Property Tax Assessment

The appellant appealed the property tax classification of three properties with barns that had solar panels installed on their roofs.

MPAC had changed the classification from farm and vacant land to industrial and excess land industrial.

The appellant argued the change was prohibited by s. 42.3(1) or s. 42.2(1) of O. Reg. 282/98.

The Assessment Review Board found that the solar panels were the dominant physical feature on the rooftops, not 'ancillary installations', and that the primary use of the properties was electricity generation, not agricultural.

The Board confirmed the assessments in the industrial property class.

The applicant applied for a refund of her 2016 property taxes on the basis of sickness and extreme poverty under section 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

While the Assessment Review Board accepted that the applicant suffered from sickness, it found that she did not meet the test for extreme poverty.

The evidence showed that the applicant and her daughter had sufficient assets, including equity in the property and cash savings, to pay the property taxes.

The application was dismissed.

MPAC brought a motion to dismiss property assessment appeals because the respondent failed to comply with a Board order to provide documents by a specified date.

The respondent provided the documents late.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding that MPAC suffered no prejudice from the late disclosure and that dismissal is an extreme remedy requiring clear evidence of prejudice, especially given the relaxed procedural practices under the previous rules.

Canadian Tire requested to combine 155 property assessment appeals and assign them a common commencement date.

The Assessment Review Board denied the request to combine the appeals, finding that the alleged common issues—the application of a private Memorandum of Understanding and development charges—were outside the Board's jurisdiction, meaning the requirements of Rule 78 were not met.

However, the Board granted the request to assign a common commencement date of March 30, 2018, but only for those appeals where all parties, including the respective municipalities, consented.

The applicant sought a refund of property taxes for the 2015 taxation year, claiming an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

While the Board accepted the applicant's testimony regarding his sickness, it found that he and his spouse held significant equity in two properties, exceeding $900,000.

The Board concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated extreme poverty and had the ability to pay the property taxes.

The application was dismissed.

The Applicant applied to the City of Toronto for a cancellation, reduction, or refund of her 2015 property taxes on the grounds of sickness or extreme poverty.

The Assessment Review Board found that while the Applicant demonstrated a condition of sickness, she did not establish an inability to pay her property taxes as a result.

The Board also found that the Applicant was not in a condition of extreme poverty, noting she had significant bank balances and had paid off her mortgage during the year.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, represented by the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee, applied to cancel, reduce, or refund property taxes for the 2016 taxation year under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, citing sickness and extreme poverty.

While the Board accepted that the applicant suffered from chronic schizophrenia, it found that this sickness did not cause an inability to pay taxes.

Furthermore, the Board determined that the applicant did not meet the threshold for extreme poverty, as he possessed sufficient assets, including a trust account balance and equity in a condominium assessed at $180,000, to cover the $1,235 tax liability.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, represented by the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee, applied for a cancellation, reduction, or refund of property taxes for the 2016 taxation year under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, citing sickness or extreme poverty.

The Board accepted that the applicant suffered from chronic schizophrenia but found that this sickness did not cause an inability to pay taxes.

The Board also found that the applicant's assets, including a trust account balance and the assessed value of a condominium, demonstrated an ability to pay the taxes.

The application was dismissed.

Following an interim decision determining the total current value of the subject office building at $60,422,700, the Assessment Review Board issued a final order on consent of all parties.

The current value was rounded down to $60,422,000 and apportioned $55,348,430 to the office building (DT) classification and $5,073,570 to the commercial (CT) classification.

The applicant applied for a refund of his 2016 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 was sick, it found he was not in extreme poverty.

The applicant had a net worth of over $500,000, significant savings, and substantial discretionary expenses, and had already paid his 2016 property taxes in full without incurring debt.

The application was dismissed.

The City of Pickering requested the reinstatement of four property assessment appeals that were withdrawn in error.

The appeals were withdrawn by the appellant despite notices of intention to seek a higher assessment having been filed by MPAC and the City.

The Assessment Review Board found that the withdrawal was a clerical error and contrary to Rule 72 of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

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

The City of Toronto appealed the assessment of a 12-storey office building, arguing its value should be increased from $43.3 million to $84 million based on a 2014 sale.

The property owner argued the value should be $55.7 million based on a 2011 sale.

MPAC proposed a value of $70.9 million using the income approach.

The Assessment Review Board found that neither sale was the best evidence of value and applied the income approach.

The Board rejected arguments that surface parking constituted surplus land with development value, finding its current use was its highest and best use.

The Board determined the correct current value to be $60,422,738 and found insufficient evidence to warrant an equity reduction.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion for an order permitting an inspection of the respondent's property to determine its adjusted age and state and condition for the 2017 taxation year.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing it was filed too late and that a recent sale answered the primary issue.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion, finding that the inspection was relevant to determining the value of the property following renovations, and that the motion was brought in a timely manner without causing prejudice to the parties.

The City of Toronto appealed the assessment of a 12-storey office building, arguing its value should be based on a 2014 sale of $100 million rather than the returned assessment of $43.3 million.

The assessed person argued for a value of $55.7 million based on a 2011 sale.

The Assessment Review Board found neither sale was the best evidence of value for the January 1, 2012 valuation date.

Using the income approach, the Board preferred the assessed person's fair market rent of $14 psf over MPAC's $16 psf, and rejected arguments that the surface parking area had surplus development value.

The Board determined the correct current value to be $60,422,738 and found insufficient evidence to warrant an equity reduction.

The Requester sought a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that confirmed the subject property's assessment at $4,272,000 for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

The Requester argued the Presiding Member acted outside his jurisdiction by conducting an independent investigation, ignored submissions regarding a comparable property, and erred in law regarding the equity test.

The Associate Chair denied the request for review, finding that the Presiding Member properly weighed the evidence before him, did not conduct an independent investigation, and correctly applied the test for equity.

The appellant applied for a property tax refund under s. 357(1)(d)(ii) of the Municipal Act, 2001, arguing its commercial property was damaged by demolition during its conversion from a movie theatre to a fitness facility.

The City denied the application, arguing the work was a repair or renovation and that the appellant was already receiving a vacant unit rebate under s. 364.

The Assessment Review Board allowed the appeal, finding no statutory impediment to contemporaneous relief under both sections.

The Board concluded the property was damaged by partial demolition, rendering it substantially unusable for its previous purpose, and ordered a tax refund of $49,744.17.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of a vacant commercial parcel of land in Kingston, Ontario, for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) had assessed the property at $443,000 based on a January 1, 2012 valuation day.

The appellants presented expert appraisal evidence suggesting a value of $250,000 based on a direct comparison approach using price per acre.

The Assessment Review Board preferred the appellants' expert evidence, finding it provided a more detailed and site-specific understanding of the valuation issues compared to MPAC's frontage-based approach.

The Board reduced the assessment to $250,000 and found no basis for a further equity adjustment.

The appellant appealed the property assessments for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years for a waterfront property on Clear Lake, seeking a reduction from $467,000 to $369,000.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed sales of comparable properties and found the assessed value to be reasonable given the property's age, condition, and building size.

The Board also considered the Assessment to Sales Ratios for properties in the vicinity and concluded that no equity adjustment was warranted.

The assessments were confirmed.

The requester sought to reinstate three property tax assessment appeals that were dismissed in error.

The appeals were originally scheduled to be heard on March 27, 2017, but an adjournment was granted to prepare Minutes of Settlement.

The appeals were subsequently dismissed due to a clerical error.

The Assessment Review Board granted the request for review and reinstated the appeals, finding that the dismissal was not the fault of the requester, there was no objection from MPAC, and no prejudice to the municipality.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a commercial property in Brampton for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value of the property to be $26,183,000, preferring the Income Approach over the Cost and Direct Comparison approaches.

The Board then applied an assessment-to-sale ratio of 0.937 based on similar properties in the vicinity to ensure equitable assessment, reducing the final assessment to $24,533,000.