Tyrone D. Skanes

The appellants requested the reinstatement of several property assessment appeals that had been dismissed by the Assessment Review Board.

The appeals were originally dismissed because the Statements of Issues were not delivered.

However, the appellants had delivered the statements, and the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) had attempted to withdraw its request to dismiss the appeals, but sent the email to an incorrect address.

The Board found that the appeals were dismissed in error due to this clerical mistake and ordered their reinstatement pursuant to Rule 122 of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a commercial property for the 2016 taxation year.

The Assessment Review Board scheduled a hearing by telephone conference call.

The appellant and its representative failed to appear at the hearing without prior notice.

In accordance with the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the appeal was dismissed for failure to appear.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their single-family home for the 2018, 2019, and 2020 taxation years.

The appellants argued that the return on the roll value of $1,397,000 should be confirmed as the current value and that an equity adjustment should be applied to that value.

MPAC presented evidence of comparable sales indicating a higher current value but recommended confirming the roll value.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the appellants' statutory arguments, determined the current value to be $1,646,000 based on comparable sales, and applied an Assessment to Sales Ratio of 0.921 to achieve equity, resulting in an adjusted current value of $1,516,000.

The appellants appealed the property tax assessment of their single-family home for the 2018-2020 taxation years.

MPAC had returned a roll value of $1,397,000 but presented evidence at the hearing supporting a current value of $1,569,000, while recommending the Board confirm the roll value.

The Board rejected the appellants' arguments that MPAC failed to meet its burden of proof or acted illegally by proposing a higher value.

Using MPAC's comparable sales evidence, the Board determined the current value to be $1,646,000.

The Board then applied an Assessment to Sales Ratio (ASR) of 0.921 for equity, resulting in a final adjusted current value of $1,516,000.

The appellants appealed their property assessment, seeking to partition one hectare of their 20.43-acre property as farm land because they hosted two honey bee hives.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation opposed the application, arguing that a minimum of 50 hives is required for a bona fide commercial bee keeping operation, and that two hives constitute a recreational or hobby farm.

The Assessment Review Board agreed with the respondent, finding that the land was not being used only for farm purposes and did not meet the regulatory threshold for a farm land classification.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the supplementary assessment of a newly built home for the 2017 taxation year and the assessment for the 2018 taxation year.

The appellant argued the assessments were too high and the negative adjustment for heavy traffic nuisance was inadequate, but provided no sales evidence.

MPAC provided sales of comparable properties and an equity analysis.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value of the property was higher than the assessed value.

Since MPAC did not apply for an increase, the Board confirmed the supplementary assessment for 2017 and the assessment for 2018.

The appellant appealed her property assessment for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

At the scheduled in-person hearing, representatives for the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation appeared, but no one appeared for the appellant or the municipality.

After waiting the customary 30 minutes and confirming no contact had been made with the Board, the panel dismissed the appeals for non-attendance.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a single-family home for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The appellant argued that errors in the assessor's data, including an incorrect measurement of an addition, resulted in an inaccurate assessment.

The assessor acknowledged the measurement error and recommended a reduction in the current value assessment.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value of the property to be $756,000 based on a value per square foot analysis of comparable properties.

The Board reduced the 2017 assessment to $756,000 and confirmed the 2018 assessment at $676,000, finding it equitable with similar lands in the vicinity.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of his single-family home for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years, arguing the current value assessment of $242,000 was too high.

The appellant had purchased the property from his parents in 2015 for $210,000, which the respondent disregarded as a non-arm's length family sale.

The Board found that the appellant's evidence rebutted the presumption that the family sale did not reflect market value, noting the property's state of disrepair and the comparable sales data.

The Board reduced the assessment to the 2015 purchase price of $210,000.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a single-family home for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The property was designated as overbuilt for the neighbourhood, receiving a 10% negative adjustment.

The appellant argued for a further reduction based on third-party reports, which the Board gave no weight to because the authors were not present to testify and their qualifications were not established.

The Board accepted the respondent's four comparable sales, averaged their time-adjusted sale prices, and reduced the assessment from $1,568,000 to $1,379,000.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their single-family home for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC initially assessed the property at $431,000 for 2018, later corrected to $429,000, but recommended a reduction to $398,000 for both years.

The appellants sought a reduction to $380,000 based on an assessment-to-assessment analysis rather than sales evidence.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the appellants' methodology, emphasizing that current value must be determined using sales of comparable properties.

After reviewing MPAC's sales evidence and discarding unsuitable comparators, the Board applied a value per square foot method to determine the current value at $419,000.

The Board reduced the 2018 assessment to $419,000 and confirmed the 2017 assessment at $398,000.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a seasonal waterfront home on Bigwin Island for the 2017 and deemed 2018 taxation years, seeking a 10 to 15% reduction.

The appellant argued that properties on the island were selling for less than their assessed values due to lack of interest and association restrictions, but provided no comparable sales evidence.

The respondent provided four comparable sales and an equity analysis supporting the assessment.

The Assessment Review Board found the current value of the property to be higher than assessed, but as the respondent did not apply for an increase, the Board confirmed the assessment at $1,781,000 and found no adjustment was required for equity.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their seasonal riverfront home for the 2017 taxation year, arguing the current value assessment of $305,000 was too high and should be reduced to approximately $260,000.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable sales provided by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and found the current value of the property was actually higher than assessed, at $369,856.

The Board also accepted MPAC's equity analysis showing similar properties were assessed near their correct current values.

The Board confirmed the assessment at $305,000 and applied the decision to the deemed 2018 appeal.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a single detached home for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The property was uninhabitable, gutted, and lacked municipal services.

MPAC assessed the property at $162,000, applying a 90% negative adjustment to the structure, but failed to adequately explain the valuation or provide comparable uninhabitable properties.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC failed to meet its statutory burden of proof under s. 40(17) of the Assessment Act.

Accepting the appellant's evidence and experience, the Board reduced the current value assessment to $115,000 and found no equity adjustment was required.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a single-family home for the 2017 taxation year.

The appellant argued for a reduction based on a noise nuisance from aircraft traffic and other neighbourhood factors.

MPAC had previously reduced the assessment to $724,000 during a Request for Reconsideration due to a lot size correction.

The Board found the current value to be $802,000 after applying a 5% reduction for the noise nuisance, and determined an equity adjustment to $760,000 was required.

However, because MPAC's offer of $724,000 was lower, the Board reduced the assessment to $724,000 for the 2017 and deemed 2018 taxation years.

The appellants appealed the 2017 property assessment of their single-family home.

MPAC and the Town of Oakville recommended reducing the assessment to $707,000 based on an equity analysis of similar properties in the vicinity.

The appellants sought a further reduction to $657,000 but provided no recent sales evidence.

The Assessment Review Board accepted the respondents' evidence, finding the current value to be $772,000 and applying an equity adjustment to reduce the assessment to $707,000.

The moving parties brought a motion for the production of rents and current values from a settlement between MPAC and the GTAA regarding other airport properties.

MPAC opposed the motion, arguing the information was protected by settlement privilege, irrelevant, and requested too late.

The Board granted the motion in part, ordering the production of the returned values prior to settlement and the final values placed on the public roll, finding this information relevant and not privileged, while protecting the confidential settlement process itself.

The appellants appealed the 2017 property assessment of their single-detached home, seeking a reduction of the current value assessment from $357,000 to $296,000.

The appellants argued the property was in poor condition and cited historical assessment increases, but provided no comparable sales evidence.

MPAC presented sales evidence supporting the assessment.

The Assessment Review Board found the appellants' evidence insufficient and, based on a per-square-foot analysis of the single most comparable property, determined the actual current value was $492,000.

Because MPAC did not request an increase, the Board confirmed the assessment at $357,000.

The appellants appealed the 2017 property assessment of their seasonal waterfront property, arguing that the lack of hydro service warranted a reduction in the current value assessment to $175,000.

MPAC had applied a $49,000 negative adjustment for the lack of hydro, resulting in an assessment of $276,000.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appellants' proposed deduction of the full estimated cost to install hydro was unwarranted, as the property was already without hydro when purchased and had a limited rooftop system.

The Board accepted MPAC's comparable sales and equity analysis, confirming the assessment at $276,000.

The appellants appealed the 2017 property assessment of their waterfront seasonal property, arguing the current value assessment of $174,000 was inequitable and should be reduced to approximately $100,000.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation presented three comparable sales and an equity analysis supporting the assessment.

The Assessment Review Board found the appellants provided no comparable sales or evidence to support their proposed value or their claim that the equity analysis was faulty.

The Board confirmed the assessment at $174,000, finding it fell within the appropriate range of comparable sales and required no equity adjustment.