Property Tax Assessment

The requester sought a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that confirmed the property assessments for the 2013 to 2016 taxation years.

The requester alleged violations of procedural fairness due to hearing delays and disclosure issues, and claimed the Board made material errors of law and fact regarding assessment methodologies and comparable properties.

The Associate Chair denied the request for review, finding no violation of natural justice and concluding that the requester failed to present a convincing and compelling case that the Board erred in its weighing of the evidence.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessments for a large industrial warehouse property for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

The Board determined that the income approach was the most reliable method for valuing the property.

After reviewing expert evidence from the appellant, MPAC, and the municipality, the Board preferred the appellant's income approach analysis, subject to a minor adjustment to the capitalization rate.

The Board reduced the current value assessment to $58,668,000 and found no basis to apply an equity reduction.

The requester, Delta Hotels & Resorts, sought to reinstate four property assessment appeals that were dismissed for non-attendance at a teleconference hearing.

The requester's representatives did not receive notice of the hearing because the notice was sent to an incorrect address.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and the municipality consented to the reinstatement, and minutes of settlement had already been signed.

The Assessment Review Board granted the request for review and reinstated the appeals, finding that the dismissal was through no fault of the requester and that there was no prejudice to any party.

The Requester sought to reinstate four property assessment appeals that were dismissed for non-attendance at a telephone conference call.

The Requester's representatives did not receive the notice of hearing because it was sent to an incorrect address.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and the municipality consented to the reinstatement, and the parties had already signed minutes of settlement.

The Assessment Review Board granted the request and reinstated the appeals, finding the dismissal was through no fault of the Requester.

The complainant appealed the City of Brampton's rejection of its application for a vacant unit rebate for a portion of an industrial/commercial building.

The Board found that the subject area was vacant for at least 90 days in the 2015 taxation year and that the complainant's rent ledger was sufficient evidence of lease termination.

However, because the parties could not establish whether the subject area was classified as commercial or industrial—which dictates different evidentiary requirements under O. Reg. 325/01—the Board issued an interim decision directing the parties to provide written submissions on the property's classification.

The appellant developer sought a refund of property taxes under s. 357(1)(c) of the Municipal Act, 2001, arguing that 4.69 acres of land dedicated to the City as roads and reserves upon registration of a plan of subdivision became exempt from taxation.

The appellant requested a pro rata refund based on the pre-registration assessed value of the entire parcel.

The Assessment Review Board denied the appeal, finding that MPAC had apportioned no value to the roads and reserves, and that the Board had no authority to assign a notional value based on a proportionate share of the pre-registration value.

The Board concluded that no refund of taxes was warranted.

The appellants appealed the supplementary assessment and current value assessment of their newly constructed single-family dwelling in Brampton.

MPAC had returned a total current value assessment of $873,000.

The Board reviewed comparable sales data provided by both parties and accepted MPAC's recommended current value of $815,000.

The Board further applied an assessment to sale ratio of 0.925 to ensure equitable assessment with similar properties in the vicinity, reducing the final assessment to $754,000.

The appellant developer applied for a property tax refund under s. 357(1)(c) of the Municipal Act, 2001, arguing that 4.69 acres of land dedicated to the City as roads and reserves upon registration of a Plan of Subdivision became exempt from taxation.

The City made no decision, and the developer appealed to the Assessment Review Board.

The Board dismissed the appeal, finding that the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) had apportioned the entire assessed value of the pre-registration parcel to the newly created building lots and assigned no value to the roads and reserves.

Consequently, the dedicated lands did not become exempt from taxation with an assigned value that would warrant a tax refund.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a purpose-built automotive industrial facility for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

The Board determined the land value using the appellant's lower rate per acre, recognizing the property was landlocked with poor access.

The Board also accepted the appellant's measurement of excess land, finding no evidence that the disputed portions were being used.

However, the Board accepted the respondent's valuation of the structures and yardwork, rejecting the appellant's argument that deferred maintenance should further reduce the depreciated value, as this would allow the owner to benefit from their own neglect.

The total assessment was reduced from $21,986,000 to $18,451,387.

The appellant appealed the property assessments for a partially completed single-family log house for the 2013 to 2016 taxation years.

The appellant argued that the percentage of completion used by MPAC was incorrect and that the current value should be lowered based on a previous Board decision and sales comparables.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed the sales comparables and determined the current value of the property, applying a lump sum adjustment for the incomplete construction consistent with the prior Board decision.

The Board found the resulting current value of $184,000 to be correct and equitable, confirming the returned assessments for all years under appeal.

The moving party, Golden Triangle Partnership Holdings Ltd., brought a motion before the Assessment Review Board to obtain disclosure from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) of financial information regarding a property in Cambridge.

Section 53 of the Assessment Act bars MPAC from providing this information absent a Board order.

The parties provided a draft order approved by MPAC and the City of Cambridge.

The Board granted the motion and issued the requested order for production of financial information.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of his residential townhouse condominium located at the Devil's Glen Country Club for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

The appellant argued the assessment of $369,000 was excessive compared to similar properties.

The Assessment Review Board found that based on sales of comparable properties in the same development, the current value was $375,000.

As the established current value was higher than the assessed value and no party requested an increase, the Board confirmed the assessment at $369,000 and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed the 2016 property assessment of a large industrial facility in Pickering.

The returned assessment was $5,593,000.

Both parties agreed the assessment should be reduced but disagreed on the current value and whether an equity adjustment was required.

The Assessment Review Board preferred the appellant's sales comparison approach, setting the current value at $4,391,000 based on the sale of a highly comparable property.

The Board rejected the appellant's request for a further equity reduction, finding the established current value was equitable with similar properties in the vicinity.

The assessment was reduced to $4,391,000.

MPAC requested a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that reduced the assessed value of a property based on equity considerations.

MPAC argued the Board erred in law by excluding comparable properties from its equity analysis solely because they were located outside the municipality's boundaries.

The Associate Chair granted the request for review, finding that the Divisional Court has established that 'vicinity' in section 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act is not strictly limited to municipal boundaries.

The Board's equity adjustment was reversed, and the assessed value was set at $806,387 without an equity reduction.

The applicant requested a review to reinstate three property assessment appeals that were dismissed for non-attendance.

The applicant filed an affidavit demonstrating that he did not receive notice of the hearing.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation consented to the reinstatement, noting that a settlement had been reached.

The Assessment Review Board granted the request, finding the dismissal was through no fault of the applicant and there was no prejudice to any party.

The Requestor sought to reinstate several property assessment appeals that were dismissed due to non-attendance at a teleconference.

The Assessment Review Board found that the non-attendance was due to highly exceptional circumstances, specifically the representative's preoccupation with his mother's care during her terminal illness.

The Board granted the request for review and reinstated the appeals, noting that dismissal would be disproportional and unfair to the taxpayer.

The appellant appealed the property assessments for a Small Box Shopping Centre for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

The Board determined the current value using the time-adjusted 2009 sale price of the property rather than the income approach agreed upon by the parties during summations.

The Board also applied an equity adjustment, rejecting MPAC's use of Fair Market Rents as a proxy for equity, and instead applying an Assessment to Sale Ratio of 0.84 derived from a study of 30 commercial properties in the vicinity.

The assessments were reduced accordingly.

The applicant requested a review to reinstate two property assessment appeals that were withdrawn without his knowledge or consent by a representative of the Altus Group.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) did not object to the reinstatement and the parties had already agreed on a settlement pending the reinstatement.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appeals were dismissed through no fault of the applicant, all parties consented, and there was no prejudice.

The request for review was granted and the appeals were reinstated.

The appellants appealed the property assessments for a newly constructed commercial plaza for the 2014 and 2015 taxation years.

The parties reached an agreement on the assessed values, leaving only the effective date of the omitted assessment under section 33 of the Assessment Act in dispute.

The appellants argued the effective date should be July 11, 2014, when occupancy was granted, while MPAC argued for January 1, 2014, as the building structure existed by late 2013.

The Assessment Review Board found that a building can be properly assessed whether or not it is occupied, and determined the effective date of the omitted assessment to be January 1, 2014.

The appellants, HLS York Developments Ltd and Metro Ontario Inc., sought leave to withdraw their property assessment appeals and to strike MPAC's Notice of Intention to Seek a Higher Assessment.

MPAC had discovered that the parking garage income was substantially under-assessed and sought a 25% increase in the overall assessment.

The appellants argued that MPAC was using the Board's Rules to penalize them for appealing.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding that section 44(1) of the Assessment Act permits the Board to reopen the whole question of the assessment to correct errors or omissions.

The Board concluded that MPAC's request was a bona fide attempt to correct an inadvertent error regarding the parkade's income, rather than an improper change of opinion, and that there was no prejudice to the appellants in having the appeals heard on their merits.