property, arguing it was incorrectly assessed as a waterfront property because a 100-foot cliff prevented access to the water.

In an interim decision, the Board agreed it was not a waterfront property.

In this decision, the Board determined the correct current value of the property by comparing it to non-waterfront properties, reducing the assessment from $527,000 to $485,000.

The Board found no evidence to support an equitable reduction.

The appellant appealed the 2020 and 2021 property assessments of a residential condominium to the Assessment Review Board, arguing the current value assessment of $948,000 was too high.

The appellant objected to the admissibility of MPAC's valuation evidence because it contained an opinion of value from a non-expert witness.

The Board admitted the evidence under the compendious statement of facts exception and the broad discretion granted by the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

After reviewing the comparable sales provided by both parties, the Board found the best evidence supported the returned value of $948,000 and found no basis for an equitable reduction.