Property Tax Assessment

The moving parties brought a motion to review a Board decision that dismissed their property assessment appeals for failing to notify the Board that a Statement of Issues had been served by the ordered deadline.

The Board reviewed the grounds for review under Rule 145, noting that the parties had been adequately warned of the consequences of non-compliance under the Board's new rules.

Although the Board found that the strict grounds for review were not met, it granted the motion and reinstated the appeals as an 'amnesty', recognizing that stakeholders were not fully forewarned of how strictly the new rules would be enforced.

The moving party brought a motion to review a Board decision that dismissed their property assessment appeals for failing to notify the Board that a Statement of Issues had been served by the ordered deadline.

The Board found that the grounds for review under Rule 145 were not strictly met, as there was no denial of natural justice or procedural fairness.

However, the Board granted the motion and reinstated the appeals as an 'amnesty', recognizing that stakeholders were not adequately forewarned about the strict enforcement of the updated Rules.

The moving party brought a motion to reinstate property assessment appeals that were previously dismissed for failing to notify the Board that a Statement of Issues had been served by the ordered deadline.

The Board found that the moving party did not meet the strict grounds for review under Rule 145, as there was no denial of natural justice or procedural fairness.

However, the Board granted the motion and reinstated the appeals as an 'amnesty', recognizing that stakeholders were not adequately forewarned about the strict enforcement of the updated Rules, while cautioning that this decision would not serve as a precedent for future non-compliance.

The moving party brought a motion to review a Board decision that dismissed its property assessment appeals for failing to notify the Board that a Statement of Issues had been served by the ordered deadline.

The Board found that the moving party did not meet the strict grounds for review under Rule 145, as there was no denial of natural justice.

However, the Board granted the motion and reinstated the appeals as an 'amnesty', recognizing that stakeholders were not adequately forewarned about the strict enforcement of the updated Rules.

The moving party brought a motion to review a Board decision that dismissed its property assessment appeals for failing to notify the Board that a Statement of Issues had been served by the ordered deadline.

The Board found that the grounds for review under Rule 145 were not strictly met, as there was no denial of natural justice or procedural fairness.

However, the Board granted the motion and reinstated the appeals as an 'amnesty', recognizing that stakeholders were not adequately forewarned about the strict enforcement of the updated Rules.

The moving party brought a motion under Rule 145 to review a Board decision that dismissed its property assessment appeals for failing to notify the Board that a Statement of Issues had been served by the ordered deadline.

The Board found that the moving party did not meet the strict grounds for review, as there was no denial of natural justice or procedural fairness.

However, the Board granted the motion and reinstated the appeals as an 'amnesty', recognizing that stakeholders were not adequately forewarned about the strict enforcement of the updated Rules.

The Board cautioned that this decision would not serve as a precedent for future defaults.

The appellants appealed the omitted assessments applied by MPAC to their waterfront property for the 2012, 2013, and 2014 taxation years, arguing that the dwelling under construction should not be assessed until it was fit for occupancy in 2015.

The Assessment Review Board found that under s. 33 of the Assessment Act, the partially completed dwelling constituted an improvement that added value to the property and was therefore assessable.

The Board reviewed comparable sales data and reduced the omitted assessments to $157,000 for 2012, $198,000 for 2013, and $230,000 for 2014, finding these values to be equitable compared to similar properties in the vicinity.

The appellants appealed the 2014 and 2015 property assessments of their residential property, which was undergoing extensive but unfinished renovations.

MPAC proposed a reduction of the 2014 assessment from $167,000 to $157,000 based on a direct sales comparison approach that accounted for the unfinished state of the property.

The appellants sought a reduction to $105,000, relying on a previous Board decision from 2008.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's evidence, finding the $157,000 valuation to be supported by comparable sales and equitable with similar properties in the vicinity.

The 2014 assessment was reduced to $157,000, and the 2015 assessment was confirmed at $157,000.

The appellants appealed the 2015 property assessment of their residential condominium unit in Toronto.

MPAC originally assessed the property at $1,481,000 but recommended a reduction to $1,393,000 at the hearing.

The appellants argued for a reduction to $1,043,000 based on their purchase price and a time adjustment.

The Assessment Review Board found that the purchase price of $1,315,000 (including HST) and comparable sales of similar units in the building supported a current value of $1,315,000.

The Board reduced the assessment to $1,315,000 and found no further reduction was warranted on equity grounds.

The appellant appealed the 2015 property assessment of a single-family detached home, originally assessed at $1,866,000.

The appellant's expert appraiser provided evidence of comparable sales in close proximity to the subject property, supporting a current value of $1,300,000.

The respondent relied on comparable properties located further away and with a higher quality of construction classification.

The Assessment Review Board accepted the appellant's expert evidence, finding the current value to be $1,300,000, and reduced the assessment accordingly.

A further reduction based on equity was deemed unwarranted.

The appellants appealed the omitted assessments for their waterfront cottage property for the taxation years 2011 to 2013, as well as the deemed appeals for 2014 and 2015.

MPAC had added omitted assessments after discovering a new cottage and deck had been built in 2008.

The appellants argued the assessments were too high, citing the property's location on the shallower side of the island and a damaged retaining wall.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable sales and reduced the omitted assessment for 2011 and 2012, confirmed the 2013 omitted assessment, and reduced the total current value for all years under appeal, finding no further equity adjustment was required.

The appellant appealed the property assessment for the taxation years 2009-2012.

MPAC sought to increase the assessment based on changes to the property profile, including quality class, effective lot size, and a green space variable.

The Board declined to qualify MPAC's assessor as an expert witness but admitted his evidence.

The Board rejected MPAC's proposed changes to the property profile, finding them insufficiently justified, but adjusted the current value based on comparable sales and the value of an enclosed pool.

The assessment was set at $2,063,000 for all years, and the Board found no evidence to support a reduction for equity.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a residential condominium unit for the 2014 and 2015 taxation years.

The property was assessed at $420,000.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value of the property to be $440,000 based on time-adjusted sales data.

However, applying an equity analysis, the Board found that similar properties in the vicinity were assessed below their current values, with an average Assessment to Sales Ratio of 0.91.

To achieve equity, the Board reduced the assessment to $401,000.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their residential triplex in Ottawa, which was assessed at $691,000 for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years.

They argued the value should be reduced to between $600,000 and $620,000 due to the property's poor condition and the cost to cure defects.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed the sales comparison approach used by MPAC, adjusted the cost to cure estimate based on the appellants' evidence, and conducted its own current value tests.

The Board found that the returned assessment of $691,000 fell within the lower half of the current value range established by comparable sales and was equitable with similar lands in the vicinity.

The appeal was dismissed and the assessment confirmed.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessments of his single-family detached dwelling in Oakville for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years.

The property was assessed at $1,139,000 for 2013 and $1,105,000 for 2014 and 2015.

The appellant argued the assessment should be $940,000, relying on sales comparables and a 5% negative adjustment for Urea Formaldehyde Foam Insulation (UFFI).

The Assessment Review Board reviewed the sales comparables provided by both parties and determined the current value to be $1,003,000, applying a 1% adjustment for a cul-de-sac and a 5% negative adjustment for UFFI.

The Board found this value to be equitable with similar lands in the vicinity and ordered the assessments reduced accordingly.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessments for 22 low-rise apartment buildings in Toronto for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years.

The parties agreed to consolidate the 22 roll numbers into two new roll numbers.

The main issue was the appropriate Gross Income Multiplier (GIM) to determine current value.

The appellant argued for a lower GIM based on the buildings' poor condition, while MPAC recommended a reduction based on an average condition.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's recommended GIM and reduced the assessments, finding the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence of renovation costs to justify a poor condition rating.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of his older home, which was returned at $346,000 for the 2015 taxation year.

MPAC recommended a reduction to $306,000 due to the age and condition of the residence, applying a $40,000 obsolescence adjustment.

The appellant argued for a further reduction to the $270,000 to $275,000 range, citing extensive needed repairs.

The Board accepted MPAC's recommended value but further reduced it by $3,000 to exclude an unfinished summer kitchen from the living area measurement.

The Board found the resulting current value of $303,000 to be equitable with similar properties in the vicinity.

Canadian Tire Corporation brought a motion to disqualify Municipal Tax Equity Consultants Inc., MTE Paralegal Professional Corporation, and their expert consultant from acting for various municipalities in assessment appeals.

The expert had previously worked for Canadian Tire's consultant on the same appeals and had access to confidential information and strategy.

The Assessment Review Board found it had jurisdiction to disqualify representatives to prevent abuse of process.

Applying the MacDonald Estate and Stewart tests, the Board concluded the expert received confidential information, the presumption that this information was imparted to the new firm was not rebutted, and the risk of prejudice required their removal from the record.

The City of Toronto brought a motion to adjourn the hearing of its property tax assessment appeals for the 2007 and 2008 taxation years to allow for production and discovery against the property owner, Philmor.

The City sought to reclassify the subject property from multi-residential to a commercial parking lot.

The parties had previously operated under the misconception that the facts were not in dispute and intended to proceed via an Agreed Statement of Facts.

However, shortly before the hearing, Philmor requested the City's evidence, taking the City by surprise.

The Assessment Review Board found that while both parties' pleadings were defective and the City could have been more diligent, the delay was reasonably explained.

To ensure procedural fairness and a determination on the merits, the Board granted the adjournment and ordered production and discovery.

The complainant appealed the City of Brampton's determination of a vacant unit rebate for a multi-unit commercial property.

The complainant argued that the vacancy period in the last 25 days of 2009 should be added to the vacancy period in 2010 to meet the minimum 90-day requirement and increase the rebate.

Following an interim decision finding the 2009 period eligible, the City determined the additional rebate payable was $1,085.23.

The complainant agreed with this amount, and the Assessment Review Board ordered the City to pay the additional rebate.