Property Tax Assessment

The appellants appealed the 2018 property assessment of their single-family detached home, arguing the assessed value of $347,000 was too high and should be reduced due to the proximity of cannabis production facilities.

The Assessment Review Board found no evidence that cannabis facilities negatively affected property values.

Using the direct sales comparison approach and bracketing, the Board determined the current value of the property to be $323,000.

The Board found no equitable reduction was required under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act.

The assessment was reduced to $323,000.

The moving party sought permission to file a late appeal of the 2018 assessment for a vacant commercial lot.

Under Rule 26(b) of the Assessment Review Board Rules of Practice and Procedure, a late appeal may be accepted if the party was entitled to a notice of assessment, did not receive it, and filed the appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment.

Although the moving party established he did not receive the notice of assessment, he admitted to receiving the municipal tax notice on March 1, 2018, but failed to file the appeal within 30 days of that date.

Consequently, the motion for late filing was denied.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a seasonal recreational dwelling on Gold Lake for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $393,000, later recommending a reduction to $378,000, while the appellant argued for a value between $260,000 and $300,000 due to the property's poor condition and lack of amenities.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed comparable sales provided by both parties, noting the subject property lacked a septic system, insulation, and modern plumbing.

The Board concluded the correct current value was $325,000 and reduced the assessment accordingly.

The moving party brought a motion to dismiss the respondent's property assessment appeals for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years due to the respondent's failure to serve a Statement of Issues.

The respondent did not respond to the motion.

The Assessment Review Board found that the respondent's failure to comply with the Rules was clear, egregious, and unilateral, causing prejudice to the moving party's case management.

The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed.

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

The appellants did not provide any evidence or submissions at the hearing.

MPAC presented evidence using the direct sales comparison method, recommending a current value of $137,000 for both years.

The Board accepted MPAC's evidence, reducing the 2017 assessment from $139,000 to $137,000 and confirming the 2018 assessment at $137,000.

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

MPAC had assessed the property at $387,000 but recommended a value of $351,000 at the hearing based on the direct comparison approach.

The appellant argued for a value of $260,740 using various alternative methods and raised numerous allegations of human rights violations and deceptive practices by MPAC.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the appellant's valuation methods and allegations, but found that based on the comparable sales evidence, the correct current value was $335,000.

The Board found no evidence to support a further reduction for equity purposes.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their waterfront property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $891,000, applying a 21% reduction for the unfinished state of the newly constructed dwelling.

The appellants argued the property was only 50% complete and should be valued at $500,000.

The Assessment Review Board rejected MPAC's comparable properties and mass appraisal valuation of the building component, preferring the appellant's detailed evidence regarding the extent of construction and negative property features.

The Board determined the correct current value of the property to be $540,000.

The appellant appealed the 2018 property assessment of his rural property, which MPAC assessed at $280,000.

The property included an occupied residence and an incomplete, uninhabitable building.

MPAC argued the incomplete building added value, relying on six comparable sales.

The appellant argued the assessment should remain at the initial $174,000 value because the incomplete building had no value until an occupancy permit was issued.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC failed to meet its statutory burden of proof under s. 40(17) of the Assessment Act, as none of its comparable properties had unfinished second residences.

Consequently, the Board reduced the assessment to the last uncontested value of $174,000.

The appellant appealed the 2017 and 2018 property assessments of his single-family home in Ottawa.

MPAC returned an assessment of $484,000 but argued for a current value of $477,000 based on the direct comparison approach.

The appellant argued for a value between $440,000 and $450,000, primarily seeking an equitable reduction because similar properties in his neighbourhood were assessed lower.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value to be $472,000.

The Board further found that an equitable adjustment to 93% of the current value was warranted for the 2017 taxation year, reducing the assessment to $439,000.

No equitable adjustment was warranted for the 2018 taxation year, resulting in an assessment of $472,000.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the property assessment appeals filed by the taxpayers for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

The taxpayers failed to serve a Statement of Issues by the required deadline and ignored subsequent requests from MPAC.

The Assessment Review Board found the taxpayers in clear and egregious breach of the Rules, which prejudiced MPAC's ability to manage the case.

The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed.

The appellant appealed the 2018 property assessment of his condominium unit, arguing the assessed value of $216,000 was too high.

The appellant contended that a recent condominium by-law restricting 'single-family' use to exclude unrelated students negatively impacted the property's value compared to neighbouring buildings without such restrictions.

The Assessment Review Board agreed, finding that sales occurring prior to the by-law change or in unrestricted neighbouring buildings were not comparable.

Relying on a post-by-law sale of an identical unit, the Board reduced the assessment to $182,500.

The self-represented requesters sought a review of an Assessment Review Board decision regarding the assessment of their lakefront property.

They alleged numerous factual and legal errors, including the Board's treatment of a storage container as an outbuilding, the characterization of the property as unique and recreational, the valuation of the garage as potential living space, and the failure to consider relative increases in assessed values.

They also alleged a breach of procedural fairness because the Member did not accept their late-filed evidence.

The Associate-Chair dismissed the request for review, finding that most of the alleged errors were disagreements with the Member's weighing of evidence rather than significant errors of fact or law.

While the Member erred in not providing reasons for rejecting the relative assessment increase argument, this error would not have changed the outcome as such comparisons are not valid in assessment appeals.

The procedural fairness claim was also dismissed as the Member's conduct was reasonable.

The appellants appealed the 2017 and 2018 property tax assessments of their single-family home, arguing the assessed value of $852,000 was too high due to the property abutting a railway.

MPAC recommended a reduced current value of $805,000.

The Assessment Review Board rejected MPAC's primary comparable property but utilized the time-adjusted sales of two other comparable properties to determine a current value of $926,000.

The Board then applied an equity adjustment based on a 0.905 level of assessment for similar properties in the vicinity, ultimately reducing the assessed value to $838,000 for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The appellant appealed the 2017 property assessment of a single-family home in Toronto, arguing the current value of $2,988,000 was too high.

MPAC sought to increase the value to $3,604,360 based on sales ratio trend analysis.

The Assessment Review Board found MPAC's proposed value excessive and determined the current value to be $3,200,000 based on the median per-square-foot value of comparable sales.

Applying an agreed-upon equitable reduction of 9.6% under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, the Board reduced the final assessed value to $2,892,800 for the 2017 and deemed 2018 taxation years.

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

The Assessment Review Board found that while the applicant established sickness, she failed to demonstrate an inability to pay her taxes.

The Board noted the applicant had significant equity in her mortgage-free home, cash savings, discretionary expenses, and had not explored reasonable opportunities to mitigate financial stress, such as renting out a room.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the 2017 property assessment of their residential property, arguing the returned value of $1,618,000 was too high.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value of the property to be $1,751,000 based on comparable sales.

After applying an adjustment for equitable assessment, the value was reduced to $1,683,000.

However, because neither the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation nor the municipality provided notice of an intention to seek a higher assessment, the Board confirmed the original assessment of $1,618,000 for the 2017 and deemed 2018 taxation years.

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

The parties agreed on a current value of $317,000, leaving the property's classification as the sole issue.

The appellants argued the property should be classified as commercial, citing its historical use as a hydro-generating station.

The Assessment Review Board found that the property was no longer operating as a hydro-generating station and its current use was residential.

The Board ordered the property classified as residential and reduced the assessed value to the agreed amount of $317,000.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of their single-family detached bungalow for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the current value at $546,000, while the appellant argued for a value between $520,000 and $530,000.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed comparable sales and determined the correct current value to be $543,000.

The Board declined to make a further equitable reduction under section 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, finding that the assessment-to-sales ratio of similar properties in the vicinity did not warrant an adjustment.

The moving party, 1141557 Ontario Ltd., brought a motion before the Assessment Review Board seeking an order compelling MPAC to disclose 11 categories of documents and an order extending the time to serve its Statement of Issues.

The Board denied the disclosure request, finding that the requested documents were overly broad, not proven to be relevant to any specific issue in dispute, and not proportional at the initial disclosure stage.

However, the Board granted the extension of time, finding that the Board's own delay in scheduling the motion constituted exceptional circumstances and that the balance of prejudice favoured extending the timeline for all parties.

The applicant applied to the City of Toronto to have his 2017 property taxes cancelled, reduced, or refunded due to sickness or extreme poverty under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act.

The Assessment Review Board found that while the applicant lived a modest lifestyle and had mental health challenges, he possessed significant RRSP assets that exceeded his liabilities.

Consequently, the Board determined the applicant failed to demonstrate an inability to pay the property taxes and dismissed the application.