Property Tax Assessment

The appellant appealed the 2016 property assessment of a newly constructed single-family detached home, assessed at $1,399,000.

The appellant argued for a lower value based on the cost approach and direct comparison approach.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appellant's cost approach lacked evidence of depreciated cost, and preferred the direct comparison approach presented by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC).

The Board concluded that the assessed value was reasonable and equitable with similar lands in the vicinity, confirming the assessment at $1,399,000.

The appellant appealed the City of Guelph's denial of vacant unit rebate applications for five properties for the 2014 taxation year.

The City rejected the applications on the basis that they were not made by the statutory deadline of February 28, 2015.

The Assessment Review Board found that the applications were mailed on February 25, 2015, and interpreted the word 'made' in section 364(2)(5) of the Municipal Act to mean the date the applications were posted.

The Board determined the applications were made within the statutory time limit and referred them back to the City to determine the rebate amounts.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) requested a review of an Assessment Review Board decision, arguing that the presiding members denied natural justice and procedural fairness by relying on cases not addressed at the hearing and making findings about the impartiality of MPAC employees without evidence.

MPAC also argued the members erred in law regarding the qualification of employees as expert witnesses.

The Associate Chair found that the request raised important issues requiring clarification and granted a motion to argue the grounds raised in the request for review.

The appellant appealed the current value assessment of a standard industrial property for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

MPAC recommended a reduction in the assessment from $2,667,000 to $2,228,000 based on the Market Data Approach, which the appellant refused, arguing for a lower value based on the Income Approach and equity considerations.

The Assessment Review Board found that the Market Data Approach was the appropriate methodology for a standard industrial property with two or less tenants and that MPAC's comparable sales were suitable.

The Board accepted MPAC's recommended assessment of $2,228,000 and found no equity adjustment was required.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their newly built home for the 2014, 2015, and 2016 taxation years, arguing the value should be reduced to $360,000 due to construction deficiencies and wear and tear.

MPAC recommended confirming the assessment at $373,000 based on comparable sales and equity analysis.

The Assessment Review Board found the appellants provided no sales evidence or costings to support a reduction.

The Board accepted MPAC's comparable sales and equity analysis, confirming the assessment at $373,000.

The appellant appealed the supplemental assessment for the 2015 taxation year and the current value assessment for the 2016 taxation year for a residential property with a newly built addition.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's revised supplemental assessment of $80,000 for 2015, down from $322,000, reflecting the incomplete state of the addition.

For the 2016 taxation year, the Board confirmed the current value assessment of $938,000, finding MPAC's comparable sales evidence more reliable than the appellant's unanalyzed real estate data, and found no equity adjustment was required.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of a commercial plaza for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

Prior to the hearing, MPAC brought a motion to bar the appellants' representative from acting as both an advocate and an expert witness.

The Board allowed the motion in part, refusing to qualify the representative as an expert but permitting him to act as both a factual witness and advocate to avoid prejudice.

On the merits, the Board rejected MPAC's approach of applying retail vacancy, expense, and capitalization rates to the entire property, finding that the office and restaurant portions should be assessed using office rates.

The Board determined the current value of the property to be $12,504,000 and found no evidence to support an equity adjustment.

The appellant appealed the property assessments for an industrial property for the 2013 to 2016 taxation years.

The returned assessment was $5,376,000.

The Board reviewed comparable sales data provided by the parties and determined that the current value of the property should be reduced to $4,803,000, with $417,000 apportioned to industrial excess land.

The Board found no evidence to support a further reduction based on equity considerations.

The requester sought a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that confirmed the current value assessment of a waterfront property at $2,203,000.

The requester argued that the Presiding Member erred by not accepting MPAC's recommendation for a lower assessment of $2,070,000, by failing to address evidence regarding the property's classification, and by acting in a biased manner.

The Associate Chair denied the request for review, finding that the Presiding Member had the authority to reach an independent conclusion on value based on the evidence, properly addressed the valuation issue, and showed no indication of bias or negligence.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of an industrial property located at 75 Westmore Drive for the 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 taxation years.

MPAC returned the assessment at $4,474,000 but recommended a reduction to $4,147,000 based on a sales analysis.

The appellant argued for a further reduction to $3,763,000.

The Assessment Review Board found MPAC's comparable sales analysis and adjusted sale price per square foot of $54 to be appropriate.

The Board reduced the assessment to $4,147,000 and found no basis for an equity adjustment.

The appellant appealed the current value assessment of a single-storey retail pharmacy for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

The property's assessment had increased following significant renovations.

MPAC recommended a reduced assessment of $421,000 based on corrections to its Automated Cost System.

The appellant argued for a lower value using a direct comparison approach, citing the original 1958 structure and a depressed local market.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's cost approach methodology and the recommended value of $421,000, finding insufficient evidence to support a further reduction for equity.

The Applicant appealed to the Assessment Review Board seeking a cancellation, reduction, or refund of her 2013 property taxes under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, citing an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty.

While the Board accepted that the Applicant was unable to work due to sickness, it found that she failed to demonstrate an inability to pay her property taxes.

The Board noted significant unexplained bank deposits, questionable bank statements, and non-essential expenditures, concluding that the Applicant's financial situation did not warrant tax relief.

The application was dismissed.

The requesters sought a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that confirmed the assessed value of their property.

They argued the Presiding Member exceeded jurisdiction, breached natural justice, and erred in law by accepting MPAC's adjustment evidence without requiring disclosure of the underlying raw sales data.

The Associate Chair dismissed the request, finding that the requesters' representative had not requested the data prior to the hearing and that MPAC's burden of proof did not mandate unsolicited disclosure of raw data.

The Board concluded there was no convincing and compelling case to justify a review.

MPAC requested a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that reduced the subject property's assessed value to $0 due to environmental contamination.

MPAC argued the Presiding Member erred in law and exceeded jurisdiction by finding remediation costs exceeded the property's value without sufficient expert evidence.

The Associate Chair denied the request, finding the Presiding Member reasonably relied on both expert and lay evidence regarding remediation costs and stigma, consistent with Board jurisprudence.

The appellants appealed the 2015 supplementary and 2016 current value assessments of their custom-built home on a ravine lot in Toronto.

They sought a reduction based on comparable sales and an equity adjustment.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed the comparable sales evidence, applying time adjustments and adjustments for ravine, pool, and traffic influences.

The Board determined the current value to be $11,060,000.

After conducting an equity analysis under section 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, the Board found that applying the median assessment-to-sales ratio of similar properties resulted in a value consistent with the returned assessment.

The appeals were dismissed and the assessments were confirmed.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their residential condominium unit, arguing that the assessed value of $393,000 was too high due to obstructed views, structural issues, and lack of updates.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appellants failed to provide quantifiable evidence of the negative factors' impact on value.

Relying on sales of comparable units in the same building and an Assessment to Sale Ratio study, the Board concluded that the assessment was at current value and equitable with similar lands in the vicinity.

The appeal was dismissed and the assessment was confirmed.

The owners of a multi-residential building brought a motion seeking additional disclosure from MPAC relating to a residential complex.

MPAC did not object but required an order from the Board.

The Board found the complex to be near and reasonably comparable to the subject property and ordered full disclosure of income, expense information, leases, rent rolls, operating statements, and information relied upon in determining the Gross Income Multiplier, subject to confidentiality undertakings.

The requester sought to reinstate two property assessment appeals for the 2012 and 2013 taxation years that were withdrawn in error.

The representative had mistakenly included the 2012 and 2013 appeals in a request to withdraw appeals for subsequent taxation years.

As neither the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation nor the City of Toronto objected, and there was no evidence of prejudice, the Assessment Review Board granted the request and reinstated the appeals.

The Requester sought a review of an Assessment Review Board decision regarding the land value of a yacht club property.

The Requester alleged eight errors of law and fact by the Presiding Members, including the inclusion of water lots in land value, reliance on certain comparable properties, and findings regarding the club's lease.

The Associate Chair found that the Presiding Members properly weighed the evidence and made no material errors of fact or law.

The request for review was denied.

The appellant challenged the property tax assessment of a three-storey Class 'A' LEEDS Gold office building located in a technology park.

The property was assessed at $19,013,000 based on a fair market rent of $18 per square foot.

The appellant argued for a fair market rent of $16 per square foot, relying on settlements of nearby properties formerly occupied by Research in Motion.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the appeal, finding that the subject building was superior to the appellant's comparables and that the actual sub-leases in the building supported the $18 per square foot rate.

The Board confirmed the current value as returned.