Property Tax Assessment

The appellant appealed the 2017 property assessment of his residential property, which also deemed an appeal for the 2018 taxation year.

MPAC initially assessed the property at $89,000 but reduced its estimate to $84,000 at the hearing.

The appellant argued the value should be $55,000 due to the property being on a flood plain with an unfinished addition.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC failed to meet its statutory burden under s. 40(17) of the Assessment Act to prove the correctness of the current value, as it provided no comparable sales supporting its figure.

As the appellant also failed to provide objective evidence to support his proposed value, the Board reduced the assessment to the last uncontested value of $57,000.

The appellant appealed the current value assessment of his single-family detached dwelling for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The respondent assessment corporation recommended a reduction from the returned values of $51,000 and $33,500 to $26,500 based on comparable sales.

The appellant sought a further 30% reduction due to the depressed local economy.

The Assessment Review Board accepted the respondent's comparable sales evidence, finding the current value to be $26,500, and concluded no further equity adjustment was required.

The appellant appealed the MPAC assessments for two multi-residential properties in Kingston for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC failed to meet its statutory burden under s. 40(17) of the Assessment Act to prove the correctness of its proposed current values, as its evidence using gross income multipliers and direct comparisons was flawed and unsupported.

Relying on the appellant's expert appraisal evidence, the Board determined the current values using the income approach.

The Board also found that similar multi-residential properties in the vicinity were assessed at 92.99% of their current value, and applied an equitable adjustment to reduce the assessments accordingly.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a single detached home for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The property was uninhabitable, gutted, and lacked municipal services.

MPAC assessed the property at $162,000, applying a 90% negative adjustment to the structure, but failed to adequately explain the valuation or provide comparable uninhabitable properties.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC failed to meet its statutory burden of proof under s. 40(17) of the Assessment Act.

Accepting the appellant's evidence and experience, the Board reduced the current value assessment to $115,000 and found no equity adjustment was required.

The Applicant applied for a refund of his 2015 property taxes under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, citing sickness and extreme poverty.

While the Board accepted that the Applicant suffered from sickness, it found he was not in a situation of extreme poverty.

The Board determined that the Applicant had the ability to pay his property taxes, noting he had already paid them in full without penalty, received financial support from his son, had a positive bank balance, and had substantial unaccessed equity in his home.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the 2016 property assessment of a 1.5-acre property containing a one-story building.

MPAC revised its assessment to $2,892,000 based on a change in use to a gym, while the appellant argued for a value of $1,900,000.

The Assessment Review Board applied the income approach, finding that the actual rent was below market value due to landlord inducements and tenant improvements, and determined the fair market rent to be $11.82 per square foot.

The Board concluded the current value was $2,892,000 and found no equitable adjustment was warranted as there was no general trend of under-assessment for similar properties in the vicinity.

The moving party applied for permission to file a late property assessment appeal under section 357 of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The moving party failed to appear at the motion hearing.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion due to the failure to appear, noting further that the Board lacks the statutory authority to alter the timelines set out in the Act.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their seasonal recreational home in the Township of Tiny for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $2,100,000, while the appellants argued for a value of $1,555,639.

Both parties presented comparable sales evidence.

The Assessment Review Board preferred MPAC's evidence, finding its comparable properties more consistent with the subject property in overall value, quality, and size.

The Board confirmed the assessment at $2,100,000 and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed the 2017 property assessment of a penthouse condominium unit, which MPAC had assessed at $506,000.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value of the property using the direct comparison approach, relying on the time-adjusted sale of a similar penthouse unit in the same building.

The Board found the current value to be $470,000.

Applying an equity analysis provided by MPAC, the Board further reduced the assessment by 13.3% to ensure it was equitable with similar properties in the vicinity.

The final assessment was reduced to $407,000 for the 2017 and deemed 2018 taxation years.

The appellants brought a motion for the disclosure of various documents from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) relating to the application of economic obsolescence and market adjustment factors for large distribution centres.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding that while the requested documents might have some relevance, the probative value was unclear and the extensive volume of documents required to be produced would be disproportionate to the importance and complexity of the issues in the proceeding.

The appellants appealed the current value assessment of their single-family detached dwelling for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years, arguing that the returned assessment of $1,392,000 should be reduced to $991,800 due to subway noise, vibration, and other site features.

MPAC recommended a reduction to $1,236,000 based on comparable sales and a correction to the building size.

The Assessment Review Board found insufficient evidence to support a reduction for subway noise and vibration, but accepted a 10% negative adjustment for the presence of asbestos.

The Board determined the current value to be $1,303,000 based on MPAC's best comparable sale, and applied a further equity adjustment to reduce the final assessment to $1,236,000.

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

The parties agreed to a reduced current value of $483,000.

The appellants sought a further equitable reduction under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, arguing for a 0.79% adjustment based on a vertical equity study.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the appellants' study as it relied on sales too far removed from the valuation date and unsupported inflationary adjustments.

The Board accepted MPAC's equity analysis, which showed the assessment fell within acceptable standards, and concluded no equitable reduction was required.

The appellant appealed the current value assessment of her single-family detached dwelling for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years, arguing that the returned assessment of $1,457,000 was too high due to subway noise and vibration.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value to be $1,532,000 based on comparable sales, but applied an equity adjustment based on the median assessment-to-sales ratio of similar properties in the vicinity.

The Board reduced the returned assessment to $1,454,000.

The applicant appealed to the Assessment Review Board seeking a refund of her 2017 property taxes under section 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, citing sickness and extreme poverty.

While the Board accepted that the applicant's son suffered from sickness, it found that the applicant had sufficient financial resources, including significant cash savings and discretionary spending, to pay her property taxes.

The Board concluded the applicant was not living in extreme poverty and dismissed the application.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a single-family home for the 2017 taxation year.

The appellant argued for a reduction based on a noise nuisance from aircraft traffic and other neighbourhood factors.

MPAC had previously reduced the assessment to $724,000 during a Request for Reconsideration due to a lot size correction.

The Board found the current value to be $802,000 after applying a 5% reduction for the noise nuisance, and determined an equity adjustment to $760,000 was required.

However, because MPAC's offer of $724,000 was lower, the Board reduced the assessment to $724,000 for the 2017 and deemed 2018 taxation years.

The requester sought a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that dismissed its complaint regarding a vacancy rebate application.

The original application was denied by the City of Pickering because it was received after the statutory deadline, allegedly due to being lost in the mail.

The Board dismissed the request for review, finding that the statutory time limit for making a vacancy rebate application is strict and the Board has no discretion to extend it.

As there was no valid, on-time application, the Board had no jurisdiction to grant relief.

The moving party, a commercial tenant, sought an order under Rule 26(b) of the Assessment Review Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure to accept property assessment appeals filed after the statutory deadline.

The tenant did not receive the assessment notices from its landlords until months after the deadline, despite statutory requirements under the Assessment Act.

The Board found that the tenant was entitled to receive notice, did not receive it in time, and filed the appeals within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessments.

The motion was granted and the late appeals were accepted.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their seasonal cottage on Gould Lake for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The property was assessed at $263,000 for 2017 and $266,000 for 2018.

The appellants argued for a value of $187,000 due to lot restrictions, steep topography, and limited seasonal access.

MPAC presented comparable sales from Chesley Lake.

The Assessment Review Board found that Chesley Lake was a superior market and that the subject property's value should align with the lower end of the comparable sales range.

The Board reduced the current value to $253,000 for both taxation years but found no further reduction was warranted on equity grounds.

The taxpayers brought a motion seeking the disclosure of five categories of documents from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) regarding the assessment of their residential properties.

The requested documents included Property Assessment Detail reports, lot size calculations, inspection notes, comparable sales analysis, and lists of comparable sales.

The Assessment Review Board applied the relevance test under Rule 45 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure, noting that the standard is strict relevance and proportionality, not a mere semblance of relevance.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that the taxpayers failed to discharge their burden of proving how the requested documents were relevant to a specific issue in dispute.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a residential dwelling located near Lake Ontario for the 2017 taxation year.

MPAC originally assessed the property at $2,067,000 but recommended a reduction to $1,779,000 during the hearing to account for the lack of a parking space.

The appellant argued for a value of $950,000 based on the assessed values of vacant land and other properties on the street, but provided no sales evidence.

The Board accepted MPAC's sales evidence and recommended value, reducing the assessment to $1,779,000 for the 2017 and deemed 2018 taxation years.