Subuola Awoleri

The appellant appealed the 2020 and 2021 property assessments of a single-family detached home in Milton, arguing for an equity reduction on the returned value of $636,000.

MPAC presented lay opinion evidence suggesting a higher current value of $696,000, which the Board ruled admissible under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Board found the correct current value based on comparable sales was $672,000, but confirmed the returned assessment of $636,000 because MPAC did not serve a notice of increase.

The Board declined to apply an equity reduction, finding that the median assessment-to-sales ratio of 0.974 indicated similar properties were assessed equitably.

The appellants appealed the 2019, 2020, and 2021 property tax assessments of their residential property, arguing the current value should be between $180,000 and $220,000.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value to be $277,000 based on comparable sales, but reduced the 2019 assessment to $213,000 to account for necessary repairs existing on the state and condition date.

The Board confirmed the $277,000 assessment for 2020 and 2021, as the repairs had been completed.

The Board declined to make an equitable reduction under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, finding that similar properties in the vicinity were assessed at or near their current value.

The appellants appealed the 2020 and 2021 property assessments of their single-family detached dwelling, arguing the current value assessment of $2,144,000 was too high and should be reduced to $1,459,980.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable property sales and found that the correct current value was actually $2,299,000.

However, because the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation did not seek an increase, the Board confirmed the assessment at the returned value of $2,144,000.

The Board also found no equitable adjustment was warranted as similar properties in the vicinity were assessed at or near their current value.

The appellant appealed the 2018-2021 property assessments of a commercial property improved with a theatre in Niagara Falls, arguing the assessed value of $2,620,000 was too high.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable property sales presented by both parties to determine the land value.

The Board found that the location of properties closer to the downtown core had more value due to tourist traffic exposure, and concluded the assessed land value was appropriate.

The Board confirmed the current value assessment of $2,620,000 and found no equitable reduction was required.

The appellant appealed the 2019 classification of his property in the residential property class, arguing it should be classified in the farm property class due to his beekeeping activities.

The Assessment Review Board found that the property did not qualify as farm land under s. 19(5) of the Assessment Act because it had only 20 beehives, falling short of the 50-beehive minimum threshold required for commercial beekeeping operations.

The Board confirmed the residential classification for 2019, while noting the property was properly assessed as farm land for 2020 after the appellant increased the number of beehives to at least 50.

The appellants appealed the 2019 and 2020 property assessments of their vacant farm property, which was assessed at $40,500.

The property consists of 80.52 acres, mostly swampy, with only summer seasonal access.

MPAC proposed a value of $33,500 based on comparable sales, but the Board found MPAC's comparables superior due to year-round access and better soil quality.

The Board preferred the appellants' comparable sale of a similar property with no access, which sold for a time-adjusted price of $75.28 per acre.

Applying this rate, the Board reduced the assessment to $6,062 and found no further adjustment for equity was required.

The appellant appealed the 2019 and 2020 property assessments of their home, arguing it was incorrectly classified as a waterfront property.

The property is separated from the river by an Ontario Power Generation shoreline and features a 100-foot sheer cliff, making access to the water impossible without constructing a stairway.

The Assessment Review Board found that because the appellant did not have current and ongoing use of the shoreline to access the water, the property was incorrectly assessed as a waterfront property.

The hearing was adjourned to allow the parties to provide comparable sales evidence for non-waterfront properties to determine the correct current value.

The applicant applied to the City of Mississauga for a reduction, cancellation, or refund of his 2019 property taxes under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, citing an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The Assessment Review Board, acting under delegated authority, dismissed the application.

The Board found that the applicant failed to comply with a procedural order requiring him to provide sufficient financial documentation, such as evidence of monthly expenses and all assets and liabilities, to prove his inability to pay.

The appellant appealed a City Council decision granting a property tax refund of $51.77 for fire damage, arguing the refund was too low and the property's value was zero.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the appeal because the appellant failed to provide any supporting documentation or evidence of costs incurred to restore the property, contrary to the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Board also noted it lacked jurisdiction to cancel interest and penalties.

The appellant appealed the 2013-2016 property tax assessments for a commercial property operating as an automobile dealership.

The property was assessed at $3,513,000.

The appellant argued for a lower value, claiming a deduction for functional (showroom) obsolescence and a lower land value due to traffic counts.

The Board found that the property, built in 2005, was too new to qualify for showroom obsolescence.

The Board accepted MPAC's comparable land sales and determined the correct current value to be $3,367,000.

No equitable reduction was granted as the appellant provided no evidence to support one.

The applicant applied to cancel her 2019 property taxes of $680.86, claiming an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed the applicant's financial situation, noting a monthly income deficit but significant available credit and a Tax-Free Savings Account.

The Board found that the applicant had not exhausted all available financial resources to mitigate her property tax obligation, having used her credit to pay legal fees instead.

The application was dismissed as the applicant was deemed able to pay the taxes.

The Applicant applied to the City of Hamilton for a refund of her 2019 property taxes, claiming an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed the Applicant's income, expenses, and assets, including a one-time Indigenous treaty settlement rebate and RRSP savings.

The Board found that the Applicant lived frugally but had sufficient financial resources to pay her property taxes while still affording the basic necessities of life.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a supplementary assessment for a newly constructed distribution centre.

At the commencement of the hearing, the respondent raised a preliminary issue requesting the Board to dispense with the appellant's witness statement and exclude the witness from testifying because the appellant failed to file the statement by the deadline set out in the schedule of events.

The Board found that the appellant failed to establish exceptional circumstances to justify extending the timeline under Rule 82.

The Board granted the respondent's request, excluded the witness, and ordered the main hearing to be rescheduled.

The appellants appealed the omitted assessments and current value assessments of their residential property for the 2017 to 2020 taxation years.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation had assessed the property at $381,000 based on the addition of a new building and garages.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable sales and determined the correct current value to be $330,000.

The Board reduced the omitted assessments for 2017 and 2018 accordingly and found no further reduction for equity was required.

The applicant applied to the City of Mississauga to have her 2019 property taxes cancelled due to an inability to pay caused by sickness or extreme poverty under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act.

The Assessment Review Board found that the applicant's monthly expenses exceeded her income and that she was unable to access the equity in her home due to her financial situation and medical condition.

The Board concluded that the applicant was unable to pay her property taxes due to sickness and ordered the cancellation of the 2019 property taxes in the amount of $4,748.31.

The City of Windsor brought a motion to dismiss the property tax appeals of 2198806 Ontario Inc., arguing that the Appellant breached the Assessment Review Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure by raising new issues and altering the proposed amount of tax refunds in its legal submissions.

The Board denied the motion, finding that the Appellant's actions did not constitute a willful flouting of the Rules and that the City failed to demonstrate any prejudice that could not be cured by an adjournment.

The Board adjourned the hearing to allow the City to respond to the Appellant's legal submissions.

The appellant appealed the 2017 to 2020 property assessments of a vacant commercial property, arguing the current value assessment should be reduced to $300,000 due to a prior expropriation and septic issues.

The respondent presented a comparable sale supporting a value of $421,582.34.

The Assessment Review Board found the comparable sale to be the best evidence of value and determined the current value to be $422,000.

However, because the respondent did not serve a notice of increase, the Board confirmed the assessment at the returned value of $389,000.

The moving parties sought permission to file late appeals of their property tax assessments for the 2008 to 2016 taxation years, arguing they had overpaid taxes on two adjacent vacant lots.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion.

For the 2009 to 2016 taxation years, the moving parties failed to meet the statutory precondition of filing a Request for Reconsideration with the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation.

For the 2008 taxation year, the moving parties failed to satisfy the requirements under Rule 26(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, as they did not provide evidence that they failed to receive the assessment notice or that they filed the appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment.

The appellant appealed the 2019 and 2020 property assessments of a residential property located in a floodplain and zoned as open space.

MPAC assessed the property at $3,176,000 for 2019, while the appellant argued for a value of $200,000 or $315,031.17.

The Assessment Review Board rejected both parties' proposed valuations and methodologies.

Using MPAC's best comparable sale and applying appropriate negative adjustments for heavy traffic, floodplain, and lack of green space, the Board determined the correct current value to be $1,261,000.

The Board found no further reduction was required for equity.

The appellant appealed the 2019 property assessment of a single-family detached residential dwelling.

The appellant argued that MPAC improperly nullified a 2017 Request for Reconsideration (RfR), denying the right to appeal for 2017 and 2018.

The Board found that MPAC did not nullify the RfR; rather, the appellant failed to provide requested information, rendering the RfR deficient.

On the issue of valuation, the Board preferred a comparable sale on the same street and applied a time-adjusted sale price per square foot to determine the current value at $2,965,000.

The Board declined to make a further equitable reduction, finding the median assessment-to-sales ratio of 0.95 was not substantially below 1.00.