Property Tax Assessment

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) requested a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that reduced the current value of the subject property based on an equity analysis.

MPAC argued the Board erred by rejecting its equity analysis and ignoring earlier decisions regarding nearby properties.

The Associate Chair denied the request for review, finding that the presiding Member's treatment of evidence and determination of equity were within their jurisdiction and did not constitute an error of law or a breach of procedural fairness.

The appellants appealed the 2016 current value assessment of their residential property, which was assessed at $124,000.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable sales data and time adjustment factors, determining that the best evidence of current value was the median per square foot value of four comparable properties.

The Board reduced the assessment to $102,000 but found no evidence to support a further equity reduction under section 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act.

The appellant appealed the tax classification of its property for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years, arguing it should be classified as Commercial (CT) rather than Industrial (IT).

The appellant also sought a refund for the 2014 taxation year under the Municipal Act, claiming the IT classification was a gross or manifest factual error.

The Assessment Review Board found that the property was not completely unused after the previous industrial tenant vacated, meaning the previous IT classification did not continue under Ontario Regulation 282/98.

The Board granted the appeals for 2015 and 2016, changing the classification to CT.

However, the Board dismissed the 2014 refund application, finding that the classification was a matter of judgment and not a clerical or factual error.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their newly built single-family home, which was assessed at $1,381,000 for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

The appellants argued the value was significantly diminished due to a large, licensed medical marijuana grow operation located immediately next door, which produced unbearable odors and nuisance.

The Assessment Review Board agreed that the neighboring grow operation was a unique circumstance that negatively impacted the subject property's market value.

The Board reduced the current value assessment to $1,024,000, reflecting a midpoint between comparable sales and the assessed value of the neighboring grow house property.

The Board found no further equity reduction was required.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of her single-family detached home for the 2013-2016 taxation years, originally assessed at $3,550,000.

The appellant argued for a reduction to $3,080,000 based on comparable properties and previous Board decisions, while MPAC defended the assessment based on its own comparables and a 5% positive adjustment for abutting green space.

The Assessment Review Board rejected both parties' comparable sales as insufficiently similar.

However, the Board agreed with the appellant that the 5% positive adjustment for the abutting green space was unreasonable due to nuisances such as a leash-free dog park, a public walkway, and a water culvert causing flooding.

The Board removed the 5% adjustment, reducing the current value assessment to $3,372,000.

The requester sought a review of an Assessment Review Board decision regarding the current value assessment of a property in Kingston.

The requester argued the Board erred in its application of the income approach by confusing net rent with gross rent, thereby inflating the property's value.

The Board agreed that the previous decision erroneously calculated gross rent, raising a convincing and compelling case that an error of fact or law occurred.

The request for review was granted and a rehearing of the appeals was ordered.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a 135.3-acre property comprising a golf course, land lease retirement community, and seasonal trailer park for the 2014, 2015, and 2016 taxation years.

MPAC had returned a current value assessment of $8,673,000, which it later sought to correct to $10,015,365 following an inspection, though it did not seek an increase at the hearing.

The appellant challenged the valuation methodology, particularly regarding depreciation and obsolescence of trailer units.

The Assessment Review Board upheld MPAC's general valuation approach but found that the land value for the retirement community units should be reduced to reflect an 11-month occupancy restriction imposed by local by-laws.

The Board reduced the total assessment to $8,561,000.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a 139.57-acre vacant waterfront property on the Ottawa River.

MPAC assessed the property at $1,876,000 for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

The appellant argued the assessment was too high and sought a reduction to $467,000.

The Board found that both parties had difficulty finding comparable sales.

The Board preferred MPAC's comparables of smaller buildable lots on the Ottawa River and determined that the subject property could potentially be severed into two buildable parcels.

The Board concluded the correct current value was $1,200,000 and reduced the assessment accordingly.

The appellant registered a plan of subdivision and conveyed a portion of its lands to the municipality.

Having paid the full property taxes for the year, the appellant applied for a tax rebate under section 357(1) of the Municipal Act for the conveyed lands.

When the municipal council failed to make a decision, the appellant appealed to the Assessment Review Board.

The Board found that the appellant was entitled to a prorated refund based on the assessment per acre method, ordering a refund of $24,861 less the $3,202.65 already credited by the municipality.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their seasonal waterfront dwelling for the 2015 taxation year, arguing the assessed value of $521,000 was too high.

The appellants provided listings of unsold properties as comparables, which the Board could not consider as they did not reflect actual sales.

The Board accepted the respondent's comparable sales evidence, finding the best comparable supported a value of $540,000.

As the respondent only sought to uphold the returned assessment of $521,000, the Board confirmed the assessment at that amount and found no equity adjustment was required.

The appellant appealed the Town of Markham's rejection of its application for a vacancy rebate for an industrial property for the 2014 taxation year.

The Town had rejected the application on the basis that the appellant failed to provide requested additional information in a timely manner and that the information provided was confusing.

The Assessment Review Board found that the application was filed on time, the requested information was provided, and the units were in fact vacant.

The Board ordered the Town to calculate the rebate owing.

The moving party requested to set aside the 2014 and 2015 Minutes of Settlement, arguing that the 2008 current value assessment phase-in value was incorrectly changed.

MPAC agreed to set aside the minutes to determine the correct phase-in value but disputed the moving party's proposed value.

The Assessment Review Board set aside the 2014 and 2015 minutes on consent, determined the correct 2008 phase-in value was $1,046,435 based on the addition of the unimproved land value and the revised improvement value, declined to order a new hearing for 2014 and 2015 as the overall assessment value was agreed upon, and ordered the implementation of the 2013 Minutes of Settlement.

The appellant appealed the 2015 property assessment of an irregular, unserviced residential lot that is too small to develop.

MPAC had assessed the property at $32,500 based on a 50% reduction of a standard residential lot value, but presented no evidence at the hearing.

The appellant presented an appraisal with comparable sales of unbuildable lots.

The Assessment Review Board accepted the appellant's appraisal evidence, excluding two oversized comparables, and reduced the assessment to $5,300.

The decision also applied to the deemed 2016 appeal.

The appellant appealed the 2015 and 2016 property tax assessments for a vacant, landlocked five-acre parcel in Thunder Bay, assessed at $7,200.

The appellant argued the assessment was too high based on comparable sales and severe land use planning restrictions that prevented development.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed the comparable properties submitted by both parties and found that the respondent's comparable sale of a similarly restricted five-acre property for $7,700 was the best indicator of value.

The Board confirmed the assessment at $7,200, finding it reasonable and equitable.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their 6.0-acre vacant waterfront property in the Town of South Bruce Peninsula for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

The property was assessed at $385,000.

The appellants argued the value was excessive and should be in the mid-$200,000s, citing limitations such as an aboriginal land claim, sewer connection distance, and a steep shoreline.

MPAC provided six comparable sales to support the assessment.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appellants failed to provide sufficient evidence of the cost of the alleged limitations to rebut the reasonableness of the assessment.

The Board confirmed the assessed value of $385,000 and found no evidence to support an equity adjustment.

The moving party, a commercial tenant responsible for property taxes, sought to reinstate assessment appeals for the 2013-2016 tax years.

The property owner had previously filed the appeals but subsequently withdrew them without the tenant's knowledge.

The tenant argued it would suffer prejudice if the appeals were not reinstated, as an error in the base year assessment would result in taxes being paid on non-existent property area.

With the consent of all respondents, the Board granted the motion and reinstated the appeals.

The complainant sought a vacant unit property tax rebate for the 2011, 2012, and 2013 taxation years.

The applications were filed after the statutory deadline of the last day of February of the year following the vacancy.

The City rejected the applications as late.

The complainant appealed to the Assessment Review Board, seeking equitable relief.

The Board dismissed the appeals, finding that the statutory deadlines in the City of Toronto Act are mandatory and the Board lacks jurisdiction or discretion to extend them or grant equitable relief.

MPAC requested a review to reinstate an assessment appeal that was withdrawn in error.

The property owner and MPAC had reached a settlement on the quantum of the assessment.

The Associate Chair granted the request for review and reinstated the appeal, finding that the dismissal was not the fault of the applicant, all parties consented, and there was no prejudice to any party.

At the outset of the hearing, MPAC brought a motion to disqualify the appellant's proposed expert witness on the basis that the witness had previously acted as the appellant's representative in the same appeals.

The Assessment Review Board found that the witness had demonstrated partiality through his prior representation and could not meet the requirements of an impartial expert.

The Board disqualified the witness and granted an adjournment on consent to allow the appellant to retain a new expert.

The requester sought a review of a previous Assessment Review Board decision that denied a motion to withdraw appeals and strike MPAC's Notice of Intention to Seek a Higher Assessment.

The Associate Chair dismissed the request for review, finding that the previous decision was an interlocutory order because it did not determine the substantive issue of the assessment quantum, and was therefore not eligible for review under Rule 141 of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.