Vincent Stabile

The appellant appealed the property assessment of her residential property, which was built on a former municipal waste disposal site.

The parties agreed that the 'clean' value of the property was $402,000, but the estimated cost to remediate the contamination exceeded $1.7 million.

The Assessment Review Board found that the remediation costs far exceeded the clean value and that there would be no willing buyer for the property.

The Board determined the current value of the property to be zero for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their single-storey detached residential dwelling for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years, arguing the returned value of $263,000 was too high.

MPAC defended the assessment using the direct sales comparison approach, presenting comparable properties and an equity analysis.

The Assessment Review Board found that the subject property was assessed below the range, median, and average values of the comparable properties, and that no equity adjustment was warranted.

The Board confirmed the assessment at $263,000.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of his residential property, which MPAC had assessed at $340,000 for the 2016 valuation date.

The appellant argued that MPAC failed to consider the property's condition, specifically the need for interior upgrades and a replacement retaining wall due to the steep lot.

The Assessment Review Board found that the subject property was over-assessed compared to similar properties, noting that MPAC had not accounted for approximately $75,000 in required repairs.

Applying an 8% reduction based on historical over-assessment evidence, the Board reduced the assessed value to $313,000 for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a condominium unit for the 2017 taxation year.

MPAC originally assessed the property at $332,000 but recommended a reduction to $315,000 following an inspection.

The appellant argued for a further reduction to $300,000, challenging MPAC's comparable sales.

The Assessment Review Board agreed with the appellant that the best comparable sale was a slightly larger unit in the same complex, and applied its price per square foot to the subject property.

The Board reduced the assessment to $305,000 and found no further adjustment for equity was warranted.

The appellants appealed the 2017 property assessment of their residential property, arguing that the assessment should be frozen at the previous cycle's value of $235,000 due to zoning restrictions preventing the creation of a driveway or garage and restricting the use of the side-yard.

MPAC proposed an assessment of $250,000 based on comparable properties.

The Assessment Review Board found that the comparable properties did not have similar restrictions and applied a 5% reduction to MPAC's proposed assessment, setting the current value at $238,000.

No further adjustment for equity was warranted.

The decision also applied to the deemed 2018 appeal.

The appellants appealed the 2016 property assessment of an industrial property returned at $10,781,000.

At the hearing, MPAC brought a motion to dismiss for lack of disclosure, which was denied, and requested an adjournment, which was also denied.

The appellants and the municipality reached a settlement agreeing to a current value of $9,250,000.

MPAC took no position on the settlement.

The Board accepted the settlement and reduced the assessment accordingly.

The appellant appealed the 2016 property assessment of her 6.69-acre farm property, which was assessed at $237,000.

The appellant argued that the residence, coverall, and land were overvalued and that the land should be classified as the lowest soil class.

The appellant failed to serve any documentary evidence prior to the hearing, and the Board refused to admit her late documents.

The Board accepted MPAC's valuation methodology, which used the cost approach for buildings and soil classification tables for land, supported by comparable sales.

The Board confirmed the assessment at $237,000 and found no equity adjustments were warranted.

The Assessment Review Board issued a final decision confirming its interim decision regarding the assessment of a property owned by the appellant.

The Board confirmed the property is in the residential property class, determined the lot size to be 18,999.20 square feet, and set the total assessment value at $34,750 for the 2013 to 2016 taxation years.

Neither party provided further evidence of similar properties as requested in the interim decision.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of an industrial property in Brampton for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $3,034,000 using a combined cost and direct sales comparison approach.

The appellant argued for a value of $2,493,000 based solely on the direct sales comparison approach.

The Assessment Review Board rejected MPAC's approach due to excessive adjustments and preferred the direct sales comparison approach.

Using undisputed sales data, the Board determined the current value to be $2,644,000 and found no further adjustments were required for equity.

The appellant, a private lawn bowling club, appealed the property tax assessment of its land, arguing that the land value was incorrect due to development restrictions and an incorrect lot size.

The subject property is located entirely within a floodplain and is subject to Conservation Authority regulations prohibiting new development.

The Assessment Review Board found that while the property was correctly classified as residential, the assessor's valuation using comparable residential properties was flawed because those properties did not have similar development restrictions.

The Board reduced the land's current value assessment to $11,589.51 based on the valuation of a similarly restricted private club in the vicinity.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of her seasonal waterfront dwelling for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $338,000 based on the direct sales comparison approach.

The appellant argued the comparable properties were in much better condition and required substantial improvements to the subject property to be comparable.

The Board accepted the appellant's evidence regarding the estimated costs of necessary upgrades and reduced the assessment by $53,500, resulting in a current value of $284,500.

No further adjustment for equity was made.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their vacant waterfront lot for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years.

They argued the assessment was too high due to provincial flood level legislation that imposed a 45-metre setback, effectively preventing the installation of a septic system and the construction of a single-family dwelling.

The Assessment Review Board accepted the assessor's recommended current value of $590,000 based on linear water frontage, acknowledging the building restrictions placed the value at the lower end of comparable sales.

However, the Board rejected the assessor's equity study and found the assessment was not equitable with similar properties.

The Board applied a 20% equity reduction, lowering the assessment to $472,000 for all three taxation years.

The appellants appealed the 2014 and 2015 property assessments of their residential property, which was undergoing extensive but unfinished renovations.

MPAC proposed a reduction of the 2014 assessment from $167,000 to $157,000 based on a direct sales comparison approach that accounted for the unfinished state of the property.

The appellants sought a reduction to $105,000, relying on a previous Board decision from 2008.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's evidence, finding the $157,000 valuation to be supported by comparable sales and equitable with similar properties in the vicinity.

The 2014 assessment was reduced to $157,000, and the 2015 assessment was confirmed at $157,000.

The appellant appealed the property assessment for the taxation years 2009-2012.

MPAC sought to increase the assessment based on changes to the property profile, including quality class, effective lot size, and a green space variable.

The Board declined to qualify MPAC's assessor as an expert witness but admitted his evidence.

The Board rejected MPAC's proposed changes to the property profile, finding them insufficiently justified, but adjusted the current value based on comparable sales and the value of an enclosed pool.

The assessment was set at $2,063,000 for all years, and the Board found no evidence to support a reduction for equity.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of a former hotel that was converted into a student residence.

MPAC had assessed the property at $6,360,000.

The Assessment Review Board reduced the current value to $5,062,000 for the 2013 taxation year and $5,371,000 for the 2014 and 2015 taxation years.

The Board also determined that the property should remain in the Commercial Property Class for 2013 and 2014, but be reclassified to the Multi-Residential Property Class for 2015, as the converted units met the definition of self-contained units.

The appellant tenant appealed the property tax assessments for an industrial property for the 2009-2012 taxation years.

The appellant argued that the property's current value should be reduced due to severe environmental contamination and functional obsolescence.

The Assessment Review Board found that the property remained severely contaminated and that ongoing work was remedial, not merely monitoring.

The Board also accepted the appellant's methodology for calculating functional obsolescence, as the municipal assessor had failed to conduct an independent analysis.

The assessment was significantly reduced from over $11 million to approximately $5.98 million.