Property Tax Assessment

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of a single-family detached residential property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The parties agreed on the current value of $3,718,000 but disputed the appropriate equitable reduction under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act.

The Assessment Review Board preferred MPAC's methodology of using time-adjusted sales to calculate the assessment to sale ratio (ASR) over the appellant's approach of limiting the sales value range without time adjustments.

The Board applied a median ASR of 0.89 derived from 48 comparable sales, reducing the assessed value to $3,309,000.

The moving party, who purchased the subject property in 2015, sought to reinstate an assessment appeal for the 2015 taxation year that had been withdrawn by the previous owner.

The moving party had negotiated a reduced assessment for 2016 and expected it to apply to 2015.

The Board found that the moving party was a party to the appeal under the Assessment Act, the request was timely, and procedural fairness required reinstatement because the previous owner's unilateral withdrawal prejudiced the moving party.

The motion to reinstate the 2015 appeal was granted on consent of the other parties.

The appellants appealed the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation's (MPAC) current value assessment of their residential property for the 2016 taxation year.

MPAC assessed the property at $7,399,000, while the appellants argued for a value of $5,600,000 based on locational disadvantages such as being on a corner lot with less privacy.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the appellants' expert evidence due to a lack of supporting analysis and reliance on outdated sales.

The Board preferred MPAC's comparable sales evidence and confirmed the assessment at $7,399,000.

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

She had filed a timely request for reconsideration, but MPAC mailed its response to the wrong address, causing her to miss the statutory appeal deadline.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding that its power to extend time under Rule 26(b) applies only when a taxpayer fails to receive a 'notice of assessment'.

The Board held that MPAC's response to a request for reconsideration is a 'notice of reconsideration', not a notice of assessment, and therefore the Board had no jurisdiction to extend the ultimate statutory filing deadline.

The appellant appealed the 2016 property assessment of his rural residential property, arguing the assessed value of $545,000 was too high given its condition and his inability to sell it.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC's comparable sales supported the base assessment value.

However, the Board accepted the appellant's evidence that the roof required replacement and applied a $30,000 cost to cure adjustment.

The assessment was reduced to $515,000, with no further equity adjustment required.

The applicant appealed the City of Brampton's rejection of a vacancy rebate application for an industrial property for the period of January 1 to June 30, 2014.

The applicant argued the property was vacant until the lease's occupancy date of July 1, 2014.

The City argued the property was already leased as of December 2013, the tenant had early access for construction, and the property was not actively marketed for lease.

The Assessment Review Board found that the property was under lease, the tenant had early access, and there was no serious attempt to lease the property during the interim period.

The appeal was dismissed and the vacancy rebate was determined to be NIL.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of its scrap metal recycling facility, arguing it should be classified in the Commercial Property Class rather than the Industrial Property Class.

The appellant pointed to similar properties in other municipalities that were classified as commercial.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the appeal, finding that the crushing and baling of scrap metal constitutes 'processing' under Ontario Regulation 282/98, which places the property in the Industrial Property Class.

The Board also held that the classification of other properties is irrelevant to determining the correct classification of the subject property based on its actual use.

The appellant appealed the returned assessment of $2,807,000 for a commercial property for the 2016 taxation year.

The appellant argued for a reduction based on an Assessment to Sales Ratio (ASR) analysis, while MPAC supported the returned assessment using a sales analysis of similar properties.

The Assessment Review Board found MPAC's evidence of current value and equity to be the best evidence, determining a current value of $6,358,000 and an equity-adjusted value of $5,786,000.

Since the adjusted value was significantly higher than the returned assessment and the appeal did not seek an increase, the Board confirmed the returned assessment of $2,807,000.

The moving parties sought costs of $37,577.50 following a property assessment hearing where their assessments were reduced.

They argued the hearing was unnecessary and that MPAC acted unreasonably by failing to call a specialized wind turbine expert, omitting certain comparable sales, and making an inappropriate settlement offer.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding no evidence that MPAC acted unreasonably, frivolously, vexatiously, or in bad faith as required by Rule 138 and section 17.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation brought a motion on consent to cancel and replace a previous order with values provided in minutes of settlement.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion, finding it advisable to cancel the previous decision to finally resolve the proceedings for the 2009-2016 taxation years and avoid a multiplicity of further proceedings.

The appellant appealed the current value assessment of a vacant residential waterfront lot for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation had assessed the property at $67,000 but recommended a reduction to $39,500 due to topography and shoreline conditions.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the appellant's reliance on a non-arm's length package sale but accepted one of MPAC's comparable sales.

Applying a 45% reduction for the subject property's negative features and a further equity adjustment based on the comparable's assessment-to-sales ratio, the Board reduced the assessment to $31,000.

The appellant appealed the current value assessment (CVA) of a vacant residential/recreational waterfront lot for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

MPAC had assessed the property at $61,000 but recommended a reduction to $33,500 due to the property's steep slope and weedy shoreline.

The appellant argued that the CVA should be based on the allocated purchase price of $10,000 from a recent bulk sale of three adjoining properties.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the allocated purchase price as unreliable but accepted MPAC's best comparable sale, adjusting it downward by 45% for the property's negative features to find a current value of $53,000.

The Board then applied an equity adjustment based on the assessment-to-sales ratio of the comparable property (59%), resulting in a final CVA of $31,000.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessments for an industrial property for the 2013 to 2016 taxation years, arguing the returned value of $18,474,000 was too high and should be reduced based on the direct comparison approach.

The respondent MPAC argued the cost approach was more appropriate for a purpose-built single-tenant building and supported the returned value.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's expert evidence that the cost approach was the best indicator of value and found no basis to adjust the assessment for equity.

The appeals were dismissed and the assessments were confirmed.

The appellant developer applied for a refund of property taxes paid in 2014 for a portion of subdivision lands transferred to the City of Brampton, which became exempt from taxation.

The City raised a preliminary issue regarding the Board's jurisdiction to determine the value of the exempt lands.

The Board found it had jurisdiction under s. 357(10) of the Municipal Act, 2001 to determine the tax refund amount.

The Board concluded that 4.2 acres of the 15.17-acre property were transferred and exempt for 351 days in 2014, entitling the appellant to a refund of 27.69% of the total taxes paid, resulting in a balance owing of $16,771.24.

The applicant sought a cancellation of her 2015 property taxes under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, citing an inability to pay due to sickness.

The applicant provided medical evidence establishing she is legally blind and recovering from a kidney transplant, rendering her unable to work.

The Board reviewed her income and expenses, finding her financial resources severely limited and her expenses reasonable.

The Board concluded the applicant demonstrated an inability to meet her tax obligations due to sickness and granted a full cancellation of the 2015 property taxes in the amount of $3,385.77.

The Applicant applied for a cancellation, reduction, or refund of property taxes for the 2014 taxation year under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, citing sickness and extreme poverty.

The Assessment Review Board found no evidence of sickness, as no medical reports were provided.

Regarding extreme poverty, the Board noted the Applicant had significant equity in her home, a bank balance, and failed to provide supporting documentation for her claimed expenses.

The Board concluded the Applicant did not meet the high threshold for extreme poverty and dismissed the application.

The appellant appealed the 2013 and 2014 property tax assessments for a 43-unit apartment building, arguing that the Gross Income Multiplier (GIM) applied by MPAC was higher than that applied to similar properties in a nearby neighbourhood, resulting in an inequitable assessment.

The Assessment Review Board held a re-hearing solely on the equity issue.

The Board found that the appellant failed to demonstrate inequity, as differing GIMs do not inherently prove inequity if the resulting current values are correct.

The Board accepted MPAC's assessment-to-sale ratio (ASR) study as the best evidence, which confirmed that the correct current value was equitable relative to similar lands in the vicinity.

The assessment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 2012 property tax assessment of a waterfront residential property in Burlington, assessed at $2,191,000.

The appellant argued for a reduced assessment of $1,095,000 based on the sale price per square foot of a nearby property.

MPAC defended the assessment using the direct comparison approach, presenting sales of comparable waterfront properties and vacant land to demonstrate the value per linear foot of water frontage.

The Assessment Review Board found MPAC's comparables persuasive, confirming the current value at $2,191,000 and finding no equity adjustment was warranted.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a vacant lot in Oakville for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

The Board determined the current value of the property to be $12,832,000 based on comparable sales provided by MPAC.

However, applying section 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, the Board found this value inequitable compared to similar lands in the vicinity.

The Board reduced the returned assessment from $3,182,000 to $2,680,000 to achieve equity.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a seasonal waterfront dwelling for the 2015 taxation year.

MPAC recommended a current value of $756,000 based on comparable sales, while the appellant argued for a value of $512,000 due to local unrest and land disputes.

The Assessment Review Board found the appellant provided insufficient evidence to quantify the impact of the local issues on property value and accepted MPAC's valuation.

The Board determined the current value to be $756,000 and applied an assessment to sale ratio of 0.965 to ensure equity, resulting in a final assessment of $729,000 for the 2015 and deemed 2016 taxation years.