Property Tax Assessment

The requester sought to reinstate three property assessment appeals that were dismissed due to non-attendance at a hearing.

The requester submitted that the non-attendance was caused by a sudden illness.

The Assessment Review Board found the non-attendance excusable and noted that neither the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation nor the municipality objected.

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

Waterloo University requested a review to reinstate three property assessment appeals that were erroneously marked as withdrawn and closed by the Board.

The Requester and MPAC had agreed on Minutes of Settlement that required the appeals to be active for execution.

The Associate Chair found that the appeals were closed due to a Board error and that refusing reinstatement would cause significant prejudice.

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

The Requester sought to reinstate four property assessment appeals that were previously dismissed after their former representative failed to attend multiple teleconference calls due to a personnel shortage.

The Associate Chair of the Assessment Review Board granted the request for review and reinstated the appeals, finding that the dismissal was not the fault of the Requester, the Requester intended to pursue the appeals, and there was no objection or prejudice to the respondents.

The appellant appealed the 2016 property tax assessment of a lakefront property in North Kawartha Township.

MPAC originally assessed the property at $277,000 but reduced it to $211,000 during the Request for Reconsideration process, reflecting improvements made to the property, specifically the addition of a concrete foundation and basement enclosure.

The appellant argued the value should remain closer to the 2013 assessed value of $187,000.

The Assessment Review Board found that the improvements added substantial value and that MPAC's comparable sales supported the $211,000 valuation.

The Board also dismissed the request for an equity adjustment, finding that similar properties in the vicinity were generally assessed higher than their sales value, precluding any downward adjustment.

The assessment was confirmed at $211,000.

The Requester sought a review of an Assessment Review Board decision regarding the assessment of a property for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years.

The Requester argued the presiding Member erred in law by failing to apply the Managed Forest adjustment under s. 19(5.2) of the Assessment Act.

The Associate Chair denied the request for review, finding that the calculation for Managed Forests is not a reduction applied after an assessment is confirmed, but pertains to the value of the land itself.

The Requester failed to provide evidence that the confirmed assessment did not accurately reflect the adjustment, and thus failed to raise a convincing and compelling case of a material error.

The appellants appealed the 2015 and 2016 property assessments for seven commercial condominium parking space units.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) originally assessed the units at $20,000 and $15,000 each, but recommended a reduction to $3,000 based on a sales analysis.

The appellants argued the units had no independent value or should be valued at $900 based on a bulk sale, and requested the roll numbers be consolidated with their retail units.

The Assessment Review Board reduced the assessment to $3,000 per unit, accepting MPAC's valuation evidence, and found it had no authority to consolidate the separate condominium parcels.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of an industrial site for the 2014, 2015, and 2016 taxation years, arguing the current value should be the 2015 sale price of $4,000,000.

MPAC argued the sale was encumbered by contamination, an easement, and a use restriction, and thus did not represent current value.

The Assessment Review Board found that contamination is a condition of the land and not an encumbrance under section 1(1) of the Assessment Act.

However, the Board found that the easement and use restriction were encumbrances that impacted the property's value.

The Board ordered the hearing to be reconvened to determine the current value considering these encumbrances.

The appellant appealed the City's determination regarding a Vacant Unit Rebate.

In a prior interim decision, the Board ruled that the commercial portion of the property was ineligible for the rebate, but the industrial portion was eligible for a 155-day vacancy period.

Following the parties' submission of assessment data, the Board calculated the eligible taxes for the industrial portions on the first and second floors.

The Board ordered a total Vacant Unit Rebate of $1,594.35 payable to the appellant.

The Requester sought a review of a previous Assessment Review Board decision that denied his application for property tax relief under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The presiding Member had dismissed the application on the basis that the relief was intended to be temporary.

On review, the Associate Chair found that because the Requester had been repeatedly granted relief for almost two decades without notice that the relief was temporary, denying it now would be contrary to the rules of natural justice.

The request for review was granted, the previous decision was cancelled, and the Requester's property taxes were adjusted to $100 per year for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of an industrial condominium unit for the 2013-2016 taxation years, arguing the current value assessment of $371,000 was too high compared to a neighbouring unit.

MPAC presented sales data of comparable properties indicating the subject property was actually under-assessed, but requested the Board confirm the returned value as no notice to seek a higher assessment was filed.

The Assessment Review Board confirmed the returned assessment of $371,000, finding it was supported by the sales data and equitable with similar properties in the vicinity.

The appellant appealed the current value assessment of a 59-unit multi-residential apartment building in Hamilton for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $5,287,000 using the Gross Income Multiplier method.

The appellant argued for a value of $4,200,000 based on fair market rent data from CMHC.

The Board preferred MPAC's methodology and comparable properties, noting the subject property was newly built in 2012.

The Board confirmed the assessment at $5,287,000 and found no equity adjustment was required.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of an industrial property in St. Catharines for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years.

MPAC had offered to reduce the assessment from $955,000 to $673,000 based on a "cost to cure" for required repairs, which the appellant rejected.

The Board found that MPAC's comparable properties were appropriate and determined the current value to be $698,000.

However, the Board accepted MPAC's standing offer to reduce the assessment to $673,000 and changed the 2013 classification from commercial to industrial.

The Requester sought a review to reinstate four appeals that were dismissed due to non-attendance at a teleconference call.

The Requester's previous representative failed to attend because he was preoccupied with personal issues and confused by another cancelled teleconference call.

The Board accepted the explanation, noted that neither the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation nor the municipality objected, and found no prejudice to any party.

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

The requester sought a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that determined the current value assessment of her property for the 2014 and 2015 taxation years.

The requester argued the presiding Member erred in fact regarding the cost of construction and relied on superior comparable properties.

The Associate Chair denied the request for review, finding no convincing and compelling evidence that any alleged factual error would have led to a different decision, and noting that the weighing of evidence is within the presiding Member's discretion.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of a 23-storey multi-residential building for the 2013-2016 taxation years, arguing that the assessment of $18,857,000 was too high given the building's high maintenance costs and higher than average vacancy rate.

The Assessment Review Board found that the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) had already accounted for these factors by applying a lower Gross Income Multiplier (GIM) and conservative fair market rents compared to similar properties in the vicinity.

The Board concluded that the appellants failed to provide quantifiable evidence to support a lower current value and that there was no evidentiary basis to adjust the assessment for equity.

The appeal was dismissed and the assessment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a rural industrial building for the 2014, 2015, and 2016 taxation years.

The property was assessed at $4,940,000.

The respondent MPAC recommended a reduction to $4,424,000 based on a statistical sales analysis, while the appellant sought a reduction to $3,570,000 based on an individual appraisal that adjusted for the property's remote location and structural deficiencies.

The Assessment Review Board preferred the appellant's nuanced appraisal approach, applying a downward adjustment to comparable sales to account for locational disadvantages.

The Board determined the current value to be $3,932,000 and found no inequity compared to similar lands.

The moving party brought a motion for the production of confidential information held by the respondent regarding 24 pharmaceutical companies and five non-pharmaceutical companies, to assist in valuing its purpose-built pharmaceutical manufacturing facility.

The respondent and third-party property owners consented to the release of information for the pharmaceutical properties but objected to the non-pharmaceutical properties.

The Assessment Review Board found that the non-pharmaceutical properties lacked sufficient similarity to the subject property and denied disclosure for those five properties.

The Board ordered the disclosure of information for the 24 pharmaceutical properties, subject to strict confidentiality undertakings.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their residential property for the 2014, 2015, and 2016 taxation years, arguing the current value should be reduced due to the property's poor condition.

MPAC recommended a reduction to $339,000 and requested a portion be classified as commercial.

The Assessment Review Board found the property required substantial repairs and set the current value at $301,000 based on comparable sales.

The Board rejected MPAC's request to change the classification to commercial, noting procedural failures and that the business had been closed since 2005.

The appellant property owner appealed the MPAC assessment of his custom-built home in Toronto, assessed at $2,940,000 for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

The appellant argued that MPAC's comparative sales analysis was flawed, challenging the use of time adjustments and the inclusion of certain superior properties.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the appellant's arguments, finding that time adjustments were necessary in a rising market and that the selected comparable sales supported the assessment.

The Board also found that the assessment was equitable with similar properties in the vicinity, confirming the assessment.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a 15-unit multi-residential building for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

The property was assessed at $1,115,000 based on the income approach.

The appellant argued for a reduction based on a 2014 sale of the subject property and a value-per-suite analysis.

The Assessment Review Board accepted the 2014 sale price adjusted downwards by 5% to reflect the January 1, 2012 valuation date, reducing the assessment to $1,091,000.

The Board found no further equity adjustment was required.