Property Tax Assessment

The appellants appealed the 2021 property assessment of their custom-built single-family dwelling in Newmarket, which was returned at $1,543,000.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value of the property to be $1,437,000 based on the time-adjusted sale price of a comparable property.

The Board then applied an agreed-upon equity adjustment factor of 0.92 to ensure the assessment was equitable with similar properties in the vicinity.

The final assessment was reduced to $1,322,000.

The appellant in a property assessment appeal brought a motion seeking leave for its paralegal representative to appear at the hearing as both an advocate and a witness.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation opposed the motion, arguing prejudice and lack of objectivity.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion, finding that the representative intended to provide factual evidence rather than expert opinion evidence, and that any potential prejudice could be mitigated by the hearing member.

The appellants appealed the supplementary assessment and the 2015 and 2016 current value assessments of their waterfront property.

MPAC had assessed the property at $306,000 based on comparable sales.

The appellants argued for a reduction based on the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's current value of $306,000 but applied an equity adjustment based on the median assessment-to-sale ratio of MPAC's comparable properties.

The assessment was reduced to $249,000 for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years, and the supplementary assessment was reduced to $85,000.

The appellant appealed the 2012 current value assessment of a vacant commercial property in Oakville, originally assessed at $804,000.

MPAC proposed a reduction to $732,000 based on the direct sales comparison approach and land residual technique.

The appellant argued for a value of $385,000, citing restrictive new zoning by-laws and using assessment-to-sales ratios.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the appellant's methodology of using assessed values instead of sales data, but also adjusted MPAC's comparables.

Based on the sales of four comparable properties, the Board determined the current value to be $556,000 and found no further equity adjustment was required.

The appellant, a private lawn bowling club, appealed the property tax assessment of its land, arguing that the land value was incorrect due to development restrictions and an incorrect lot size.

The subject property is located entirely within a floodplain and is subject to Conservation Authority regulations prohibiting new development.

The Assessment Review Board found that while the property was correctly classified as residential, the assessor's valuation using comparable residential properties was flawed because those properties did not have similar development restrictions.

The Board reduced the land's current value assessment to $11,589.51 based on the valuation of a similarly restricted private club in the vicinity.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a single-tenant industrial facility for the 2013 to 2016 taxation years.

MPAC recommended a revised assessment of $1,418,000 based on classification changes, while the appellant argued for a lower assessment of $1,182,000.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed comparable sales presented by both parties and determined the current value of the property to be $1,202,000.

The Board found that the assessment to sales ratios of the comparable properties indicated that MPAC was achieving equity in the vicinity, and therefore no further equity adjustment was required.

The assessment was reduced to $1,202,000.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their single-family dwelling for the 2014, 2015, and 2016 taxation years.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) had assessed the property at $388,000 for 2015 and 2016, and applied a supplementary assessment for 2014.

The appellants argued the assessment was too high due to the property's unique characteristics, including a wood foundation, lack of municipal services, and a long driveway.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's current value of $388,000 but found that an adjustment for equity was required based on the assessment-to-sale ratio of similar properties.

The Board reduced the current value assessment to $357,000 for 2015 and 2016, and reduced the 2014 supplementary assessment to $282,000.

The appellants appealed the 2016 property assessment of their waterfront home in North Bay, originally assessed at $589,000.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable sales and the property's specific features, including its shoreline and topography.

The Board found that the best evidence of current value was the property's actual sale price of $565,000 in May 2015.

The Board reduced the assessment to $565,000 and found no further equity adjustment was required.

The Assessment Review Board issued a final decision determining the property tax vacancy rebates owed to U.S. Steel Canada Inc. by Haldimand County for the 2010 and 2013 taxation years.

Following an interim decision establishing eligibility, the Board quantified the rebates for the Main Plant and Pickling Plant.

The Board also determined the interest commencement date under section 364(20) of the Municipal Act, 2001, finding that the application was complete by October 20, 2014, when evidentiary requirements were met, making the interest commencement date February 22, 2015.

The appellants appealed the 2016 property assessment of their detached house in Ottawa, arguing the assessed value of $468,000 was too high and inequitable compared to similar properties.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable sales evidence and found the current value of the property to be $490,000.

However, because the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation did not file a notice seeking a higher assessment, the Board confirmed the returned assessment of $468,000.

The Board also found insufficient evidence to support a reduction based on inequity.

The appellants appealed the 2016 property assessment of their seasonal waterfront dwelling, which was returned at $529,000.

The appellants argued the assessment was too high based on their own sales research, while MPAC relied on comparable sales to support the returned value.

The Assessment Review Board found MPAC's comparable sales more reliable, noting the appellants' comparables involved significantly older and inferior structures.

The Board confirmed the assessment at $529,000, finding no adjustment for equity was warranted.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a seasonal dwelling located on Crown land in the Cache Bay Wetland Conservation Reserve.

The appellant argued the assessment was too high given the property's limitations, including lack of services, water access only, and its status as a land use permit on Crown land.

The Assessment Review Board found that the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation's recommended assessment of $45,000 reflected the current value of the property based on comparable sales.

The Board also determined that no equity adjustment was warranted, as the assessed value was equitable relative to similar lands in the vicinity.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a single-family detached home in North Bay for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $499,000 for 2015 and $475,000 for 2016.

The appellant argued the assessment was too high, suggesting a value of $460,000, citing the high value placed on a detached garage and various nuisances.

The Assessment Review Board found that the sales comparables provided by MPAC were not sufficiently comparable to enable a direct comparison.

Using an Assessment to Sale Ratio (ASR) analysis, the Board determined the current value to be $461,000.

The Board found no further equity adjustment was required and reduced the assessment to $461,000 for both taxation years.

The appellant appealed the current value assessment of a vacant residential lot in Thunder Bay, which MPAC had assessed at $8,200 and later recommended reducing to $4,100.

The appellant argued the property had nominal value because it was located within a Provincially Significant Wetland (the Williams Bog) and was subject to strict development prohibitions under the municipal Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The Assessment Review Board agreed with the appellant, finding that MPAC's comparable properties did not share the same severe development constraints.

Relying on a local real estate broker's opinion, the Board reduced the assessment to $500.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a seasonal water-access island property, which was assessed at $231,000 for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

The appellant argued the value should be $180,000, citing damage to white pine trees from a pine false web worm infection.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable sales and found one relatively comparable property that sold for a time-adjusted price of $211,000.

The Board added $5,000 for the value of permanent docking on the subject property, setting the current value at $216,000.

The Board declined to make a further equity adjustment, finding the assessment to sale ratio of similar properties was within the acceptable standard.

The appeal was allowed in part.

The appellants appealed the property tax classification of a purpose-built student housing building containing 133 suites with 588 individually rented bedrooms.

The issue was whether the building should be classified as residential or multi-residential, which turned on whether the individual bedrooms or the entire suites constituted "self-contained units" under O. Reg. 282/98.

The Assessment Review Board held that the physical layout of the building and the nature of the occupancy demonstrated that the 133 suites were self-contained units.

The property was therefore placed in the multi-residential tax class.

The appellants appealed the supplementary assessment and current value assessment of their waterfront property.

The Assessment Review Board found the current value of the property to be $306,000 based on comparable sales.

However, applying the median Assessment to Sale Ratio (ASR) of 0.815 from the comparable properties to ensure equity, the Board reduced the assessment to $249,000 for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

The supplementary assessment was correspondingly reduced to $85,000.

The appellant appealed the 2015 and 2016 property assessments for a residential structure converted to commercial use, arguing the returned value of $505,000 was too high and inequitable compared to a neighbouring property.

The Assessment Review Board found that the cost approach supported a current value of $515,000.

The Board also found no basis for an equity reduction, as the appellant's single comparable was an anomaly and MPAC's equity study showed no trend of under-assessment for similar properties.

The assessments were confirmed at $505,000, as MPAC did not seek an increase.

The Applicant applied for a cancellation, reduction, or refund of property taxes for the 2015 taxation year under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, citing sickness or extreme poverty.

The Assessment Review Board found insufficient evidence of sickness.

Regarding extreme poverty, the Board noted the Applicant owned a home with net equity and had an income of $14,700.

The Board concluded the Applicant failed to demonstrate that no resources were available to meet basic necessities while paying property taxes, and dismissed the application.

The moving party, 2338770 Ontario Inc., brought a motion to compel the City of Brampton to disclose the calculations used to determine a tax rebate of $2,550.19.

The City refused to provide the calculations without a $10 fee pursuant to a municipal by-law and without written authorization from the appellant.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion, finding that the Board's Rules of Practice and the Municipal Act take priority over the municipal by-law, and ordered the City to produce the calculations without a fee.

The Board also granted the City's cross-motion, ordering the appellant to provide written authorization for the release of information to its representative.