Property Tax Assessment

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a 27.71-acre property in Lincoln, Ontario, for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years.

MPAC sought a higher assessment and a change in property class apportionment, arguing that the majority of the land was used for a commercial landscape business rather than farming.

The appellant argued that the land should remain in the farm tax class and that its value was diminished by a Ministry of Environment contamination order.

The Assessment Review Board found that the majority of the land defaulted to the commercial excess land class due to its actual use.

However, the Board accepted MPAC's recommendation to reduce the current value to reflect the cost of the contamination, resulting in a reduced total assessment of $789,000.

The Assessment Review Board held a pre-hearing telephone conference call regarding property assessment appeals.

The assessed persons/appellants failed to appear and were found in default of a previous Board Order requiring them to serve a Statement of Issues.

The Board issued an order of intent to dismiss, giving the appellants a final deadline to serve the Statement of Issues and file proof of service, failing which the appeals would be dismissed without further notice.

The Assessment Review Board held a pre-hearing telephone conference call regarding property assessment appeals.

The assessed persons/appellants failed to appear and were found in default of a previous Board order requiring them to serve a Statement of Issues on the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) and the municipality.

The Board issued an order of intent to dismiss, requiring the appellants to serve the Statement of Issues and file proof of service by October 15, 2015, failing which the appeals would be dismissed without further notice pursuant to section 8.2 of the Assessment Review Board Act.

The applicant railway company sought a declaration that its railway right‑of‑way lands were exempt from municipal taxation under s. 315(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, on the basis that the lands were leased to another entity for valuable consideration.

The court examined the contractual arrangements between the railway owner, a rail users’ consortium, and a licensed rail operator governing the operation and maintenance of the railway line.

Applying principles distinguishing leases from licences, the court held the agreements did not grant exclusive possession or create a landlord‑tenant relationship but instead resembled a joint venture or operational arrangement.

The court further found that the consortium did not pay rent or other valuable consideration within the meaning of the statute.

As a result, the railway lands were not exempt from municipal taxation.

The Assessment Review Board held a pre-hearing conference regarding property assessment appeals.

The appellants were found to be in default of a previous Board Order and the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure for failing to serve a Statement of Issues.

The Board ordered the appellants to serve the Statement of Issues by a specified date, warning that failure to comply would result in the dismissal of the appeals without further notice.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a condominium townhouse in Markham, assessed at $645,000 for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years.

The appellant argued the assessment was too high compared to nearby properties, while MPAC defended the assessment using a market analysis study.

The Assessment Review Board found that based on comparable sales, particularly a similar model home with a two-car garage, the current value should be reduced.

The Board reduced the assessment to $615,000 for the 2013, 2014, and deemed 2015 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board held a prehearing telephone conference regarding property assessment appeals.

The appellant had failed to comply with a previous Board order to provide a 'Cost of Construction' report, appraisal reports, and sale details for the subject property.

The Board ordered the appellant to serve the required documents on MPAC and the City of Guelph by October 15, 2015, failing which the appeals would be dismissed.

The appellants appealed the property assessments for two properties in Toronto, arguing they should be assessed as farm lands based on their agricultural zoning.

MPAC argued the properties were not used for farm purposes and presented sales of vacant industrial land to support the land value.

The Assessment Review Board found insufficient evidence that the properties were used for farm purposes during the relevant taxation years.

However, based on MPAC's sales evidence, the Board reduced the assessments for both properties to reflect their current value as of the valuation date.

No equity adjustment was found to be required.

The appellant failed to appear at a pre-hearing telephone conference and failed to serve a Statement of Issues as required by a previous Board Order and the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Assessment Review Board issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, ordering the appellant to serve the Statement of Issues on the respondents by September 28, 2015.

If the appellant fails to comply, the appeal will be dismissed without further notice pursuant to section 8.2 of the Assessment Review Board Act.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their 1.25-acre waterfront lot on Rebecca Lake for the 2014 and 2015 taxation years.

The property was assessed at $256,000, which MPAC recommended reducing to $128,000.

The appellants argued the property was unbuildable due to environmental restrictions and lacked road access.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC's comparable sales were not truly comparable as they were buildable and had road access.

Relying on a comparable sale of an unbuildable property provided by the appellants, the Board determined the current value of the subject property to be $56,000 and reduced the assessment accordingly.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their waterfront property in Fort Erie for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years, as well as a supplementary assessment following the demolition and rebuilding of the cottage.

The Assessment Review Board found that the best comparable sales supported a current value assessment of $1,294,000 (rounded to $1,295,000) rather than the $1,460,000 assessed by MPAC.

The Board reduced the 2014 and 2015 assessments accordingly, confirmed the 2013 assessment at $818,000, and reduced the supplementary assessment from $647,000 to $477,000.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a mixed-use commercial and multi-residential building in Belleville for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years.

The property was originally assessed at $719,000.

Both the appellant and MPAC agreed the value was too high, but disagreed on the methodology and final value.

The Assessment Review Board preferred MPAC's income approach, which utilized a Gross Income Multiplier of 3.6, over the appellant's flawed income models and unqualified expert evidence.

The Board reduced the current value to $493,000 and found no further equitable adjustment was required.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of an office building in Kingston for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years.

The parties agreed to use the income approach to value but disagreed on the inputs.

The Assessment Review Board determined the gross leasable area to be 51,400 square feet, applied a 20% vacancy allowance due to the property's specific difficulties, accepted MPAC's 7% expense allowance, and applied a 9% capitalization rate.

The current value of the property was reduced from $5,838,000 to $5,410,000.

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 Assessment Review Board held an emergency pre-hearing conference call to address a request by Exchange Corporation Canada (ECC) to vary a previous procedural order regarding production motions for airport tenant appellants.

The Board agreed to vary the order to align the dates with those provided for other appeals, setting deadlines for serving and filing motions for disclosure of financial information from MPAC.

The Assessment Review Board held a pre-hearing teleconference to determine if the appellant's 2014 and 2015 property assessment appeals were properly before the Board.

The appellant did not participate, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction to determine the validity of her 2014 appeal at a pre-hearing without a formal motion.

The Board ordered MPAC to bring a formal motion seeking dismissal of the 2014 appeal, to be heard by the member seized of the matter prior to the scheduled hearing on the merits.

The appellant in a property assessment appeal submitted a written request for an order permitting an alternative to personal service of non-parties under Rule 34(f) of the Assessment Review Board Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The motion sought to compel the respondent to produce third-party information protected by section 53 of the Assessment Act.

The respondent consented to the request.

The Board granted the order, allowing service on non-parties by courier or registered mail.

The appellant submitted a written request for an order permitting an alternative to personal service of non-parties under Rule 34(f) of the Assessment Review Board Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The motion related to compelling MPAC to produce third-party information protected by section 53 of the Assessment Act.

MPAC consented to the request.

The Board granted the order, allowing service by courier or registered mail to the non-parties' legal counsel or their address on the assessment rolls.

The appellant submitted a written request for an order permitting an alternative to personal service of non-parties for a motion to compel the production of third-party information protected by section 53 of the Assessment Act.

The respondent MPAC consented to the request.

The Assessment Review Board granted the order, permitting service on non-parties by courier or registered mail instead of personal service.