Property Tax Assessment

The applicant applied for a cancellation, reduction, or refund of her 2017 property taxes under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, citing sickness and extreme poverty.

While the Assessment Review Board accepted that the applicant was sick, it found that she had the financial ability to pay her property taxes.

The Board noted her equity in the property, her receipt of a second mortgage, and her discretionary expenses.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a review of a previous Assessment Review Board decision that denied his application for property tax relief based on sickness or extreme poverty.

The applicant argued the Board erred in finding he had the ability to pay his 2015 property taxes and had alternative revenue sources, and that the Board misstated the legal test.

He also sought to introduce new evidence regarding discretionary expenses.

The Board dismissed the request for review, finding no significant errors of law or fact that would have changed the result, and concluding that the new evidence would not have altered the finding that the applicant had sufficient equity in his home to pay the taxes.

The applicant applied for a reduction of her 2017 property taxes under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, citing sickness and extreme poverty.

The applicant, a 65-year-old widow, demonstrated an inability to pay her property taxes due to limited income and injuries sustained in two accidents.

The Assessment Review Board found that the applicant met the statutory test for relief and granted a 50% reduction of her 2017 property taxes, while noting that such relief is intended as a short-term remedy.

The moving party sought leave to file a late appeal of his property assessment for the 2018 taxation year.

The property had been reclassified from residential to multi-residential, resulting in a substantial tax increase.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party did not meet the requirements of Rule 26(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

Specifically, the moving party acknowledged receiving the notice of assessment and failed to demonstrate that the appeal was filed within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment or classification.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a 17.46-acre island in the Ottawa River for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC initially assessed the property at $184,000, later reducing it to $93,000.

The appellant argued the value should be $3,650 because the property is landlocked, lacks waterfront ownership (the shoreline is owned by Ontario Power Generation), and is virtually inaccessible.

The Assessment Review Board found that the best evidence of value was the 1995 purchase price of the property, as landlocked properties incapable of development generally do not increase in value.

The Board reduced the assessment to $9,700 and found no equitable reduction was required.

The property owner brought a motion for an extension of time to file a request for reconsideration with MPAC and a late appeal with the Assessment Review Board for the 2018 taxation year.

The owner missed the statutory deadlines because he misplaced the notice of assessment.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that misplacing the notice did not constitute extenuating circumstances to extend the reconsideration deadline.

Furthermore, the Board could not accept a late appeal under Rule 26(b) because the owner acknowledged receiving the notice of assessment.

The appellants appealed the 2018 property assessment of their single-family detached home in Toronto, arguing the current value was too high and inequitable compared to similar properties.

MPAC estimated the current value at $380,000 based on the direct comparison approach and found no equity adjustment was required.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value to be $381,317 based on the time-adjusted sale price of the subject property itself.

The Board found no evidence to support an equitable reduction.

Because MPAC did not provide notice seeking a higher assessment, the Board confirmed the returned assessment of $379,000.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their single-family detached home for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board determined the correct current value of the property to be $295,000, based on its 2014 arm's length purchase price.

The Board further found that the property was assessed inequitably compared to similar properties in the vicinity.

Relying on the appellants' equity analysis of neighbourhood comparables, the Board granted an equitable reduction under section 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, reducing the final assessment to $267,000.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their residential property in Mississauga for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC had assessed the property at $1,128,000, which was recalculated to $1,044,000 during reconsideration.

The appellants argued the value should be $750,000 due to inequitable assessment compared to similar properties.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value to be $1,093,000 based on comparable sales.

Applying an Assessment to Sale Ratio (ASR) of 0.942 to achieve equity with similar properties in the vicinity, the Board reduced the assessment to $1,030,000.

The appellant appealed the 2017 and 2018 property assessment of an island property in the Township of the Archipelago, which was assessed at $839,000.

The Assessment Review Board found that the best comparable property supported a current value of $509,000, rejecting MPAC's higher valuation based on properties with superior quality ratings.

The Board further found no evidence to support a reduction for equitable assessment purposes, as MPAC's equity analysis indicated the assessment was fair.

The appeal was allowed, and the assessment was reduced to $509,000.

The applicant applied to cancel her 2017 property taxes under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, citing inability to pay due to sickness and extreme poverty.

The applicant and her divorced spouse, who both receive Ontario Disability Support Program benefits, presented evidence of severe medical conditions affecting themselves and their child, resulting in a monthly household deficit.

The Assessment Review Board found the applicant credible and concluded she lacked the financial resources to pay the taxes due to sickness.

The Board ordered the municipality to cancel the 2017 property taxes in the amount of $4,966.55.

The applicant applied to have his 2016 property taxes cancelled, reduced, or refunded under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, citing an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed the applicant's household income, expenses, and assets.

The Board found that the household's monthly income exceeded its expenses by over $900, and the family was meeting its monthly obligations, including property taxes.

Consequently, the Board concluded the applicant failed to demonstrate an inability to pay and dismissed the application.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of her residential property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

After an initial adjournment due to her representative's sudden illness, the Board scheduled a peremptory hearing date.

Neither the appellant nor her representative appeared at the peremptory hearing, nor did they file any documents.

Consequently, the Board granted the respondent's request to dismiss the appeals for non-attendance.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their 10-acre farm property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $292,000, while the appellants argued for a value of approximately $180,000.

The Assessment Review Board evaluated the competing valuation methods, preferring MPAC's cost approach for the buildings and a modified direct comparison approach for the land.

The Board determined the current value of the property to be $275,000 and found no reduction was necessary for equitable assessment.

The moving party sought permission to file a late appeal of a property assessment for the 2016 and 2017 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board considered the request under Rule 26(b) of its Rules of Practice and Procedure, which requires the applicant to prove they were entitled to notice, did not receive it, and attempted to file within 30 days of becoming aware of the issues.

The Board found that the moving party failed to prove he did not receive the notice of assessment and failed to file the application in a timely manner.

The application for a late appeal was denied.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion in writing to dismiss the respondent's property assessment appeals for the 2010, 2011, and 2012 taxation years.

Despite being assigned filing deadlines, no party filed any materials with the Assessment Review Board.

The Board dismissed MPAC's motion, holding that dismissal is an extreme remedy and there was no evidence before the Board to justify dismissing the appeals.

The appellant appealed the property assessments for three commercial lots in downtown Kitchener for the 2013 to 2016 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board found that valuing the lots together with two other related parcels and then apportioning the value was appropriate, as it resulted in a lower assessment.

While the Board accepted the current values determined by MPAC, it found that an equity adjustment was required because the median assessment-to-sale ratio of comparable properties was below 1.00.

The Board applied a ratio of 0.94, reducing the assessments for all three properties.

The appellant appealed the 2015 property tax assessment of a vacant commercial lot used for mall parking, which was assessed at $989,000.

The Assessment Review Board rejected MPAC's land residual analysis due to insufficient data verification.

Instead, the Board accepted the appellant's direct comparison approach, determining the current value to be $806,387.

The Board further reduced the assessment to $580,599 based on equity considerations, applying a median assessment-to-sales ratio of 0.72 derived from comparable properties in the vicinity.

The decision also applied to the deemed 2016 appeal.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their farm, arguing that MPAC incorrectly classified one acre of land and a shed used to sell farm produce as commercial.

MPAC classified the farm as 'value added' and applied the commercial classification to the retail portion.

The Assessment Review Board found MPAC's policy reasonable and confirmed the commercial classification of the one acre and shed, dismissing the appeal.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of a commercial warehouse, arguing that the land value component was overstated based on vacant land sales.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the appeal and confirmed the current value of $1,695,000.

The Board held that under the Assessment Act, the assessment must be based on the total current value of the property (land and building), and the appellant could not isolate and reduce the land component without addressing the total valuation.

MPAC satisfied its burden of proof by providing sales of built-on properties that supported the total assessment.

The Board also found no equity adjustment was required.