Property Tax Assessment

The appellant appealed the 2015 property assessment of his single-family home, which was returned at $439,000.

The appellant argued the assessment should be reduced to approximately $400,000 based on the Ottawa housing market, changes to the base year assessment, and comparisons to similar properties.

MPAC recommended a reduction to $435,000 based on a revised renovation year.

The Assessment Review Board found that the sale of the subject property was the best evidence of current value and accepted MPAC's recommendation, reducing the assessment to $435,000.

The Board found insufficient evidence to support a further reduction based on equity.

The appellants appealed the current value assessment of their newly constructed residential property, assessed at $1,034,000 for the 2015 taxation year.

The appellants argued the assessment should be $926,000 based on their purchase price from the builder and other sales.

The Assessment Review Board found that builder sales are not the best indicator of current value due to the protracted time interval between negotiation and purchase.

Relying on the direct sales comparison approach and comparable properties provided by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, the Board confirmed the assessment at $1,034,000 and found no evidence to warrant an equity adjustment.

The appellants appealed the 2015 property assessment of their single-family home, which MPAC had returned at $556,000.

MPAC recommended a reduction to $498,000 based on an equity adjustment, estimated basement repair costs, and corrected records.

The appellants argued the value should be closer to their 2014 purchase price of $453,625.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value to be $475,000 by applying the average time-adjusted sale price per square foot of comparable properties and deducting the estimated basement repair costs.

The Board found no further equity adjustment was required.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their water-access island property on the St. Lawrence River for the 2014 and 2015 taxation years.

The property was assessed at $467,000 based on a January 1, 2012 valuation date.

MPAC recommended a reduction to $401,000 based on a change to the main building quality classification, which the appellants rejected, seeking a reduction to $300,000.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the comparables provided by both parties but accepted MPAC's recommended value of $401,000 as reasonable based on one neighbouring sale.

The Board further reduced the value by $18,000 to account for the lack of interior finish in the main cottage, resulting in a final current value assessment of $383,000.

The appellant appealed the property assessments of $522,000 for the 2015 taxation year and $391,000 for the 2014 taxation year for a newly built rural residential property in Niagara Falls.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the comparable sales provided by both the appellant and MPAC, finding MPAC's comparables substantially inferior and the appellant's comparable substantially superior.

The Board determined that the current value lay between the two extremes, confirming the 2015 assessment at $522,000.

The Board also found no equity adjustment was required.

Based on the parties' agreement regarding the June 2014 occupancy date, the 2014 assessment was reduced to $208,900.

The appellants appealed the property assessments for their seasonal water-access property on Browning Island for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years.

The property included a residential portion and a managed forest portion.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable sales to determine the current value of the residential portion, reducing it to $825,800 for 2013 and $861,200 for 2014 and 2015.

For the managed forest portion, the Board applied the prescribed land band values under Ontario Regulation 282/98, rejecting MPAC's calculation method, and reduced the managed forest assessment to $14,500 for 2013 and $3,200 for 2014 and 2015.

The Board found no equity adjustment was required.

The moving parties brought a motion for the production of confidential information from MPAC, including income and expense information, leases, rent rolls, and operating statements used to determine base year current value assessments.

The Assessment Review Board issued a consent order requiring MPAC to produce the requested information subject to the execution of confidentiality undertakings by the moving parties' counsel and consultants.

The order specified the manner of production and scheduled a further prehearing event.

The appellants, owners of several hotel properties, brought a motion seeking disclosure from MPAC of financial and performance information regarding comparable hotel properties to assist their valuation experts in an assessment appeal.

MPAC consented to the motion subject to the execution of confidentiality undertakings.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion, ordering MPAC to produce the requested information upon receipt of executed undertakings of non-disclosure, while adjourning the motion with respect to two disputed properties to allow for further submissions.

The moving party brought a motion to compel the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation to produce third-party income, expense, and lease information relevant to its property assessment appeals.

Section 53 of the Assessment Act bars the disclosure of such information without a Board order.

The motion was granted on consent, subject to the execution of undertakings of non-disclosure by the moving party's counsel and experts.

Arbor Memorial Incorporated brought a motion seeking relief under s. 40.1 of the Assessment Act, arguing there were palpable errors in the assessment roll for the 2004-2007 taxation years.

The property was assessed as 37.63 acres and coded as a golf course, failing to reflect a 2003 conveyance of 16 acres (including the golf course) to the Town of Oakville.

The Board found this constituted a palpable error.

Despite the passage of over 10 years, the Board exercised its discretion to extend the time for appeals and directed MPAC to be the appellant, finding that the unfairness to the taxpayer in paying taxes on land it no longer owned outweighed any prejudice to the Town or MPAC.

The appellants appealed the supplementary property assessment of their newly built single-family home for the 2014 and 2015 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $1,098,000 for 2014 and $2,337,000 for 2015, arguing the property had development potential for subdivision.

The appellants argued the land was encumbered by easements and could not be easily subdivided, and challenged the occupancy date.

The Assessment Review Board found that the sales evidence supported the assessed values and that no equity adjustment was required.

The assessments were confirmed.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a residential condominium unit for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years, which was returned at $623,000.

The appellant argued the value should be $525,000 based on the property's listing history and lack of upgrades compared to other units.

The Assessment Review Board rejected MPAC's median sale value per square foot analysis because the comparable units had different building areas and upgrades.

Finding that the subject unit had no upgrades and had remained vacant for five years, the Board determined the current value to be $557,000, matching the listing price of a similar unit.

The Board found no further reduction was required for equity.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of $756,000 for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years, arguing the value should be reduced to $501,000 due to the building's original condition and a lack of water pressure that prevented leasing.

MPAC presented comparable sales supporting the assessed value.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appellant failed to provide market evidence or quantify the impact of the alleged defects.

The Board confirmed the assessment at $756,000, finding it reflected current value and was equitable with similar properties in the vicinity.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a residential condominium unit in Kenora for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years, which was returned at $623,000.

The appellant argued the assessment was too high and proposed a value of $525,000, noting the unit had been listed for $557,388 since 2010 without selling.

The Assessment Review Board rejected MPAC's median sale price per square foot analysis because the comparable units had different amenities and upgrades.

Finding the best evidence of current value to be the unit's long-standing list price, the Board reduced the assessment to $557,000 and found no further reduction was required for equity.

The appellants appealed the returned assessment of $576,000 for their residential condominium for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board found that the best evidence of current value was the actual sale of the subject property in May 2012 for $570,847.

The Board rejected MPAC's analysis based on median adjusted sale value per square foot because the comparable units had different building areas and amenities.

The Board reduced the assessment to $570,000 and found no further reduction was required for equity purposes due to an insufficient sample size of comparable sales.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a residential condominium unit for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years, which was returned at $576,000.

The Assessment Review Board found that the current value of the property should be reduced to $529,000, based on the original listing price of the unit, as it had remained vacant for several years and the comparable sales provided by MPAC were not sufficiently similar in size and upgrades.

The Board found insufficient evidence to make any further reduction for equity purposes.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their residential condominium for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years, which was returned at $623,000.

MPAC defended the assessment using a median sales value per square foot analysis of builder sales in the same complex.

The Board rejected MPAC's analysis because the units had different building areas and amenities.

The Board found that the best indicator of current value was the actual purchase price of the subject property in February 2012, reducing the assessment to $584,000.

The Board found no further reduction was required for equity purposes.

The moving party brought a motion on consent to correct a palpable error in the assessment roll for a condominium parking unit for the 2011-2014 taxation years.

The property had remained on the parent roll with the developer listed as the assessed person, resulting in the moving party inheriting historic tax arrears.

The City wrote off the arrears, leaving only the incorrect ownership and description on the roll.

The Assessment Review Board found that the failure to apportion and reflect the correct ownership was a palpable error under s. 40.1(a) of the Assessment Act and ordered the roll corrected.

The appellant appealed the property assessment for a recreational camp located on Crown land leased from the Ministry of Natural Resources under a land use permit.

The appellant argued the property's value should be reduced to reflect the restrictions of the permit.

The Assessment Review Board found that under section 18 of the Assessment Act, the tenant of Crown land must be assessed as though they were the owner.

The Board accepted MPAC's recommended current value of $145,000, confirming the 2014 assessment and reducing the 2015 assessment from $228,000 to $145,000.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a waterfront property in Burlington for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years, arguing for a 25% reduction due to the property's location on a laneway with restricted access.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) presented comparable sales supporting the assessed value of $3,048,000.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appellant provided no quantitative evidence to support a reduction and that the comparable sales justified the assessment.

The Board confirmed the assessment at $3,048,000 and found no equity adjustment was required.