Subuola Awoleri

The parties stated a question of law to the Assessment Review Board regarding whether the market value of the rights associated with an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) should be reflected in the current value of a landfill site for property assessment purposes.

The Board held that the principle established by the Court of Appeal in Restfulcare applies to landfills, meaning that where lands have an inherent capacity for a certain use and a government approval authorizes that use, the value of the approval is a component part of the value of the land.

Consequently, the Board concluded that the market value of the rights associated with the ECA must be reflected in the current value of the landfill site.

The Bluffers Park Yacht Club appealed the property assessments of its site for the 2009 to 2015 taxation years.

The parties agreed on the cost approach to value and the depreciated value of the improvements, leaving only the land value in dispute.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the appellant's reliance on its lease rate with the City, finding it was a below-market rate influenced by political considerations.

The Board also rejected the appellant's comparable sales of large, remote hazard lands.

Instead, the Board relied on sales of small hazard land parcels on Lake Ontario, applying a size adjustment to determine a land value of $4,000,000 for 2008 and $5,000,000 for 2012.

Adding the agreed improvement values, the Board determined the total current value to be $4,404,504 for 2009-2012 and $5,409,422 for 2013-2015, and found no adjustment for equity was required.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a commercial auto dealership, arguing that the land value should be based on a land table rate of $769,000 per acre rather than the assessor's higher valuation based on comparable sales.

The Assessment Review Board found that the assessor's comparable sales of vacant commercial land, which indicated a median value of $1,091,477 per acre, provided better market evidence than the land table.

The Board also accepted the appellant's lower calculation for the replacement cost of the structures.

Combining the accepted land value and structure cost resulted in a value slightly higher than the returned assessment.

As no party requested an increase, the Board confirmed the returned assessment of $5,939,000.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessments of his single-family detached dwelling in Oakville for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years.

The property was assessed at $1,139,000 for 2013 and $1,105,000 for 2014 and 2015.

The appellant argued the assessment should be $940,000, relying on sales comparables and a 5% negative adjustment for Urea Formaldehyde Foam Insulation (UFFI).

The Assessment Review Board reviewed the sales comparables provided by both parties and determined the current value to be $1,003,000, applying a 1% adjustment for a cul-de-sac and a 5% negative adjustment for UFFI.

The Board found this value to be equitable with similar lands in the vicinity and ordered the assessments reduced accordingly.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessments for 22 low-rise apartment buildings in Toronto for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years.

The parties agreed to consolidate the 22 roll numbers into two new roll numbers.

The main issue was the appropriate Gross Income Multiplier (GIM) to determine current value.

The appellant argued for a lower GIM based on the buildings' poor condition, while MPAC recommended a reduction based on an average condition.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's recommended GIM and reduced the assessments, finding the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence of renovation costs to justify a poor condition rating.

The City of Toronto brought a motion to adjourn the hearing of its property tax assessment appeals for the 2007 and 2008 taxation years to allow for production and discovery against the property owner, Philmor.

The City sought to reclassify the subject property from multi-residential to a commercial parking lot.

The parties had previously operated under the misconception that the facts were not in dispute and intended to proceed via an Agreed Statement of Facts.

However, shortly before the hearing, Philmor requested the City's evidence, taking the City by surprise.

The Assessment Review Board found that while both parties' pleadings were defective and the City could have been more diligent, the delay was reasonably explained.

To ensure procedural fairness and a determination on the merits, the Board granted the adjournment and ordered production and discovery.

The applicant appealed to the Assessment Review Board seeking a cancellation, reduction, or refund of his 2014 property taxes, claiming an inability to pay due to extreme poverty under section 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act.

The Board found that the applicant did not meet the threshold for extreme poverty, noting that his wife had taken a nine-month vacation to South Korea, the applicant had substantial equity in his home, and he had not explored secondary means of income or provided sufficient financial information regarding his incorporated business.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a residential condominium unit for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years, which was returned at $623,000.

The appellant argued the value should be $525,000 based on the property's listing history and lack of upgrades compared to other units.

The Assessment Review Board rejected MPAC's median sale value per square foot analysis because the comparable units had different building areas and upgrades.

Finding that the subject unit had no upgrades and had remained vacant for five years, the Board determined the current value to be $557,000, matching the listing price of a similar unit.

The Board found no further reduction was required for equity.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of $756,000 for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years, arguing the value should be reduced to $501,000 due to the building's original condition and a lack of water pressure that prevented leasing.

MPAC presented comparable sales supporting the assessed value.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appellant failed to provide market evidence or quantify the impact of the alleged defects.

The Board confirmed the assessment at $756,000, finding it reflected current value and was equitable with similar properties in the vicinity.

The appellants appealed the returned assessment of $576,000 for their residential condominium for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board found that the best evidence of current value was the actual sale of the subject property in May 2012 for $570,847.

The Board rejected MPAC's analysis based on median adjusted sale value per square foot because the comparable units had different building areas and amenities.

The Board reduced the assessment to $570,000 and found no further reduction was required for equity purposes due to an insufficient sample size of comparable sales.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a residential condominium unit for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years, which was returned at $576,000.

The Assessment Review Board found that the current value of the property should be reduced to $529,000, based on the original listing price of the unit, as it had remained vacant for several years and the comparable sales provided by MPAC were not sufficiently similar in size and upgrades.

The Board found insufficient evidence to make any further reduction for equity purposes.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their residential condominium for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years, which was returned at $623,000.

MPAC defended the assessment using a median sales value per square foot analysis of builder sales in the same complex.

The Board rejected MPAC's analysis because the units had different building areas and amenities.

The Board found that the best indicator of current value was the actual purchase price of the subject property in February 2012, reducing the assessment to $584,000.

The Board found no further reduction was required for equity purposes.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a residential condominium unit in Kenora for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years, which was returned at $623,000.

The appellant argued the assessment was too high and proposed a value of $525,000, noting the unit had been listed for $557,388 since 2010 without selling.

The Assessment Review Board rejected MPAC's median sale price per square foot analysis because the comparable units had different amenities and upgrades.

Finding the best evidence of current value to be the unit's long-standing list price, the Board reduced the assessment to $557,000 and found no further reduction was required for equity.

The appellants appealed the returned property assessment of $2,317,000 for a commercial property in Toronto for the 2014 and 2015 taxation years.

MPAC revised its assessment to $2,267,000 after discovering a smaller finished basement area during an inspection.

The appellants argued for a lower value based on the property's condition, drainage issues, and income analysis.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the appellants' income analysis and drainage arguments due to lack of factual evidence, but applied an assessment-to-sales ratio from comparable properties to MPAC's revised value.

The Board determined the current value to be $1,938,000 and found no equity adjustment was required.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a retail furniture showroom for the 2013, 2014, and deemed 2015 taxation years.

MPAC had assessed the property at $5,664,000 using an income approach, but a predecessor MPAC representative had previously offered a reduction to $5,124,000.

The appellant's expert argued for a further reduction to $3,009,000 using a cost approach and citing economies of scale.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the appellant's cost methodology as unpersuasive and flawed, preferring MPAC's income approach and sales evidence.

The Board reduced the assessment to $5,124,000, honouring MPAC's earlier offer, and found no further reduction was necessary to achieve equity with similar properties.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a single-family detached dwelling for the 2014 taxation year, originally returned at $1,251,000.

MPAC recommended a reduction to $1,118,000 based on comparable sales.

The appellant rejected this, seeking a further reduction to $1,033,000 due to alleged nuisances such as traffic and a sloped backyard.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appellant failed to quantify the negative impacts and accepted MPAC's recommended current value of $1,118,000.

The Board also found the assessment equitable based on the Assessment to Sale Ratio of similar properties.