Tyrone D. Skanes

The appellants appealed the 2016 property assessment of their single-story residential home, which had its attached garage renovated to accommodate a travel agency business.

The appellants did not dispute the total assessed value of $389,000 but objected to the apportionment of the assessment between residential and commercial tax classes.

The Assessment Review Board found that the undisputed operation of a business in the renovated garage supported the apportionment.

The Board confirmed the assessment and its apportionment.

The moving party brought a motion for the production of confidential information held by the respondent regarding 24 pharmaceutical companies and five non-pharmaceutical companies, to assist in valuing its purpose-built pharmaceutical manufacturing facility.

The respondent and third-party property owners consented to the release of information for the pharmaceutical properties but objected to the non-pharmaceutical properties.

The Assessment Review Board found that the non-pharmaceutical properties lacked sufficient similarity to the subject property and denied disclosure for those five properties.

The Board ordered the disclosure of information for the 24 pharmaceutical properties, subject to strict confidentiality undertakings.

The moving party requested to set aside the 2014 and 2015 Minutes of Settlement, arguing that the 2008 current value assessment phase-in value was incorrectly changed.

MPAC agreed to set aside the minutes to determine the correct phase-in value but disputed the moving party's proposed value.

The Assessment Review Board set aside the 2014 and 2015 minutes on consent, determined the correct 2008 phase-in value was $1,046,435 based on the addition of the unimproved land value and the revised improvement value, declined to order a new hearing for 2014 and 2015 as the overall assessment value was agreed upon, and ordered the implementation of the 2013 Minutes of Settlement.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a vacant lot in Oakville for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

The Board determined the current value of the property to be $12,832,000 based on comparable sales provided by MPAC.

However, applying section 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, the Board found this value inequitable compared to similar lands in the vicinity.

The Board reduced the returned assessment from $3,182,000 to $2,680,000 to achieve equity.

The appellants appealed the property tax assessment of a daycare facility for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years, arguing the current value of $3,291,000 was too high and should be reduced to $2,000,000.

The Assessment Review Board rejected MPAC's Automated Cost System methodology due to a lack of supporting data and the assessor's inability to explain the model.

The Board also placed little weight on the appellants' appraisal report because the author was not called to testify to his qualifications.

Relying on two comparable sales, the Board determined the current value to be $3,367,000.

Since MPAC did not request an increase, the Board confirmed the assessment at $3,291,000 and found it equitable.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their single-family home for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years, arguing the assessed value of $2,203,000 was too high and that the property should not be classified as waterfront.

MPAC presented evidence using the direct comparison approach, suggesting a value of $2,070,000 based on settlement discussions, while the appellants sought a reduction to $1,796,000.

The Assessment Review Board found that the property was sufficiently similar to waterfront comparables and determined its current value to be $2,436,000.

However, because MPAC did not apply for an increase, the Board confirmed the returned assessment at $2,203,000 and deemed the decision applicable to the 2016 taxation year.

The appellants appealed the supplementary assessment of their newly built waterfront home under section 34 of the Assessment Act.

The property was initially assessed at $1,793,000 for the building improvements, which MPAC later offered to reduce to $1,516,000.

The appellants argued for a lower assessment of $855,000 based on the quality of finishes and comparable sales.

The Assessment Review Board evaluated the comparable sales provided by both parties, determined the appropriate time-adjusted sales range, and concluded that the supplementary assessment should be reduced to $1,432,000.

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

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a two-storey modular home for the 2014 and 2015 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $412,000, while the appellant sought a reduction to $275,645.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed the comparable sales evidence provided by both parties and found most comparables to be inferior.

Relying on one relatively comparable property, the Board determined the current value to be $376,000.

The Board also found no equity adjustment was required.

The assessment was reduced to $376,000.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of a commercial property located at 2481 Yonge Street in Toronto for the 2014 and 2015 taxation years.

The original assessment was $1,711,000, which MPAC recommended reducing to $1,515,000.

The appellant sought a further reduction to between $1.3 and $1.4 million, citing the need for repairs and lack of parking.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC's comparable sales supported the recommended value of $1,515,000 and that the appellant's comparables were either outside the ideal time period or too far away.

The Board reduced the assessment to $1,515,000 for 2014 and confirmed it for 2015.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a 9.34-acre vacant lot being developed for residential use.

MPAC assessed the property at $4,136,000, applying a 50% negative adjustment for topography and estimating 7.34 acres as developable.

The appellant argued that only 4.6 acres were developable due to environmental and noise barrier requirements, and that extraordinary land preparation costs should reduce the assessment.

The Assessment Review Board accepted the appellant's engineering report that 4.6 acres were developable and applied the average per-acre value of MPAC's best comparable sales, along with the 50% topography reduction.

The Board reduced the assessment to $1,937,000 for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a multi-residential apartment building for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years.

The appellant argued that the assessment should be based on actual rents rather than a Fair Market Rent (FMR) study and challenged the respondent's equity analysis.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the appellant's arguments, applying established case law that economic rent is the proper determinant of market value using the income approach.

The Board accepted the respondent's FMR study and equity analysis, confirming the assessment at $8,427,000.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a multi-residential apartment building for the 2013, 2014, and deemed 2015 taxation years.

The appellant argued that actual rents should be used to determine current value, while MPAC used a Fair Market Rent study.

The Board accepted MPAC's use of economic rents over actual rents, relying on established case law.

The Board also accepted MPAC's equity analysis, which expanded the vicinity to obtain a larger sample size, finding no equity adjustment was necessary.

The assessment was confirmed at MPAC's recommended value of $8,427,000.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their vacant land for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years.

MPAC had assessed the property at $46,000 for 2013 and $40,500 for 2014, but offered to reduce the 2013 assessment to $40,500.

The appellants argued the land was worth no more than $20,000.

The Assessment Review Board found that the current value of the property was $28,000 based on the sales of comparable properties, noting the subject property's inferior lot size.

The Board reduced the assessment to $28,000 for both the 2013 and 2014 taxation years, and deemed the appeal to apply to the 2015 taxation year as well.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their single-family detached dwelling for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $286,000 based on the sales comparison approach.

The appellants argued for a lower assessment, presenting three alternative valuation options.

The Assessment Review Board evaluated the comparable sales provided by both parties, excluding several that were not sufficiently comparable or lacked time adjustment data.

Based on the remaining comparable properties, the Board determined the current value of the subject property to be $276,000.

The Board also accepted MPAC's equity study, finding no adjustment was required for equity.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a seasonal waterfront property for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years.

The property contained a severely decayed and uninhabitable cottage, which MPAC deemed worthless, assessing the property essentially for land value at $180,000.

The Board found that neither party's comparable properties were truly comparable due to the uninhabitable state of the subject cottage.

Relying on average water frontage values from the comparable sales, the Board determined the current value to be $157,600 and found no equity adjustment was required.

The assessment was reduced accordingly.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a 30.4-acre waterfront property, specifically contesting the valuation of the 29.4-acre managed forest portion.

The Assessment Review Board found that the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation incorrectly assessed the managed forest portion based on its potential use as waterfront recreational property rather than its current use as a managed forest.

Applying the prescribed land band values under O. Reg. 282/98, the Board reduced the assessment of the managed forest portion to $66,300, resulting in a total property assessment of $866,800 for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of her single-family home for the 2013 taxation year, arguing the current value of $2,548,000 was too high due to mould, asbestos, and other property defects.

MPAC presented a direct sales comparison approach and an equity analysis supporting the assessed value.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appellant failed to provide expert evidence substantiating the environmental hazards or their impact on the property's value.

The Board accepted MPAC's comparable sales and confirmed the assessment at $2,548,000, finding no adjustment was required for equity.