Property Tax Assessment

The appellant appealed the property assessments of 14 residential condominium units constructed under the Canada-Ontario Affordable Housing Program (AHP).

The appellant argued that the AHP funding agreement constituted an encumbrance that should reduce the current value of the properties.

The Assessment Review Board found that the AHP funding mechanism is similar to an open market mortgage and should not be considered in determining current value under section 1 of the Assessment Act.

The Board confirmed the assessments, finding MPAC's comparable sales data to be the best indication of value.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of his condominium unit, which was assessed at $310,000 for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

The appellant argued the value should be reduced due to a declining condominium market, a lack of upgrades since 2009, and water damage requiring a $600 repair.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the appeal, finding that post-2012 market changes were irrelevant to the January 1, 2012 valuation day, the lack of upgrades was typical maintenance, and the minor water damage would not warrant a cost-to-cure adjustment by a purchaser.

The assessment was confirmed at $310,000.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a single-family detached home for the 2015 taxation year.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation recommended a reduction in the assessment from $873,000 to $786,000 based on comparable sales.

The appellant argued for a further reduction to approximately $600,000, citing a declining market and a 2014 appraisal.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's comparable sales evidence as the best indicator of current value as of the January 1, 2012 valuation day, and reduced the assessment to $786,000.

The decision also applied to the deemed 2016 appeal.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of a commercial property in Sarnia for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years, arguing that the assessment did not properly account for high vacancy rates and expenses.

MPAC offered to reduce the assessment from $416,000 to $297,000 by applying the maximum allowable vacancy and expense allowances, but the appellant refused the offer.

The Assessment Review Board found that the income approach was the appropriate valuation method and that MPAC's offer was reasonable.

The Board accepted MPAC's recommendation and reduced the assessment to $297,000.

The City of London appealed the property assessment of a parcel containing a church building and a residential dwelling.

The property had been sold to a numbered company but continued to be leased to a religious organization for use as a place of worship.

The City argued that because the owner was not a religious organization, the church building should be classified as commercial and lose its tax-exempt status.

The Assessment Review Board agreed, finding that ownership, not just use, determines the exemption.

The Board also reduced the total assessed value from $328,000 to $314,000 based on an assessment-to-sale ratio study of similar properties, and directed the parties to calculate the portion of the property that should be classified as Commercial Excess Land.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a 150-year-old mixed-use building in central Kingston for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

Both parties agreed the highest and best use was as a vacant development site.

The Board preferred the appellant's direct sales comparison approach over the income approach, finding a value of $80 per square foot based on comparable sales.

The assessment was reduced from $968,000 to $577,000, apportioned between commercial and multi-residential classes.

The appellants appealed a supplementary property assessment of $499,000 levied by MPAC following the construction of a new single-family dwelling on their waterfront lot.

The appellants argued the assessment was too high, suggesting a value closer to $388,000 based on local real estate listings and a broker's letter.

MPAC defended its assessment using a valuation study of five comparable properties.

The Assessment Review Board found MPAC's valuation range of $590,000 to $620,000 for the total current value to be reasonable but selected the lower end of $590,000.

After applying a median assessment-to-sales ratio of 0.95 and deducting the undisputed land value of $102,000, the Board reduced the supplementary assessment to $459,000.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of an industrial building in Mississauga for the 2015 taxation year.

MPAC assessed the property at $4,433,000 using the cost approach, supported by the direct sales approach.

The appellant argued for a lower value based on unadjusted sales comparables.

The Assessment Review Board found that time-adjusted values were appropriate and that the direct sales approach supported the assessed value.

The Board confirmed the assessment and found no equity adjustment was required.

The decision also applied to the deemed 2016 appeal.

The City of Guelph brought a motion to reinstate property assessment appeals that had been withdrawn by the property owner, Globe Realty Holdings Ltd., after the City had served notice that it would be requesting a higher assessment.

The parties resolved the issues in dispute on consent.

The Assessment Review Board ordered the appeals reinstated and set a procedural schedule for productions, discoveries, and a further pre-hearing conference.

The parties stated a question of law to the Assessment Review Board regarding whether the market value of the rights associated with an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) should be reflected in the current value of a landfill site for property assessment purposes.

The Board held that the principle established by the Court of Appeal in Restfulcare applies to landfills, meaning that where lands have an inherent capacity for a certain use and a government approval authorizes that use, the value of the approval is a component part of the value of the land.

Consequently, the Board concluded that the market value of the rights associated with the ECA must be reflected in the current value of the landfill site.

The original owner of a hotel appealed its property assessment.

After selling the property, the original owner's agent improperly requested a withdrawal of the appeals, which the Board erroneously processed despite the assessing authority's objection and notice seeking a higher assessment.

Over two years later, the Board administratively re-instated the appeals without notice to the parties.

The new owner brought a motion to cancel the re-instated appeals.

The Board found that while it had jurisdiction to re-instate the appeals, doing so after such a long delay without notice or submissions was a denial of natural justice.

The Board cancelled the re-instated appeals, finding that the new owner would suffer undue prejudice by facing a potential retroactive tax liability for years it did not own the property.

MPAC requested a review of a previous Assessment Review Board decision which found that the City of Oshawa failed to provide proper notice of its intention to seek a higher assessment for the subject property.

MPAC argued the Board made errors of fact and law regarding the service of the notice.

The Associate Chair denied the request for review, finding that the issue of adequate service was procedural and fell squarely within the discretion of the original panel, and there was no convincing or compelling case that the Board made an error of law or fact.

The requesters sought a review of an Assessment Review Board decision regarding the current value assessment of their property.

They argued the Board erred by admitting a map that breached disclosure rules and by relying on incorrect comparable properties.

The Associate Chair denied the request for review, finding that the admission of the map was a discretionary decision that did not breach procedural fairness, and that the selection and weighing of comparable properties fell squarely within the Board's jurisdiction.

No error of law was established.

At a pre-hearing conference, the Assessment Review Board found the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) in default of a previous order and Rule 86 for failing to serve a Statement of Response.

The Board ordered MPAC to serve the response by January 29, 2016, and set deadlines for the municipality's response and the filing of a draft Procedural Order.

The matter was adjourned to a further telephone conference call.

At a pre-hearing conference for a property assessment appeal, the Assessment Review Board found the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) in default of a previous order and Rule 86 for failing to serve a Statement of Response.

The Board ordered MPAC to serve the response by a specified date, warning that failure to comply would result in MPAC being barred from introducing evidence at the hearing.

The matter was adjourned to a further pre-hearing conference to adopt a procedural order.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their newly built home, which was assessed at $1,151,000 for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years.

The appellants argued the property was over-assessed and relied on the builder's price list and two other sales on the street.

MPAC provided comparable sales evidence supporting the assessment.

The Assessment Review Board found that builder sales and price lists are not the best indicators of current value and preferred MPAC's comparable sales evidence.

The Board confirmed the assessment at $1,151,000 and found no evidence to warrant an equity adjustment.

MPAC brought a motion arguing that the doctrine of issue estoppel applied to the appellant's property assessment appeals for the 2009-2012 taxation years, as the property's classification had been previously litigated.

The appellant opposed, arguing a change in material facts due to a 10% increase in retail sales at the bakery operation.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the appellant's procedural objection regarding notice and granted MPAC's motion.

The Board found that the three requirements for issue estoppel were met and that the minor change in retail business did not alter the property's industrial classification.

The appellants appealed the property tax assessments for three condominium units in Brockville for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation had assessed the units at $272,000, $265,000, and $272,000.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed recent sales of comparable properties in the vicinity and determined that the average square foot value supported a current value of $250,000 for each unit.

The Board found this value to be equitable and reduced the assessments accordingly, with the decision also applying to the deemed 2015 appeals.

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

The Board issued a procedural order directing the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and the municipality to serve their Statements of Response by January 29, 2016.

The matter was adjourned to a further in-person pre-hearing scheduled for February 29, 2016, to schedule outstanding appeals to mediation or a full hearing.

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

The Board approved the draft procedural order presented by the parties and directed that the matters be scheduled for a hearing event in accordance with the order.

The Board noted that the procedural order was not filed by the previously ordered deadline, but its adoption did not negate a prior Board Order.