Property Tax Assessment

The appellant appealed the 2020 and 2021 property assessments of their waterfront property, arguing the current value assessment was too high.

The property lacked access to hydro.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable property sales and determined the correct current value was $335,000, reducing it from the assessed values of $499,000 and $464,000.

The Board found no evidence to support a further equitable reduction.

MPAC brought a motion for disclosure of rent rolls, operating statements, and other financial information from the appellant in a property assessment appeal concerning a premium outlet mall.

The appellant agreed to disclose information for 2015-2017 on the condition that MPAC execute a non-disclosure agreement, but opposed disclosure for 2018 and 2019.

The Assessment Review Board held that a non-disclosure agreement was not required, as existing statutory and common law protections were adequate.

The Board also granted MPAC's disclosure requests for 2018 and 2019, finding the information relevant to valuing new additions to the property and proportionate to the issues in dispute.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their semi-detached residential property, which featured an unusually large lot size.

MPAC assessed the property by notionally dividing it into two parts: the house with a standard lot size, and the remaining excess land valued as vacant lots.

The Assessment Review Board rejected MPAC's methodology, finding it unsupported by market evidence for large residential lots.

Applying a direct sales comparison approach and bracketing the property between inferior and superior comparable sales, the Board reduced the assessed value from $716,000 to $585,000 for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years.

The appellants appealed the supplementary assessment for 2019 and the assessed value of their seasonal waterfront property for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years.

The appellants argued for a valuation based on adjusted assessed values of nearby properties, while MPAC relied on the direct comparison approach.

The Assessment Review Board found the appellants' approach critically flawed and adopted the direct comparison approach.

The Board determined the current value of the property to be $468,000 for 2020 and 2021, and the 2019 supplemental assessment to be $395,000.

No reduction for equity was made.

The applicant brought a motion for an extension of time and leave to appeal a decision of the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation regarding the valuation of his property.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled ZOOM hearing and requested an in-person 'Chancery' hearing, arguing he was not liable for property taxes as a 'natural person'.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion due to the applicant's failure to attend and found the proposed appeal was an abuse of process and devoid of merit.

The court also imposed restrictions on the applicant's ability to commence further proceedings regarding property taxes without prior judicial permission.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a custom-built home in Brampton for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years, arguing the quality of construction rating was too high and the current value should be reduced based on sales in the city.

The Assessment Review Board found the quality rating of 10 was correct and accepted MPAC's expanded vicinity for comparable sales due to the property's unique characteristics.

The Board determined the correct current value was $6,318,000 but confirmed the returned assessment of $5,832,000 because MPAC did not formally seek an increase.

The Board also found no equitable reduction was required.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to prohibit the Owner from submitting an Amended Statement of Issues after the deadline set in the Schedule of Events.

The Owner had sought to amend its pleading to negotiate a lower current value after MPAC had already agreed to the value proposed in the original Statement of Issues.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion, finding that the Schedule of Events only permits amendments to address additional evidence or new issues raised in expert reports, which had not yet been filed.

MPAC was directed to respond to the original Statement of Issues.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a 160-acre parcel of farmland for the 2017 to 2021 taxation years.

The Board rejected the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation's valuation, finding that the assessor's estimated rates for lower-class soils were unsubstantiated and that the property's forested area did not meet the definition of grazing land.

Using a qualitative bracketed range of values based on comparable sales, the Board determined the correct current value of the property to be $40,500.

After applying an equity reduction pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, the Board ordered the assessment reduced to $38,200 for all years under appeal.

The Requestor sought a review of a previous Assessment Review Board decision that dismissed his application for property tax relief due to sickness or extreme poverty under section 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Requestor argued the Board erred in its factual findings regarding his bank balance, a loan from his son, and his past business circumstances.

The Board found no significant error of law or fact that would have likely resulted in a different decision and dismissed the request for review.

The applicant requested a review of a previous Assessment Review Board decision that dismissed her application for property tax relief due to sickness or extreme poverty under section 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

The applicant alleged the Board made a significant error of fact by stating she acknowledged certain legal fees were unnecessary.

The Board dismissed the request for review, finding that even if an error of fact was made, the applicant had sufficient other funds available to pay her property taxes, meaning the Board would not have reached a different decision.

The moving party sought permission to file a late appeal of its 2020 property assessment.

The moving party provided affidavit evidence that it did not receive the November 2019 Property Assessment Notice and only became aware of the increased assessment in February 2021.

The Board found that the moving party met the requirements of Rule 26(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, as it was entitled to receive notice, did not receive it, and filed the request for a late appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment.

The motion for a late appeal was granted.

The Moving Party sought permission to file a late appeal of its 2020 property assessment, claiming it did not receive the assessment notices.

While the Board accepted that the notices were not received, the Moving Party failed to provide affidavit evidence establishing when it first became aware of the assessment, which is required under Rule 26(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The motion for a late appeal was denied.

The appellants appealed the property tax assessment of their condominium unit for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years, arguing the current value should reflect their purchase price of $404,048 rather than the assessed value of $528,000.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the appellants' reliance on minutes of settlement with the Canada Revenue Agency and found that the builder sale price did not reflect current value due to included incentives and a significant time lapse before closing.

Relying on comparable resale properties provided by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, the Board determined the correct current value was $564,000.

However, as no party sought an increase, the Board confirmed the returned assessment of $528,000 and found no equity reduction was warranted.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a vacant residential property, arguing the current value should reflect his $3,000 purchase price from a municipal tax sale.

The Assessment Review Board found the tax sale did not reflect current value as it was encumbered and motivated by recouping losses.

However, the Board found the property was inferior to the respondent's comparable sales due to its poor condition and 10-year vacancy.

The Board reduced the assessed value from $30,500 to $24,000.

The applicants applied to the City of Mississauga to have their 2020 property taxes cancelled, reduced, or refunded due to extreme poverty under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The City delegated the determination to the Assessment Review Board.

The Board found that the applicants' necessary household expenses were slightly less than their total household income, leaving them with $1,896 available to pay property taxes.

The Board concluded that the applicants were in a state of extreme poverty and ordered their 2020 property taxes reduced from $3,112.41 to $1,896.

The applicants applied to the City of Mississauga for a reduction of their 2020 property taxes due to extreme poverty under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Assessment Review Board found that the applicants' necessary household expenses were slightly less than their total household income, leaving them with $1,896 available to pay property taxes.

The Board concluded the applicants were in a state of extreme poverty and ordered their 2020 property taxes reduced by $1,216.41.

The Township of Warwick appealed the property assessment of an active private landfill owned by Waste Management of Canada Corporation.

The central issue was whether the valuation of the landfill under section 43.2 of O. Reg. 282/98 should include the market value of its remaining landfilling capacity.

The Assessment Review Board held that section 43.2 requires the exclusion of value attributed to the remaining landfilling capacity, as the regulation mandates valuing the land as if it were vacant industrial land.

The Board set the current value of the property at $6,387,000 for the 2019, 2020, and 2021 taxation years and found no equity adjustment was required.

The Township of Warwick appealed the MPAC assessment of an active private landfill owned by Waste Management of Canada Corporation for the 2019, 2020, and 2021 taxation years.

The central issue was whether section 43.2 of O. Reg. 282/98 requires the valuation of the landfill as 'vacant industrial land' to include the market value of its remaining landfilling capacity.

The Assessment Review Board held that section 43.2 establishes a special valuation regime that ousts the general market value approach under section 19(1) of the Assessment Act.

Consequently, the value of the remaining landfilling capacity must be excluded.

The Board determined the correct current value of the property to be $6,387,000 and found no basis for an equity adjustment.

The appellant appealed the 2020 and 2021 property assessments of her waterfront single-family home.

MPAC had assessed the property at $634,000 for 2020 and $539,000 for 2021, but proposed a reduction to $482,000 at the hearing.

The Assessment Review Board rejected MPAC's adjustments to comparable properties as unsubstantiated, instead using a bracketing method with two unadjusted comparable sales to determine a current value of $456,250.

The Board further applied an assessment-to-sales ratio (ASR) of 0.910 to ensure equity with similar properties, resulting in a final reduced assessment of $415,000.

The appellants requested a review of an Assessment Review Board decision regarding the assessment of their residential property.

They alleged the Board made significant errors of fact by relying on an incorrect building permit value and by incorrectly determining the property had a basement.

The Board found that while the permit value cited in the original decision was incorrect, the error was not significant because the original decision relied on sales data rather than permit value to determine current value.

The Board also found it had not made any determination that the property had a basement.

The request for review was dismissed.