Property Tax Assessment

The appellant appealed the current value assessment of her residential condominium for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years, which was returned at $697,000.

MPAC presented evidence suggesting a value of $717,000 based on comparable sales, while the appellant argued for $650,000 due to alleged prejudice from the condominium corporation's status certificate and special assessments.

The Board found the correct current value to be $712,000 based on an adjusted comparable sales analysis.

However, because MPAC did not file a notice of intention to seek a higher assessment, the Board confirmed the returned assessment of $697,000 and found it to be fair and equitable.

The appellants appealed the current value assessment of their residential property for the 2017 and deemed 2018 taxation years, arguing the returned value of $1,122,000 was too high compared to similar properties.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed the sales comparison approaches presented by both the appellants and the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation.

The Board found the appellants' alternative valuation approach flawed as it relied on a single comparable property and arbitrary adjustments not based on market sales.

Relying on the best comparable sales evidence, the Board determined the current value was approximately $1,177,000, but confirmed the returned assessment of $1,122,000 as MPAC did not seek an increase.

The Board also found no reduction was necessary for equitable assessment.

The moving party sought permission to file a late appeal of his 2017 property assessment.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appeal was not actually late, as MPAC had failed to mail its response to the request for reconsideration to the moving party's correct address.

Because MPAC did not mail the response to an address where it was likely to be received, the later statutory deadline applied.

The appeal was filed within this later deadline and was therefore timely.

A deemed appeal for the 2018 taxation year was also created.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their residential property in Oakville for the 2017 taxation year, arguing it was overvalued compared to similar properties.

The Assessment Review Board evaluated comparable sales and determined the current value of the property was $1,023,510.

After applying an assessment-to-sale ratio to ensure equity with similar properties in the vicinity, the equitable value was calculated at $950,000.

Since no party sought a higher assessment, the Board confirmed the original returned assessment of $947,000 and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants appealed the 2017 current value assessment of their property, which MPAC assessed at $458,000.

The appellants argued the assessment was too high due to the property's proximity to a marina, lack of assumed road access, and condition.

MPAC presented evidence showing the initial valuation was $573,000, which was reduced to $458,000 after applying downward adjustments for the marina, boat traffic, property condition, and a previous Board decision.

The Board found that MPAC's comparables supported the assessment and that the appellants provided no evidence to support a further reduction.

The assessment was confirmed at $458,000 for the 2017 and deemed 2018 taxation years.

The Requester sought a review of a 2013 Assessment Review Board decision that dismissed its property assessment appeals.

The request for review was filed over four years after the original decision.

The Board denied the request, finding that it could not review a decision for which no written reasons were issued or requested, the request was significantly out of time without a reasonable explanation, and the Requester failed to establish any breach of natural justice, false evidence, or relevant new evidence.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their single-family home, arguing that an 11% premium for abutting a golf course should be removed because they had insider information that the golf course was going to be sold and developed.

The Assessment Review Board rejected this argument, finding that the hypothetical future sale of the golf course did not affect the property's current value on the valuation date, as it still abutted the golf course.

The Board found the current value to be higher than the returned assessment based on comparable sales, but confirmed the returned assessment of $1,298,000 because MPAC did not request an increase.

The appellants appealed the 2017 property assessment of their single-family home, arguing the current value of $1,049,000 was too high due to exceptional inconvenience, noise, and dirt from the adjacent Eglinton LRT Chaplin Station construction.

The Assessment Review Board found that while the construction impact could not be precisely quantified as a separate adjustment, a comparable property subject to similar construction influences supported a lower valuation.

The Board reduced the current value to $970,000 but declined to make a further equitable reduction, finding the assessment-to-sale ratio of similar properties was within the acceptable range.

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

The appellant did not appear at the hearing.

MPAC recommended a reduction in the current value from the returned assessment of $393,000 to $378,000.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's recommendation and reduced the assessment accordingly.

The appellant appealed the current value assessment of his residential property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years, originally returned at $23,000.

MPAC recommended a reduction to $14,800 based on comparable sales and the property's condition.

The appellant sought a reduction to $6,100, citing water damage and lower assessments of nearby properties.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value to be $16,000 based on comparable sales, and applied a further deduction of $2,675 for structural water damage repairs, resulting in a final current value of $13,325.

The Board found no further equity adjustment was warranted.

The appellant appealed the 2017 property assessment of a single-family residence in Toronto.

While not disputing the current value, the appellant argued for an equitable reduction based on the assessment of similar properties in the vicinity.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value to be $1,773,720 based on a time-adjusted sale price.

The Board found that an equitable reduction was warranted under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, as the median assessment-to-sale ratio of similar properties in the vicinity was 0.813.

Applying this factor, the Board reduced the assessment to $1,441,000 for the 2017 and deemed 2018 taxation years.

The appellant appealed the 2016 property assessment of his rural residential property, which was assessed at $244,000.

The appellant argued the assessment was too high due to nuisance factors including a nearby quarry, road changes, a police firing range, and unsightly hydro lines.

The Assessment Review Board found that the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation met its burden of proof by providing comparable sales that supported the assessed value.

As the appellant provided no evidence to quantify the impact of the nuisance factors on the property's value, the Board confirmed the assessment at $244,000.

The Appellants appealed the 2017 property assessment of their single-family detached home in Toronto, which MPAC had assessed at $1,160,000.

The Board determined the current value of the property as of January 1, 2016, to be $1,239,000 based on comparable sales.

However, applying an equity adjustment under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, the Board found that similar properties in the vicinity were assessed below their current values.

Consequently, the Board reduced the assessment to $1,038,000 for the 2017 and deemed 2018 taxation years.

The appellant appealed the 2017 property assessment of his residential condominium unit, which MPAC assessed at $350,000.

The appellant argued the assessment was too high compared to his purchase price and other units in the building.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value to be $337,000 based on the median sale price per square foot of comparable units in the same building.

The Board declined to make an equitable reduction under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, finding that the median Assessment to Sale Ratio of 1.01 fell within MPAC's acceptable standard.

The assessment was reduced to $337,000 for the 2017 and deemed 2018 taxation years.

The appellants appealed the 2015 and 2016 property assessments of their residential property in Toronto.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) originally assessed the property at $735,000 but revised its recommendation to $640,000 at the hearing, acknowledging the property's need for renovations.

The appellants argued for a value of $595,000 but failed to provide sufficient or corroborated evidence to support their valuation.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's comparable sales analysis as the best evidence and reduced the Current Value Assessment to $640,000.

The moving party sought an order permitting it to file an appeal of the 2017 assessment for four properties.

The moving party filed timely requests for reconsideration with MPAC but did not receive a response until after the statutory deadline for MPAC to mail its decision.

The Assessment Review Board found that because MPAC failed to mail the results within 180 days, the appeal period was triggered 90 days after the notice should have been mailed.

The appeal was therefore filed in time and the Board directed that the 2017 appeals, along with deemed 2018 appeals, be processed.

The moving party brought a motion to permit its appeal of a 2016 property assessment to proceed.

The moving party had filed a timely request for reconsideration but did not receive MPAC's rejection letter until months after the apparent appeal deadline had passed.

The Assessment Review Board held that under subsection 40(5.1) of the Assessment Act, the appeal period does not begin to run until MPAC's response is effectively communicated to the taxpayer.

Since the moving party filed its appeal immediately upon receiving the emailed response, the appeal was timely and permitted to proceed.

The moving party brought a motion seeking permission to file a late appeal of their 2017 property assessment, believing they had missed the deadline after failing to receive MPAC's response to their request for reconsideration.

The Assessment Review Board determined that because MPAC likely did not mail the decision letter, the statutory timeline was extended.

The moving party's application was filed two weeks before this extended deadline and was therefore timely.

As the 2017 appeal was not disposed of before March 31, 2018, a deemed appeal for the 2018 taxation year was also created.

The appellant appealed the 2017 property assessment of her waterfront property, which MPAC assessed at $393,000.

The property had a Certificate of Prohibition registered on title due to its historical use as a waste disposal site, which the appellant argued severely impacted its marketability and value.

MPAC had historically applied a 20% negative adjustment for this issue.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable sales and determined the base current value to be $366,487.

Applying the historical 20% reduction, the Board reduced the assessment to $293,000.

The Board found no further equitable reduction was warranted as the median assessment-to-sale ratio for similar properties was within the acceptable range.

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

The main issues were the correct current value of the property as of January 1, 2016, and whether an equity adjustment was required.

The Board found that the total building area was 1,368 square feet, rejecting MPAC's revised measurement of 1,536 square feet.

Based on comparable sales, the Board determined the current value to be $979,000, reducing the assessment from $993,000.

The Board found no equity adjustment was required as the assessment to sale ratio of comparable properties fell within the acceptable standard.