Property Tax Assessment

The appellants requested a review of an Assessment Review Board decision regarding the valuation of their residential property.

They alleged the Board made significant errors of fact and law concerning comparable sales, time adjustment factors, equity, and traffic adjustments.

The reviewing member found no significant errors that would have affected the result, noting the original decision reasonably preferred localized data and required quantitative evidence for adjustments.

The request for review was denied.

The appellant appealed the 2018 property assessment of a purpose-built accessible home, arguing the $213,000 assessment was too high due to the poor condition of neighbouring properties.

MPAC recommended a reduction to $199,000 based on a lowered quality class rating.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed comparable sales and determined the current value to be $173,000.

The Board found no evidence to support a further equitable reduction under section 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act.

The assessment was reduced to $173,000.

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

MPAC had returned an assessment of $1,144,000 and proposed a current value of $1,291,000 at the hearing, while the appellant requested the assessment be fixed at the last uncontested value of $858,000.

The Assessment Review Board determined the correct current value to be $1,137,000 based on the comparable properties provided.

The Board also found that a 6% reduction for equity was warranted, resulting in a final equitable assessment of $1,069,000.

The applicant applied for a cancellation, reduction, or refund of his 2017 property taxes under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, claiming extreme poverty.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had the financial ability to pay his taxes.

The Board noted the applicant's positive net monthly income, cash savings, lack of liabilities, and substantial home equity, concluding that the statutory test for relief was not met.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a 121.09-acre vacant parcel enrolled in the Managed Forests Program for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $65,000 based on the regulated value for managed forests, which was lower than its estimated likely sale value of $72,000.

The appellant argued the value should be between $40,000 and $50,000 due to timber quality and wetland features, but provided no evidence to substantiate this valuation.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's comparable sales and methodology, confirming the current value at $65,000 and finding no equitable reduction was required.

The appellant appealed the 2017 and 2018 property assessments of his single-family detached residence, as well as a supplementary assessment for the addition of an in-ground swimming pool.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable sales evidence provided by the appellant, the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC), and the Town of Oakville.

The Board found that the current value for 2017, prior to the pool installation, should be reduced to $1,276,000.

The Board also reduced the supplementary assessment for the pool to its actual cost of $39,000, resulting in a 2018 current value of $1,315,000.

No equitable reduction was required.

The requester sought a review of a Board decision that denied leave to file late property assessment appeals for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

The original decision held that the requester was required to first file a Request for Reconsideration (RfR) with MPAC under section 40(3) of the Assessment Act.

On review, the Board found that the subject property was classified as commercial, not residential, farm, or managed forest, and therefore the RfR precondition did not apply.

Finding that the requester met the requirements for a late appeal under Rule 26(b), the Board varied the decision and granted leave to file the late appeals.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of a small, unbuildable island on Leonard Lake for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC had assessed the property at $6,900 for 2017 and $6,500 for 2018 using the direct sales comparison approach, applying a 90% reduction to reflect its unbuildable status.

The Assessment Review Board found that the direct sales comparison approach was appropriate and that MPAC's valuation model was applied consistently.

The Board reduced the 2017 assessment to $6,500 to match the 2018 assessment and confirmed the 2018 assessment at $6,500, finding no further adjustment for equity was warranted.

The appellant appealed the supplementary assessment of a newly built home for the 2017 taxation year and the assessment for the 2018 taxation year.

The appellant argued the assessments were too high and the negative adjustment for heavy traffic nuisance was inadequate, but provided no sales evidence.

MPAC provided sales of comparable properties and an equity analysis.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value of the property was higher than the assessed value.

Since MPAC did not apply for an increase, the Board confirmed the supplementary assessment for 2017 and the assessment for 2018.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their single-family dwelling, arguing that the current value should be reduced due to the nuisance created by an adjacent church.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value of the property to be $3,150,000 by comparing it to a neighbouring property and adjusting for differences.

The Board found no evidence to support a further reduction for equitable assessment and confirmed the assessment at $3,148,000 for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The appellant appealed the 2017 property assessment of his single-family home in Mississauga, arguing the current value of $1,209,000 was too high compared to the average increase in his neighbourhood.

MPAC provided comparable sales evidence supporting the $1,209,000 valuation but recommended an equitable reduction to $1,184,000 based on an analysis of similar properties in the vicinity.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's evidence, finding the current value to be $1,209,000 and applying the equitable reduction to set the final assessment at $1,184,000.

MPAC brought a motion for an order to inspect the respondent's property under Rule 47(c) of the Assessment Review Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing that an inspection was unnecessary and questioning the qualifications of the MPAC assessor.

The Board granted the motion, finding that there were substantial facts in dispute regarding the property's quality class and renovation type, which could best be resolved through an inspection.

The Board ordered the respondent to provide access to the property within 30 days.

The applicants requested a review of a previous Assessment Review Board decision regarding their property assessment, arguing the Board made significant errors of fact by failing to accept their statistical analysis, accepting MPAC's evidence, mischaracterizing their evidence, and overvaluing a new garage.

The Associate Chair dismissed the request, finding that the original decision contained no errors of law or fact and that the applicants were merely attempting to re-argue the hearing.

The appellants appealed the 2017 and 2018 property assessment of their condominium unit, which was assessed at $378,000.

They argued the assessment should reflect their 2015 purchase price of $317,500.

MPAC argued the estate sale was not a valid indicator of current value and relied on sales of other units in the building.

The Assessment Review Board found the estate sale was a valid arm's-length transaction and that the lower price reasonably reflected the unit's unrenovated condition and less desirable location near elevators and public areas.

The Board reduced the assessment to $318,000 and found no further reduction for equity was warranted.

The appellant appealed her property assessment for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

At the scheduled in-person hearing, representatives for the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation appeared, but no one appeared for the appellant or the municipality.

After waiting the customary 30 minutes and confirming no contact had been made with the Board, the panel dismissed the appeals for non-attendance.

The requesters sought a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that dismissed their property assessment appeal.

They argued the original member was biased towards MPAC, made errors of fact and law in preferring MPAC's equity analysis, and sought to introduce new evidence.

The Associate Chair dismissed the request for review, finding no evidence of bias, no significant errors of fact or law that would have affected the result, and that the proposed new evidence could have reasonably been obtained prior to the original hearing.

The applicants sought a cancellation, reduction, or refund of their 2017 property taxes under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, citing sickness and extreme poverty.

While the Board accepted that one of the applicants was sick, it found that they had the financial ability to pay their taxes.

The applicants owned a mortgage-free home assessed at $744,000, had a positive monthly cash flow, and a net worth of over $800,000.

The Board noted that the applicants had made substantial financial gifts to their adult children, emphasizing that the legal obligation to pay property taxes takes precedence over providing financial support to adult children.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of her waterfront property for the 2017 and deemed 2018 taxation years, arguing the current value assessment of $574,000 was too high.

The Assessment Review Board considered comparable sales evidence and found that the returned value of $574,000 accurately reflected the property's current value.

The Board also reviewed the equity analysis provided by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and concluded that no reduction was necessary to achieve equitable assessment.

The appeal was dismissed and the assessment was confirmed.

The Requesters sought a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that dismissed their property assessment appeal.

They argued the original Member was biased towards MPAC, made errors of fact and law in rejecting their equity analysis, and sought to introduce new evidence.

The Associate Chair dismissed the request for review, finding no evidence of bias, no significant errors of fact or law that would have affected the result, and that the proposed new evidence could have reasonably been obtained prior to the original hearing.

The City of Ottawa brought a motion to dismiss an appeal by 1649050 Ontario Ltd. regarding a vacant unit rebate application for the 2016 taxation year.

The City argued the application was filed after the statutory deadline of February 28, 2017.

The Assessment Review Board found it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal but concluded it had no discretion to extend the statutory filing deadline.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed.