Property Tax Assessment

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a five-acre parcel containing a banquet hall for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

The appellant argued that the banquet hall sat on only a half-acre and that the building cost should be based on an architect's pre-construction estimate for a shell building.

The respondent MPAC provided a valuation report using an Automated Cost System (ACS) and evidence of a 2012 sale of the full five-acre parcel.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's valuation, finding the appellant's cost estimates lacked particularity and failed to account for the high-quality finishes evident in the banquet hall.

The Board reduced the assessment to $8,433,000 in accordance with MPAC's recommendation.

The applicants applied for a cancellation, reduction, or refund of their 2015 property taxes under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, citing an inability to pay due to sickness and extreme poverty.

While the Assessment Review Board accepted medical evidence that the applicant was unable to work due to sickness, it found that her financial circumstances did not meet the threshold of extreme poverty.

The Board noted that the applicant had substantial equity in her home and sufficient monthly funds to cover the property taxes if expenses were properly managed.

The application was dismissed.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their abattoir facility for the 2013-2016 taxation years, challenging both its classification as Industrial (IT) and its assessed value of $459,000.

The Assessment Review Board upheld the Industrial classification, finding that the property processes meat and does not fit the residual Commercial class.

However, the Board reduced the current value assessment to $433,000 after analyzing comparable sales provided by both parties and calculating an average value per square foot.

The Board declined to make a further equity adjustment due to insufficient evidence.

The property owners requested a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that determined the current value assessment of their waterfront property.

They argued the original member misapprehended evidence regarding comparable properties on a different lake and miscalculated the percentage increase in the property's value.

The Associate Chair found that the original member made factual errors and misapprehended the evidence, which could have affected the final outcome.

The request for review was granted and a rehearing was ordered.

The appellant property owners appealed the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation's (MPAC) assessment of their residential property for the 2014 and 2015 taxation years, seeking a reduction from $648,000 to $548,294.

MPAC presented comparable sales evidence suggesting the property's current value was actually $730,000, but requested the Board confirm the returned assessment of $648,000.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the appellants' valuation analysis, which relied on percentage increases of neighbouring properties rather than valid sales data.

Finding that the best comparable sale supported a current value of $690,000, and noting no party requested an increase, the Board confirmed the assessment at $648,000 and found no equity reduction was warranted.

The appellants appealed the current value assessments of two waterfront properties in Ipperwash Beach for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

They argued the assessments were too high due to the impact of a nearby First Nations land claim dispute, which resulted in increased public use of the beach in front of their properties, as well as proximity to commercial properties.

The Assessment Review Board found insufficient evidence to quantify the impact of the land dispute on the properties' values.

However, relying on MPAC's sales analysis and applying an equitable assessment reduction based on the median assessment-to-sale ratio of similar properties, the Board reduced the assessment of 6542 West Parkway Drive from $607,000 to $527,000, and 6538 West Parkway Drive from $471,000 to $447,000.

The moving parties brought a motion before the Assessment Review Board seeking the production of the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation's (MPAC) Industrial Mall Capitalization Rate Study.

The Board ordered MPAC to produce the requested information, including redacted income and expense information for specific properties, subject to the execution of Undertakings of Non-Disclosure by the moving parties' legal counsel and consultants.

The appellant requested a review of two previous Assessment Review Board decisions regarding the assessment of his property for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years.

The first decision confirmed the assessment, and the second granted the respondent's motion for issue estoppel for the 2014 appeal, as the valuation day was the same.

The Board denied the request for review, finding no convincing and compelling case that the previous members acted outside their jurisdiction or made an error in law or fact.

The current value of the subject property was confirmed at $1,422,000.

The appellant appealed the property assessment for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years.

Following an earlier decision determining the current value of the property, the parties agreed on the values and classifications for six supplementary assessments under section 34 of the Assessment Act.

The Board had previously misinterpreted the parties' submissions, leading to an erroneous interim decision.

After a further telephone conference call, the Board corrected its interpretation and confirmed the values and classifications as agreed by the parties.

The decision also applies to the deemed 2016 appeal.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of an industrial warehouse and office building for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

The property was originally assessed at $3,172,000.

The respondent MPAC conceded a reduction to $2,917,000 based on two comparable sales, while the appellant's expert argued for a further reduction to $2,670,000 based on eight comparables.

The Board preferred MPAC's comparables, finding that the appellant's expert failed to account for building age, height, and quality.

The Board reduced the assessment to $2,917,000 and found no equity adjustment was required.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their 47.83-acre rural property for the 2014, 2015, and 2016 taxation years.

MPAC recommended reducing the assessment from $599,000 (2014) and $605,000 (2015) to $562,000 based on a data correction.

The appellants sought a further reduction to $321,000 based on an appraisal report.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the appellants' appraisal evidence as the author was not present for cross-examination and the comparables were flawed.

The Board accepted MPAC's recommended value of $562,000, finding it supported by the sale of a comparable vacant lot and equitable with similar lands in the vicinity.

The appeal was allowed in part to reflect MPAC's recommended reduction.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a 46.45-acre farm property in North Glengarry for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation returned an assessment of $248,000.

The appellant argued the value was too high, but provided evidence of an aborted sale of a five-acre portion of the property for $225,000 and a subsequent offer of $250,000.

The Assessment Review Board found this market evidence supported a current value of at least $250,000, which was further corroborated by comparable sales provided by the respondent.

As no evidence was presented regarding equity, the Board confirmed the returned assessment of $248,000.

The moving party brought a motion requesting the Member recuse himself from deciding the property assessment appeals.

The request was based on the Member's previous decision in an unrelated matter involving a report by the same expert witness, and the Member's past affiliation as a Federal Member of Parliament for the Liberal Party.

The Board applied the test for reasonable apprehension of bias and found that a reasonable, informed person would not conclude the Member was biased.

The motion for recusal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their seasonal dwelling on the St. Lawrence River for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property's current value at $321,000 using the direct comparison approach.

The appellants argued for a lower valuation using the cost approach, relying on the assessed values of nearby vacant lands to determine land value.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the appellants' methodology, noting that current value must be based on market transactions (sales) rather than assessments.

The Board accepted MPAC's direct comparison approach and comparable sales evidence, confirming the current value of $321,000 and finding no equity adjustment was required.

The appellants appealed the property assessments of their two farm properties, arguing that the surrounding electrical infrastructure, including wind turbines, a high-voltage transmission line, and a large transformer and switching station, negatively impacted their value.

The Assessment Review Board found insufficient evidence to conclude that wind turbines generally impact land value or to quantify the specific impact of the switching station on the subject properties.

However, applying the principle of equity under section 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, the Board reduced the assessment of the residential portions of the properties by 50% to align with a previous Board decision involving a similar property near major electrical infrastructure.

No reduction was applied to the farmland portions.

The assessed owner appealed the property assessment of a custom-built residence in Toronto, which MPAC had assessed at $7,364,000 for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

The Board reviewed comparable sales presented by both MPAC and the appellant's expert real estate broker.

The Board rejected MPAC's primary comparable due to its significantly larger lot size and ravine setting, preferring the appellant's comparables and expert opinion on ravine premiums.

The Board determined the correct current value to be $6,142,000.

Furthermore, the Board found that an equity adjustment was required under section 44(3) of the Assessment Act, reducing the final assessment to $5,835,000.

The moving party requested that the Board member recuse himself from hearing property assessment appeals due to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The request was based on the member's past position on the Board of Directors of the Sierra Club Canada, an organization that supports wind turbines.

The moving party argued that the appeals involved the impact of nearby wind turbines on property values.

The Board member dismissed the motion, finding that a reasonable and informed person would not conclude that his past membership or general views on renewable energy would prevent him from fairly assessing evidence regarding the impact of wind turbines on property values.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their residential condominium unit, which was assessed at $310,000.

The appellants argued that the assessment should be reduced to account for the unit's lack of a parking space, relying on an appraisal report that valued the property at $294,000.

The Assessment Review Board accepted the appraisal's methodology and reduced the assessment to $294,000, finding no further adjustment was necessary for equity.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their single-family detached residence located on the Ottawa River.

MPAC assessed the current value at $1,059,000 for the 2013 taxation year.

The Board found that MPAC's comparable sales were not sufficiently similar due to differing neighbourhood characteristics and lot sizes.

Relying on a previous Board decision for the same property and applying MPAC's calculated 15.2% market increase, the Board determined the correct current value to be $980,950.

Applying a 6% equity adjustment based on MPAC's equity analysis, the Board reduced the assessment to $922,000 for the 2013 to 2016 taxation years.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their waterfront condominium, which was returned at $1,645,000 for the 2014 and 2015 taxation years.

MPAC relied on the Direct Comparison Approach, presenting three comparable sales.

The appellants argued the property was inferior to MPAC's comparables and presented evidence that the planned development had not materialized.

The Assessment Review Board rejected two of MPAC's comparables and relied on the remaining comparable to determine a value per linear foot of waterfront.

Applying this value, the Board reduced the assessment to $1,450,000 and found no further equitable adjustment was required.