Subuola Awoleri

The applicant applied for a refund of his 2016 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 was sick, it found he was not in extreme poverty.

The applicant had a net worth of over $500,000, significant savings, and substantial discretionary expenses, and had already paid his 2016 property taxes in full without incurring debt.

The application was dismissed.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of a vacant commercial parcel of land in Kingston, Ontario, for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) had assessed the property at $443,000 based on a January 1, 2012 valuation day.

The appellants presented expert appraisal evidence suggesting a value of $250,000 based on a direct comparison approach using price per acre.

The Assessment Review Board preferred the appellants' expert evidence, finding it provided a more detailed and site-specific understanding of the valuation issues compared to MPAC's frontage-based approach.

The Board reduced the assessment to $250,000 and found no basis for a further equity adjustment.

The appellants appealed the 2016 current value assessment of their single-family detached dwelling, which was returned at $389,000.

They argued the assessment was too high due to the property's proximity to the Thunder Bay airport flight path and resulting noise.

MPAC presented six comparable sales to support the assessment.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appellants provided no quantitative market evidence to support a negative adjustment for the airport proximity.

The Board concluded that the returned assessment was fair, reasonable, and equitable based on the comparable sales and equity analysis provided by MPAC.

The appeal was dismissed and the assessment confirmed.

The moving party brought a motion for production to compel MPAC to produce documents relevant to determining the Current Value Assessment of its properties.

MPAC consented to some productions but disputed others on grounds of relevance, settlement privilege, and lack of notice to third-party property owners.

The Assessment Review Board ordered MPAC to produce the requested income, expense, and valuation records for the subject properties and specific comparable properties, subject to the execution of confidentiality and non-disclosure undertakings by the moving party's representatives.

The City of Toronto appealed the classification of a property from multi-residential to commercial parking lot for the 2007 and 2008 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board found that a change event occurred after June 30, 2006, when the property's use changed from vacant land to a commercial parking lot.

The Board determined it had jurisdiction to change the classification because MPAC had the legislative authority to do so but failed to issue a supplementary classification.

The appeal was allowed and the classification was changed.

The appellants appealed the current value assessment (CVA) and the industrial classification of their property for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

The property was used for a digital printing, graphic design, and mailing business.

The Assessment Review Board confirmed the CVA at $690,000, finding MPAC's comparable sales evidence more reliable.

However, the Board allowed the appeal regarding classification, finding that the custom digital printing services did not constitute 'manufacturing, producing or processing anything' under O. Reg. 282/98.

The property's classification was changed from industrial to commercial.

The appellant appealed the City of Guelph's denial of vacant unit rebate applications for five properties for the 2014 taxation year.

The City rejected the applications on the basis that they were not made by the statutory deadline of February 28, 2015.

The Assessment Review Board found that the applications were mailed on February 25, 2015, and interpreted the word 'made' in section 364(2)(5) of the Municipal Act to mean the date the applications were posted.

The Board determined the applications were made within the statutory time limit and referred them back to the City to determine the rebate amounts.

The appellant appealed the current value assessment of a single-storey retail pharmacy for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

The property's assessment had increased following significant renovations.

MPAC recommended a reduced assessment of $421,000 based on corrections to its Automated Cost System.

The appellant argued for a lower value using a direct comparison approach, citing the original 1958 structure and a depressed local market.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's cost approach methodology and the recommended value of $421,000, finding insufficient evidence to support a further reduction for equity.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of an industrial condominium unit for the 2013-2016 taxation years, arguing the current value assessment of $371,000 was too high compared to a neighbouring unit.

MPAC presented sales data of comparable properties indicating the subject property was actually under-assessed, but requested the Board confirm the returned value as no notice to seek a higher assessment was filed.

The Assessment Review Board confirmed the returned assessment of $371,000, finding it was supported by the sales data and equitable with similar properties in the vicinity.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a purpose-built automotive industrial facility for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

The Board determined the land value using the appellant's lower rate per acre, recognizing the property was landlocked with poor access.

The Board also accepted the appellant's measurement of excess land, finding no evidence that the disputed portions were being used.

However, the Board accepted the respondent's valuation of the structures and yardwork, rejecting the appellant's argument that deferred maintenance should further reduce the depreciated value, as this would allow the owner to benefit from their own neglect.

The total assessment was reduced from $21,986,000 to $18,451,387.

The appellant appealed the property assessments for a Small Box Shopping Centre for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

The Board determined the current value using the time-adjusted 2009 sale price of the property rather than the income approach agreed upon by the parties during summations.

The Board also applied an equity adjustment, rejecting MPAC's use of Fair Market Rents as a proxy for equity, and instead applying an Assessment to Sale Ratio of 0.84 derived from a study of 30 commercial properties in the vicinity.

The assessments were reduced accordingly.

The appellant appealed the 2012 current value assessment of a commercial office building.

The parties agreed on the income approach to value, vacancy allowance, expense allowance, and capitalization rate, but disputed the fair market rent.

MPAC used future lease step-ups to determine a median weighted rent of $11.05 per square foot, while the appellant argued for a rate of $10.50 based on leases signed within the shoulder years of the valuation date.

The Assessment Review Board agreed with the appellant that actual rents from leases signed near the valuation date provided the best evidence of fair market rent.

The Board reduced the assessment from $5,182,000 to $4,946,000 for the 2013-2016 taxation years and found the reduced assessment equitable.

The appellant appealed the current value assessment of a mixed-use residential and commercial property in Mississauga for the 2014, 2015, and 2016 taxation years, originally returned at $962,000.

During the hearing, the parties agreed to a revised building measurement of 4,800 square feet, leading MPAC to propose a revised assessment of $941,000.

The appellant argued for a further reduction to between $725,000 and $750,000, citing negative property variables such as proximity to railway tracks, traffic, and easements.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC had already accounted for the railway and traffic, and the appellant provided no quantitative evidence for the other variables.

After reviewing the sales comparables, the Board concluded that MPAC's revised assessment of $941,000 was fair and equitable, and ordered the assessment reduced accordingly.

The applicant, an 81-year-old widow sponsored to Canada by her grandson, applied for a cancellation, reduction, or refund of her 2014 and 2015 property taxes under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, citing sickness and extreme poverty.

While the Assessment Review Board accepted that the applicant suffered from sickness, it found she failed to demonstrate an inability to pay her property taxes.

The Board noted that the applicant owned her home outright with $280,000 in equity, which she had not attempted to leverage, and that her property taxes had in fact been paid by family members.

The applications were dismissed.

The appellants appealed the 2015 property assessment of their residential condominium, which was returned at $407,000.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the respondent's sales comparables as they were from a superior development with a multimillion-dollar clubhouse.

Finding the best evidence of current value to be the July 2014 sale price of the subject property itself, the Board reduced the assessment to $394,000.

The Board found no further adjustment was required for equity, and the decision was deemed to apply to the 2016 taxation year.

The appellant appealed the 2015 property assessment of a single-family detached dwelling in Hamilton, returned at $574,000.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable sales evidence provided by both the appellant and the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation.

The Board found that the best market evidence supported a current value of $528,000.

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

The appeal was allowed, and the assessment was reduced to $528,000 for the 2015 and deemed 2016 taxation years.

The applicants appealed to the Assessment Review Board seeking a cancellation, reduction, or refund of their 2014 property taxes, citing an inability to pay due to sickness and extreme poverty under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

While the Board accepted that one applicant suffered from sickness due to cancer treatment, it found that the applicants did not meet the test for extreme poverty.

The Board noted the applicants' household income, discretionary expenses, and substantial equity in their home, concluding they had sufficient resources to pay their property taxes.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Applicant applied for a cancellation, reduction, or refund of his 2014 property taxes due to sickness or extreme poverty under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

The Assessment Review Board found that the Applicant met the criteria for sickness due to his medical condition, which prevented him from working.

After reviewing his financial situation, including his income from social assistance and his expenses, the Board determined that a tax refund of $329.10 was appropriate.

The appellant appealed the property assessment classification of 32 natural gas gate stations, arguing they should be classified as commercial rather than industrial.

The issue was whether adding an odorant (Mercaptan) to natural gas constitutes 'processing anything' under O. Reg. 282/98.

The Assessment Review Board applied the Federal Farms test, finding that the addition of the odorant changes the nature of the gas and makes it more marketable.

The Board followed its previous decision in Enbridge, dismissing the appeals and confirming the properties are properly classified in the industrial property class.

The Bluffers Park Yacht Club appealed the property assessments for the 2009-2015 taxation years.

The parties agreed on the cost approach to value and the depreciated value of the improvements, but disputed the land value.

The appellant argued for a lower value based on its lease with the City and land use restrictions, while MPAC relied on comparable sales of parkland.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the lease rate as below market and instead utilized comparable sales of small hazard land parcels on Lake Ontario, adjusting for size.

The Board determined the current value of the property to be $4,404,504 for the 2009-2012 taxation years and $5,409,422 for the 2013-2015 taxation years, and found no basis for an equity adjustment.