Property Tax Assessment

The appellants appealed the supplementary property assessment for the 2014 taxation year and the regular assessment for the 2015 taxation year of their newly built rural residential home.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the 2014 appeal because the appellants failed to file a mandatory Request for Reconsideration within the 90-day deadline and did not request an extension during the 2014 taxation year.

For the 2015 taxation year, the Board reviewed comparable sales evidence and reduced the property's assessed current value from $482,000 to $416,000.

The Board declined to make any further reduction based on equity, finding insufficient evidence that the mass appraisal model over-assessed similar properties in the vicinity.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a waterfront home for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years.

The returned assessments were $883,000 for 2013 and 2014, and $708,000 for 2015.

MPAC recommended a reduction to $708,000 for all three years, while the appellant sought a reduction to $591,000 based on the percentage change of other properties' assessments.

The Assessment Review Board found that the current value of the property was at least $708,000 based on comparable sales and accepted MPAC's recommendation.

The Board also found no evidence of inequity requiring further adjustment, reducing the 2013 and 2014 assessments to $708,000 and confirming the 2015 assessment.

The appellant appealed the property assessments for an industrial property in Woodstock for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years, as well as six supplementary assessments.

The Assessment Review Board found that a derelict building on the property had no value, reducing the 2013 assessment by $37,000.

For the 2014 and 2015 taxation years, the Board preferred the appellant's equity analysis based on similar properties in the vicinity, reducing the assessment from $4,164,000 to $3,598,000.

The parties were directed to calculate the specific values of the supplementary assessments based on these findings.

The appellants appealed their property assessment for the 2015 taxation year, arguing that their newly constructed home suffered from severe, incurable construction defects, including being built 14 inches below the required level, resulting in continuous flooding.

MPAC valued the property at $295,000 based on comparable sales of properly constructed homes.

The Assessment Review Board found MPAC's mass appraisal approach inappropriate for such a unique situation and accepted the appellants' submission that the property's current value should reflect only the empty building lot prior to construction.

The assessment was reduced to $48,000.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of a residential condominium unit for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years, arguing the assessed value of $372,000 was too high.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed sales data provided by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and the appellant.

The Board rejected the appellant's comparable sales because they were not corner units and did not face the lake, unlike the subject property.

Finding that MPAC's assessment reflected the current value and was equitable compared to similar properties, the Board confirmed the assessment at $372,000 and applied the decision to the deemed 2015 appeal.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their 96-acre vacant land on Rebecca Lake, which was enrolled in the Managed Forests Tax Incentive Program.

MPAC assessed the property at $116,000, arguing that the starting point for valuation was its value as vacant land on water.

The appellants argued that under s. 19(5.2) of the Assessment Act, the property must be valued based only on its current use as a managed forest, not its potential use as waterfront property.

The Assessment Review Board agreed with the appellants, finding that the legislation requires the property to be assessed solely based on its current use.

Applying the managed forest rates in O. Reg. 282/98, the Board reduced the assessment to $27,000 for the 2014 and 2015 taxation years.

The appellant appealed the property assessments of 27 residential condominium units located at the Deerhurst Resort for the 2014 and 2015 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board confirmed the property classifications as either commercial or residential based on their participation in the resort's rental program.

The Board confirmed the assessed values for the 700 sq. ft. units and the largest units (1,518 and 1,636 sq. ft.), finding them supported by comparable sales.

However, the Board reduced the assessed values for the mid-sized units (1,075 and 1,320 sq. ft.) based on comparable sales evidence and the respondent's recommendations.

The Board declined to make any equity adjustments under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act due to a lack of evidence.

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 appealed the property assessment of a commercial property in Mississauga for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years.

The appellant argued the current value should be $5,178,000 based on comparable sales, while MPAC assessed the value at $5,596,000.

The Assessment Review Board preferred MPAC's evidence, finding that MPAC made reasonable adjustments to comparable properties to account for variables such as land area, age, and building height, whereas the appellant failed to make such adjustments.

The Board confirmed the assessment at $5,596,000 and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their commercial/residential building for the 2013 taxation year.

The respondent MPAC offered a reduced assessment of $749,000, which the appellants rejected, arguing for a lower value due to flooding issues and neighbourhood decline.

The Assessment Review Board rejected some of the comparable properties proposed by both parties, relying on two of MPAC's comparables to determine a current value of $736,000.

The Board found no equity adjustment was required, as similar properties in the vicinity were generally assessed above their current value.

The assessment was reduced to $736,000.

The appellants appealed the property tax assessment of their mixed-use commercial and residential property for the 2013 taxation year.

The property was initially assessed at $536,000, and MPAC offered to reduce it to $395,000.

The Board rejected most of MPAC's suggested comparable sales due to differences in physical characteristics and the inclusion of business chattels.

Using the two most comparable sales, the Board determined the current value to be $310,000.

The Board found no equity adjustment was required, as similar properties in the vicinity were generally assessed above their current value.

The assessment was reduced to $310,000 for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years.

The appellants appealed the 2014 property assessment of their newly built home in Innisfil, arguing the value should be reduced due to ongoing construction disruptions in the subdivision and based on comparable sales.

The Assessment Review Board confirmed the assessed value of $458,000, finding that temporary construction disruptions do not affect the permanent value of the property and that the comparable sales provided by MPAC supported the assessment.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of $10,450,000 for a luxury residential property in Toronto for the 2015 taxation year.

The appellant argued the assessment failed to account for unfinished areas and relied on an unclosed Agreement of Purchase and Sale to suggest a value of $7,280,000.

MPAC defended the assessment based on comparable sales and a prior settlement.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the appellant's proposed value, finding the unclosed sale unreliable and the unfinished areas unquantified.

The Board confirmed the current value at $10,450,000 and found no equity adjustment was required.

The appellant appealed the 2015 property assessment of a 53-unit multi-residential building in Toronto, arguing the returned assessment of $4,678,000 was too high.

The appellant contended the property should be assessed using a lower Gross Income Multiplier (GIM) of 8.0 based on similar properties.

MPAC defended the assessment using a GIM of 8.79.

The Assessment Review Board found the best evidence supported a GIM of 8.92, yielding a current value of $4,745,000.

As there was no appeal to increase the assessment, the Board confirmed the returned assessment of $4,678,000 and found no equity adjustment was warranted.

The appellant appealed the 2015 property assessment of a life-lease project for seniors.

The property had been converted to a 34-unit condominium in 2011, which significantly increased its assessed value.

The appellant began de-registering the condominium in 2014, but the process was not completed until February 2015.

The Assessment Review Board held that the property must be assessed based on its state and condition on the roll return date (December 9, 2014), at which time it was legally 34 condominium units.

The Board found no statutory authority under section 34 of the Assessment Act to issue a supplementary assessment reflecting the subsequent change in legal status.

The assessed values of the 34 units were confirmed.

The appellants appealed the property assessments for several condominium units for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years.

MPAC recommended reducing the 2013 assessments to the 2014 levels and confirming the 2014 assessments.

The Board accepted MPAC's valuation evidence, which was supported by comparable sales, and rejected the appellants' representative's arguments as he lacked expert qualifications and failed to provide comparable sales or demonstrate flaws in MPAC's methodology.

The Board ordered the assessments be set at the amounts recommended by MPAC.

The appellants appealed the property tax assessments of several condominium units in Mississauga for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years.

MPAC recommended reducing the 2013 assessments to the 2014 levels, supported by a valuation report and comparable sales data.

The appellants' representative argued the assessments were too high but failed to provide qualified opinion evidence or comparable sales to support further reductions.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's recommendations for most units, finding them supported by time-adjusted sale prices.

However, the Board reduced the assessment for one larger unit, finding MPAC failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify its higher valuation compared to a similar unit.

The Board found no basis for further reductions based on equity considerations.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of her residential condominium unit, which was assessed at $349,000 for the 2014 and 2015 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable sales provided by both parties and determined that the current value of the subject property as of the January 1, 2012 valuation day was $290,000.

The Board found no evidence to support a further adjustment on the ground of equity.

The assessment was reduced accordingly.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their fourplex in Toronto for the 2013, 2014, and deemed 2015 taxation years.

MPAC proposed an assessed value of $1,106,000, while the appellants argued for a value of $825,000 based on comparable sales and negative locational factors such as an adjacent service station and high traffic.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC had already made substantial allowances for the locational factors and that the comparators supported MPAC's proposed value.

The Board reduced the assessment from $1,378,000 to $1,106,000 and found no further adjustment was required for equity.

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.