Property Tax Assessment

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

They argued that the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (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 of 12.50 was reasonable and that the New Tax Class Premium correctly applied to the entire property because the tax incentive increased the overall value.

However, MPAC agreed to accept the appellants' lower GPI estimate of $231,300 due to a unique violent incident at the property.

The Board reduced the assessment from $3,477,000 to $2,891,250 based on MPAC's offer.

MPAC brought a motion to dismiss appeals regarding the tax-exempt status of a portion of a historic rail station occupied by the North American Railway Hall of Fame.

MPAC argued that disputes over tax exemptions must be addressed by application to the Superior Court of Justice under s. 46 of the Assessment Act, and that the Assessment Review Board lacks jurisdiction.

The Board agreed, finding that its jurisdiction under s. 40(1) does not include determining tax exemptions.

The Board ordered the respondent to provide proof of a Superior Court application within 30 days, failing which the appeals would be dismissed.

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

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

The Board reviewed comparable sales evidence and confirmed the assessed values for the 700 sq. ft. and 1,518/1,636 sq. ft. units.

However, the Board reduced the assessed values for the 1,075 and 1,320 sq. ft. units based on comparable sales and MPAC's recommendations.

The Board found no evidence to warrant further adjustments for equity.

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

The Board found the appellant in default of a previous order requiring the service and filing of a Statement of Issues.

The Board ordered the appellant to serve and file the Statement of Issues by February 1, 2016, failing which the appeals would be dismissed without further notice pursuant to section 8.2 of the Assessment Review Board Act.

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

The parties advised that settlement discussions had reached an impasse and requested an adjournment.

The Board granted the adjournment, scheduled a peremptory two-day hearing for September 2016, and issued a procedural order setting out deadlines for the exchange of statements of issues and responses, as well as property inspections.

The Assessment Review Board held a pre-hearing telephone conference regarding property assessment appeals for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years.

As settlement discussions had reached an impasse and the parties were not prepared for a full hearing, the Board scheduled a peremptory full hearing for September 2016.

The Board also issued a procedural order setting deadlines for the exchange of Statements of Issues and Responses, and scheduled a further pre-hearing conference for April 2016.

The Assessment Review Board held a pre-hearing telephone conference regarding property assessment appeals for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years.

The Board found the appellant in default of a previous order requiring the service of a Statement of Issues.

The Board ordered the appellant to serve the Statement of Issues on MPAC and the municipality and file proof of service by February 1, 2016, failing which the appeals would be dismissed without further notice pursuant to section 8.2 of the Assessment Review Board Act.

The Assessment Review Board held a pre-hearing telephone conference regarding property assessment appeals for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years.

The appellant was found in default of a previous order requiring the service of a Statement of Issues.

The appellant's former representative advised they were no longer retained.

The Board ordered the appellant to serve the Statement of Issues by February 29, 2016, failing which the appeals would be dismissed without further notice.

The applicant appealed to the Assessment Review Board seeking a cancellation, reduction, or refund of his 2014 property taxes, claiming an inability to pay due to extreme poverty under section 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act.

The Board found that the applicant did not meet the threshold for extreme poverty, noting that his wife had taken a nine-month vacation to South Korea, the applicant had substantial equity in his home, and he had not explored secondary means of income or provided sufficient financial information regarding his incorporated business.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant failed to appear at a scheduled prehearing telephone conference call regarding a property assessment appeal for the 2014 taxation year.

The Assessment Review Board issued an Order of Intent to Dismiss, requiring the appellant to serve a Statement of Issues by February 29, 2016, and file proof of service by March 4, 2016.

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 moving parties, various car rental companies, brought a motion before the Assessment Review Board regarding the production of documents by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC).

On consent of the parties, the Board ordered MPAC to produce income and expense information, leases, rent rolls, operating statements, and rental analyses used to determine the base year current value assessments for the 2004-2011 taxation years.

The production was conditional upon the receipt of executed confidentiality undertakings from legal counsel and consultants, except for the Greater Toronto Airports Authority.

The Board also scheduled a further prehearing event by telephone conference.

The Assessment Review Board held a pre-hearing telephone conference regarding property assessment appeals for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years.

The Board found the appellant in default of a previous order requiring the service of a Statement of Issues.

The Board ordered the appellant to serve the Statement of Issues on MPAC and the municipality by December 18, 2015, failing which the appeals would be dismissed without further notice pursuant to section 8.2 of the Assessment Review Board Act.

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

The Board found the appellant in default of a previous order and Rule 86 for failing to serve a Statement of Issues.

The Board ordered the appellant to serve the Statement of Issues by November 30, 2015, failing which the appeal would be dismissed without further notice.

Further procedural steps and a subsequent pre-hearing conference were also scheduled.

The Assessment Review Board held a prehearing to consider a procedural order for appeals concerning the property assessment of 99 Sudbury Street in Toronto for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years.

The Board approved the procedural order as presented and directed the parties to comply with its terms and procedural dates, noting that failure to do so would constitute a default.

The appellant failed to appear at a telephone conference call prehearing for property assessment appeals.

The Assessment Review Board found the appellant in default of a previous Board Order.

The Board ordered the appellant to serve a Statement of Issues by a specified date, failing which the appeals would be dismissed without further notice.

The matter was adjourned to a further telephone conference call.

The Assessment Review Board held a telephone conference call regarding property assessment appeals for 65 Basaltic Road in the City of Vaughan.

The appellant failed to appear and was found in default of Rule 86 for failing to serve a Statement of Issues.

The Board ordered the appellant to serve the Statement of Issues by November 30, 2015, failing which the appeals would be dismissed without further notice.

The matter was adjourned to a further prehearing conference.

The Assessment Review Board approved a procedural order presented at an in-person prehearing regarding the assessment of a property in the City of Toronto.

The Board directed the parties to comply with the terms and procedural dates in the order, noting that failure to do so would constitute a default.

The appellant failed to appear at a telephone prehearing conference for a property assessment appeal.

The Assessment Review Board issued a procedural order requiring the appellant to serve and file a Statement of Issues by a specified date.

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

The matter was adjourned to a further prehearing conference.

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

The Board ordered the rescission of a previous Board Order issued on September 16, 2015, and adjourned the matter to a new pre-hearing telephone conference call to determine status.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a multi-residential apartment building for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years.

The appellant argued that the assessment should be based on actual rents rather than a Fair Market Rent (FMR) study and challenged the respondent's equity analysis.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the appellant's arguments, applying established case law that economic rent is the proper determinant of market value using the income approach.

The Board accepted the respondent's FMR study and equity analysis, confirming the assessment at $8,427,000.