Subuola Awoleri

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a single-family detached dwelling for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years, arguing the returned assessment of $3,185,000 was too high.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable sales evidence provided by both parties and determined the correct current value to be $2,942,000.

The Board further conducted an equity analysis and found that the determined current value was equitable with similar lands in the vicinity, requiring no further reduction.

The assessment was reduced accordingly.

The appellants appealed the assessment of their single-family detached dwelling for the 2017 taxation year, which was assessed at $1,315,000.

They argued for a reduced current value of $1,017,545 based on time-adjusted sales and negative adjustments for traffic and a utility box.

The Assessment Review Board determined the correct current value to be $1,448,000 based on comparable sales within the shoulder years of the valuation date.

The Board found this value to be equitable with similar lands in the vicinity.

Since MPAC did not file a notice of intention to seek a higher assessment, the Board confirmed the assessment as returned at $1,315,000 for the 2017 and deemed 2018 taxation years.

The appellant appealed the 2017 property assessment of a single-family detached dwelling in Oakville, assessed at $1,736,000.

The appellant sought a reduction to $1,359,000 based on comparable sales and an equity adjustment.

The Assessment Review Board determined the correct current value to be $1,870,000 based on a mid-point of comparable sales.

The Board found the assessment equitable with similar lands in the vicinity.

Because MPAC did not file a notice of intention to seek a higher assessment, the Board confirmed the returned assessment of $1,736,000 for the 2017 and deemed 2018 taxation years.

The appellant appealed the 2017 and 2018 property tax assessment of a single-family detached home in Oakville, arguing the current value should be $660,000 rather than the returned assessment of $814,000.

MPAC argued for a current value of $904,000 but requested the assessment be confirmed as returned.

The Assessment Review Board determined the correct current value to be $861,000 based on comparable sales.

After applying an equity adjustment using a median assessment-to-sales ratio of 0.949, the adjusted value was $817,000.

Because MPAC did not file a notice of intention to seek a higher assessment, the Board confirmed the returned assessment of $814,000.

The son of a deceased property owner applied for property tax relief under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 on behalf of his mother and the estate of his late father, citing sickness or extreme poverty.

The City of Toronto brought a preliminary motion challenging the estate's eligibility to apply.

The Assessment Review Board held that an estate is not a 'person' under the Act and therefore cannot apply for tax relief.

The Board further held that eligibility for tax relief based on sickness or extreme poverty ends upon death, as a deceased person has no necessities of living.

The application was amended to proceed with the mother as the sole applicant.

The appellant appealed the 2017 and deemed 2018 property assessment of a waterfront property in Collingwood.

MPAC assessed the property at $1,261,000 but presented evidence at the hearing supporting a value of $1,305,000.

The appellant argued for a value of $1,113,000 based on various discount approaches applied to comparable sales.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the appellant's methodology as subjective and lacking evidentiary proof.

After reviewing the comparable sales provided by both parties, the Board determined the correct current value to be $1,274,000.

However, because MPAC did not file a notice of intention to seek a higher assessment, the Board confirmed the returned assessment of $1,261,000 and found it to be fair and equitable.

The Applicant applied for a refund of his 2015 property taxes under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, citing sickness and extreme poverty.

While the Board accepted that the Applicant suffered from sickness, it found he was not in a situation of extreme poverty.

The Board determined that the Applicant had the ability to pay his property taxes, noting he had already paid them in full without penalty, received financial support from his son, had a positive bank balance, and had substantial unaccessed equity in his home.

The application was dismissed.

The appellants appealed the current value assessment of their single-family detached dwelling for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years, arguing that the returned assessment of $1,392,000 should be reduced to $991,800 due to subway noise, vibration, and other site features.

MPAC recommended a reduction to $1,236,000 based on comparable sales and a correction to the building size.

The Assessment Review Board found insufficient evidence to support a reduction for subway noise and vibration, but accepted a 10% negative adjustment for the presence of asbestos.

The Board determined the current value to be $1,303,000 based on MPAC's best comparable sale, and applied a further equity adjustment to reduce the final assessment to $1,236,000.

The appellant appealed the current value assessment of her single-family detached dwelling for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years, arguing that the returned assessment of $1,457,000 was too high due to subway noise and vibration.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value to be $1,532,000 based on comparable sales, but applied an equity adjustment based on the median assessment-to-sales ratio of similar properties in the vicinity.

The Board reduced the returned assessment to $1,454,000.

The appellant appealed the current value assessment of her residential condominium for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years, which was returned at $697,000.

MPAC presented evidence suggesting a value of $717,000 based on comparable sales, while the appellant argued for $650,000 due to alleged prejudice from the condominium corporation's status certificate and special assessments.

The Board found the correct current value to be $712,000 based on an adjusted comparable sales analysis.

However, because MPAC did not file a notice of intention to seek a higher assessment, the Board confirmed the returned assessment of $697,000 and found it to be fair and equitable.

The appellant appealed the current value assessment of her water-access-only seasonal dwelling for the 2017 and deemed 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $474,000.

The appellant argued the assessment was too high and should be $320,000, noting that MPAC's time adjustment factors improperly included road-access properties.

The Board agreed that water-access properties should be compared to other water-access properties and used the unadjusted sale prices of two relatively comparable water-access properties to determine a current value of $470,000.

The Board found this value to be equitable with similar lands in the vicinity.

The appellant appealed the 2017 property assessment of a waterfront single-family detached home in Oakville, originally assessed at $2,195,000.

The appellant argued for a lower valuation based on a non-waterfront comparable sale, while MPAC and the Town of Oakville presented waterfront comparables from outside the immediate neighbourhood due to a lack of local sales.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the appellant's non-waterfront comparable and analyzed the respondents' waterfront sales.

The Board determined the correct current value to be $2,044,000, reducing the assessment for the 2017 and deemed 2018 taxation years, and found this value to be equitable with similar lands in the vicinity.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their property for the 2017 taxation year, arguing the revised current value assessment of $198,000 was too high and should be reduced by 25% due to location factors and arsenic contamination.

The Assessment Review Board found insufficient market evidence to support the appellants' requested 25% reduction or adjustments for contamination and location.

The Board accepted MPAC's comparable sales to determine the current value at $198,000.

However, applying an equity analysis based on the median assessment-to-sales ratio of similar properties, the Board reduced the final assessment to $186,000 for the 2017 and deemed 2018 taxation years.

The moving party sought an order permitting the late filing of an appeal regarding a tax refund under subsection 357(7) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Assessment Review Board determined that the interpretation of statutory time limits is a question of statutory interpretation, not jurisdiction.

Applying the principles of statutory interpretation, the Board found that the Legislature did not intend to confer the power to extend the 35-day deadline, as it had not done so expressly in the legislation.

Consequently, the Board concluded it lacked the authority to extend the timeline and dismissed the appeal as filed out of time.

The appellant appealed the 2017 current value assessment of her single-family detached dwelling, returned at $1,327,000.

The appellant argued the assessment was too high due to the stigma of emergency ravine construction on the street and presented evidence that a comparable property was under-assessed as a renovated home rather than a new build.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the appellant's evidence as speculative and lacking market support.

Relying on three comparable sales provided by MPAC, the Board found the returned assessment was fair and equitable, confirming the current value at $1,327,000.

The appellant appealed the 2017 current value assessment of his residential property, returned at $420,000.

MPAC presented evidence suggesting the value was $461,000 based on comparable sales, but requested the Board confirm the returned assessment as it had not filed a notice to seek a higher value.

The appellant argued for a value of $403,000 based on historical assessment increases and unadjusted sales.

The Board preferred MPAC's time-adjusted comparable sales, finding the current value to be $461,000.

The Board also found no equity adjustment was warranted.

The assessment was confirmed at $420,000.

The applicants applied for a refund of their 2016 property taxes under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, citing sickness and extreme poverty.

While the Board accepted that one applicant suffered from sickness, it found that the applicants had sufficient financial resources, including significant assets outside of Canada, to pay their property taxes.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants applied for a refund of their 2015 property taxes and a cancellation or reduction of their 2016 property taxes under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, citing sickness and extreme poverty.

The Assessment Review Board found that while one applicant's sickness was established, the applicants failed to demonstrate an inability to pay their property taxes.

The Board noted the applicants had significant home equity, RRSP funds, cash savings, and substantial discretionary monthly expenses, including car leases and travel.

Consequently, the application for tax relief was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the 2017 current value assessment of his property, arguing it was incorrectly assessed as a waterfront property and that the assessment was too high.

The Assessment Review Board found that the property was correctly assessed as having indirect waterfront access because the appellant had unrestricted use of adjacent properties to access the water.

The Board determined the current value to be $871,000 based on comparable sales, and further reduced it to $819,000 to ensure equity with similar properties in the vicinity.

The applicant sought a refund of property taxes for the 2015 taxation year, claiming an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

While the Board accepted the applicant's testimony regarding his sickness, it found that he and his spouse held significant equity in two properties, exceeding $900,000.

The Board concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated extreme poverty and had the ability to pay the property taxes.

The application was dismissed.