Property Tax Assessment

The appellant property owner filed two motions seeking procedural directions and the disclosure of various documents from MPAC in an assessment appeal.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motions in part.

The Board ordered MPAC to disclose sales data for specific streets, a map of the neighbourhood boundaries, and the valuation and equity analysis reports prepared during the Request for Reconsideration phase.

The Board denied requests for assessed values from the previous cycle, mass appraisal explanations, internal MPAC manuals, and the preliminary list of comparable properties, finding them either irrelevant or disproportionate.

The applicant sought a cancellation, reduction, or refund of her 2017 property taxes under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, citing sickness and extreme poverty.

While the Board accepted that the applicant and her son experienced sickness, it found that the applicant had the ability to pay her taxes.

The Board noted the substantial equity in the applicant's home, her ability to pay her monthly mortgage, and the employment of her adult daughter during the taxation year in question.

The application was dismissed.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion in writing to dismiss the property assessment appeals filed by the respondent company for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

Despite being assigned a filing deadline, MPAC failed to file any materials with the Board.

The Assessment Review Board noted that dismissal is an extreme remedy requiring clear evidence.

Since no evidence was filed, the motion was dismissed and the appeals were ordered to continue.

MPAC brought a motion to dismiss the property owner's assessment appeals for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years because the owner failed to serve a statement of issues by the required date.

The Assessment Review Board found that the failure to serve the statement of issues was a clear and unilateral breach of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure attributable entirely to the owner.

Finding that MPAC was prejudiced by the breach, the Board granted the motion and dismissed the appeals pursuant to Rule 24(e).

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion in writing to dismiss the property assessment appeals filed by the respondent company for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

Despite being assigned filing deadlines, no party filed any materials with the Board.

The Board noted that dismissal is an extreme remedy that should only be granted in the clearest of cases.

Finding no evidence to support the motion, the Board dismissed MPAC's application and directed that the appeals continue in accordance with their assigned schedule.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss property assessment appeals filed by Trinity ERB Inc. for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

The appellant failed to serve a statement of issues by the deadline set in the Board's schedule of events and did not respond to the motion.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appellant's failure to comply with the Rules of Practice and Procedure was a clear and unilateral breach that prejudiced MPAC.

The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed pursuant to Rule 24(e).

The moving party brought a motion in writing to dismiss the property assessment appeals filed by the respondent for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

Despite being assigned a filing deadline, the moving party failed to file any materials with the Board.

The Assessment Review Board noted that dismissal is an extreme remedy that should only be granted in the clearest of cases.

Finding no evidence to support the motion, the Board dismissed the motion and directed that the appeals continue in accordance with their assigned schedule.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's property assessment appeals for failing to serve a statement of issues by the specified date.

The appellant did not respond to the motion or appear.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appellant's failure to provide a statement of issues was a clear and unilateral breach of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, which prejudiced MPAC.

The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of her single-family detached home for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC initially assessed the property at $725,000 but revised its position to $690,000 during the hearing to account for a failing swimming pool.

The appellant argued for a value of $680,000 based on older sales data.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed comparable sales provided by MPAC, the Town of Oakville, and the appellant, finding that a base value of $750,000 was supported by the most similar properties.

After applying a $35,000 reduction for the cost to cure the deteriorating swimming pool, the Board determined the correct current value to be $715,000 and reduced the assessment accordingly.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their single-family detached residential building in Ottawa for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the current value at $376,000, while the appellants argued for a value between $340,000 and $355,000.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC's direct sales comparison evidence supported the assessed value, noting the subject property's larger lot and building area compared to similar homes in the neighbourhood.

The Board confirmed the assessed value of $376,000 and found no equitable reduction was required.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their residential duplex for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years, arguing the assessed value of $1,311,000 was too high.

The respondent assessment corporation defended the valuation using the direct sales comparison method, providing eleven comparable properties.

The Board found the respondent's comparable properties instructive and determined the median value of the five most suitable comparables was $1,329,000.

As no application was made to increase the assessment, the Board confirmed the returned assessment of $1,311,000 and found no equitable reduction was required.

MPAC brought a motion to dismiss the property owner's assessment appeals for the 2014, 2015, and 2016 taxation years due to the owner's failure to serve a statement of issues.

The Assessment Review Board found that the owner's failure to comply with the schedule of events was a clear and unilateral breach of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

Finding that MPAC was prejudiced by the breach, the Board granted the motion and dismissed the appeals.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of a residential property in Hornepayne for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $238,000 for 2017 and $205,000 for 2018, but requested the 2017 assessment be reduced to $205,000.

The appellant argued the current value should be $160,000 to $175,000 and sought an equitable reduction.

The Assessment Review Board found the current value to be $205,000 based on comparable sales.

However, the Board found that an equitable adjustment was required under section 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act.

Applying a median assessment-to-sales ratio of 0.948 derived from comparable properties, the Board reduced the assessment to $194,000 for both taxation years.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a residential triplex in Toronto for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $1,472,000 for 2017 and $1,295,000 for 2018, while the appellant argued the current value should be $950,000.

The Board rejected MPAC's methodology of using vacant lot sales to adjust for frontage differences in developed residential properties.

Relying on the median sale price of five comparable properties presented by MPAC, the Board determined the current value to be $1,026,000 and reduced the assessments for both taxation years accordingly.

The appellants appealed the MPAC property assessment of their single-family residential bungalow for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the current value at $664,000 for 2017 and $631,000 for 2018, but recommended a reduction to $631,000 for 2017.

The appellants argued the correct current value was $598,000.

The Assessment Review Board determined the correct current value to be $663,130 based on comparable sales on the same street.

The Board further found that an equitable reduction was required under section 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, reducing the final assessment to $618,000 for both taxation years.

The property owner requested a review of a previous Assessment Review Board decision that reduced the assessment of his property.

The owner argued the Board erred by applying an insufficient reduction for the property's condition and by failing to apply a 22% adjustment for external obsolescence.

The Board dismissed the request for review, finding no error in preferring MPAC's evidence on the value reduction for the lack of renovation, and noting that external obsolescence does not apply to a direct comparison approach for a residential property.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of an uninhabitable residential property with unfinished renovations.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value of the property as of the January 1, 2016 valuation day by comparing it to sales of similar properties that were purchased for lot value and subsequently demolished.

The Board found the current value to be $1,427,000.

Applying an equity adjustment factor of 0.926 based on the under-assessment of similar properties in the vicinity, the Board reduced the assessment to $1,321,000 for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their residential property in Markham for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $1,422,000 and $1,414,000 respectively, while the appellants argued for a value of $1,100,000 based on land value and equity.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value to be $1,376,622 based on comparable sales.

The Board then applied an equity adjustment, finding that similar properties in the specific subdivision were assessed substantially below their current values (median Assessment to Sale Ratio of 0.82).

Applying this ratio, the Board reduced the assessment to $1,129,000 for both taxation years.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of her residential condominium townhouse for the 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value of the property as of the January 1, 2012 valuation date to be $535,000, and applied an equitable adjustment to reduce the assessment to $500,000 for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

For the January 1, 2016 valuation date, the Board determined the current value to be $659,000, and applied an equitable adjustment to reduce the assessment to $577,000 for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The moving party applied to have appeals created for the 2016 taxation year for properties in the City of Ottawa.

The moving party had filed timely requests for reconsideration for the 2015 taxation year, but MPAC did not respond until 2017.

The moving party filed 2015 appeals within 90 days of MPAC's late response.

The Assessment Review Board found that the 2015 appeals were validly filed.

Because the 2015 appeals were not finally disposed of before March 31, 2016, the Board held that the 2016 appeals were deemed to have been filed under subsection 40(26) of the Assessment Act.

The motion was granted.