Property Tax Assessment

The moving parties brought a motion requesting the Assessment Review Board state a case to the Divisional Court under section 43(1) of the Assessment Act.

The proposed question asked whether the market value of rights associated with an Environmental Compliance Approval should be reflected in the current value of a landfill site.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that the question was either a mixed question of fact and law or a question of law that would attract deference on a reasonableness standard.

The Board concluded that specialized tribunals should not bypass their statutory role by referring questions to the court that the tribunal is expected to answer itself, even when all parties consent.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a residential condominium unit for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years, arguing the assessed value of $362,000 was too high.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed the direct sales comparison evidence provided by both parties.

The Board rejected the appellant's comparables as they lacked the premium features of the subject property, specifically being a corner unit with a water view.

Finding that the respondent's comparables supported the assessed value and that the assessment was equitable, the Board confirmed the assessment at $362,000 and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their multi-residential property for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years.

They argued that MPAC used an inappropriate Gross Income Multiplier (GIM) and Gross Potential Income (GPI), and incorrectly applied the New Tax Class Premium to the entire structure rather than just the newly constructed portion.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC's GIM and application of the New Tax Class Premium were appropriate.

However, based on MPAC's offer during the hearing to accept the appellants' lower GPI estimate, the Board reduced the assessment from $3,477,000 to $2,891,250.

The appellant challenged the property assessment of a commercial building at 388 King Street West for the 2009 to 2012 taxation years.

MPAC argued the building had exceeded its economic life and valued the property based solely on land value.

The appellant presented expert evidence supporting an income approach valuation, emphasizing the property's long-term lease to Shoppers Drug Mart as its highest and best use.

The Assessment Review Board accepted the appellant's evidence, finding MPAC's assertions unsupported, and reduced the assessment from $13,873,000 to $9,624,000.

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

MPAC assessed the property at $1,094,000 (reduced to $976,000 for 2015) using the Cost Approach, arguing the $700,000 purchase price in 2013 was not indicative of current value due to a vendor-take-back mortgage and lack of open market exposure.

The Assessment Review Board found the sale was an arm's length transaction between a willing buyer and seller, and the vendor-take-back mortgage did not distort the sale price.

The Board reduced the assessment to $700,000 for both taxation years, finding no further adjustment for equity was required.

The appellant appealed the supplementary assessment of a newly constructed house, arguing that the assessment should be based on the actual cost of construction rather than the Direct Sales Approach used by MPAC.

The Assessment Review Board held that the Assessment Act requires supplementary assessments to be based on the increase in current value, not the cost of construction, and affirmed the Direct Sales Approach as the appropriate methodology.

Based on comparable sales, the Board slightly reduced the supplementary assessment from $1,412,000 to $1,402,000.

The appellants appealed the property tax assessment of a commercial building used as an automobile dealership, arguing the assessment of $1,013,000 should be reduced due to functional and economic obsolescence.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appellants failed to provide factual evidence to support their claims of obsolescence.

The Board accepted the respondent's valuation based on the Market Modified Cost Approach, supported by comparable sales, and confirmed the assessment at $1,013,000.

The Board also found no evidence to support an equity adjustment.

The appellants appealed the property assessments for three licensed rooming houses in Toronto for the 2013, 2014, and deemed 2015 taxation years.

MPAC had classified the properties as multi-residential "Bachelorette Apartments" and assessed their value using the Gross Income Multiplier (GIM) methodology.

The Assessment Review Board found that the properties were municipally-licensed rooming houses and should be classified in the residential property class pursuant to O. Reg 282/98.

The Board also rejected the GIM methodology as inappropriate for rooming houses due to municipal rent controls and transient clientele.

The Board reduced the assessments based on the average assessed value per square foot of similar rooming houses in the vicinity.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their seasonal waterfront property on Kasshabog Lake for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years.

While the Board accepted MPAC's current value assessment of $318,000 based on sales of comparable properties, it found that the assessment was not equitable when compared to similar island properties in the vicinity.

The Board reduced the assessment to $233,000 to achieve equity under section 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act.

The decision also applied to the deemed 2015 appeal.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a residential condominium unit for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years, arguing the current value of $361,000 was too high.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) defended the assessment using the direct sales comparison approach, providing sales of identical corner units facing the lake.

The appellant provided sales of non-corner units without lake views, which the Board rejected as not comparable.

The Board found MPAC's comparables supported the assessment and that the assessment was equitable compared to similar properties.

The assessment was confirmed at $361,000.

The appellant appealed the 2014 and 2015 property assessment of a 29.37-acre residential property in Gravenhurst, arguing the assessed value of $136,000 was too high due to rocky terrain and environmental protection restrictions.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable sales provided by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and found the assessed value per acre was consistent with similar properties.

The Board confirmed the current value at $136,000 and found no evidence to support an equity adjustment.

The Assessment Review Board approved a Draft Procedural Order submitted by the participating parties regarding property assessment appeals for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years for the property located at 55 Eglinton Avenue East in Toronto.

The parties were ordered to comply with all terms and procedural dates in the attached order.

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

MPAC consented to the request.

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

The Assessment Review Board issued a procedural order following a pre-hearing telephone conference call regarding property tax assessment appeals for the 2011-2015 taxation years.

The order sets the hearing dates, discovery deadlines, and procedures for expert witnesses, written evidence, and the conduct of the hearing.

The municipality did not serve a Statement of Response and is deemed to have elected not to participate actively.

The Assessment Review Board found MPAC in default of a previous order and the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure for failing to serve a Response to the Statement of Issues.

The Board ordered MPAC to serve its Statement of Response by November 16, 2015, failing which it would be restricted from introducing evidence at the hearing without consent and leave.

The matter was adjourned to a further prehearing telephone conference.

The Assessment Review Board issued a procedural order setting the schedule for a property assessment appeal concerning a property in the City of Kingston.

The order establishes deadlines for discovery, exchange of witness lists and statements, expert reports, and sets a two-day hearing commencing in January 2016.

At a pre-hearing telephone conference, the Assessment Review Board found the appellants in default of a previous order for failing to serve an Amended Statement of Issues.

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

Procedural dates for responses, productions, and discovery were also set, and a peremptory hearing date was scheduled.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed and approved a Draft Procedural Order submitted by the parties regarding property tax assessment appeals for the 2013-2015 taxation years.

The Board ordered the parties to comply with the procedural dates set out in the order, which included deadlines for discovery, witness lists, and expert reports, and scheduled a one-day hearing.

The municipality was deemed not to be actively participating as it did not serve a Statement of Response.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed and approved a Draft Procedural Order submitted by the parties regarding the property assessment of 658-668 Danforth Avenue.

The Board ordered the parties to comply with all terms and procedural dates in the order, and cancelled the scheduled prehearing event.

The appellant appealed a property assessment but failed to serve a Statement of Issues as required by a previous Board order and Rule 86 of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Assessment Review Board found the appellant in default and issued an order requiring the appellant to serve the Statement of Issues by a specified date.

The Board gave notice that failure to comply would result in the dismissal of the appeals without further notice.