Property Tax Assessment

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a single-family residential property in Toronto for the 2017-2019 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the current value at $2,974,000, but sought an increase to $3,250,000 at the hearing.

The appellant sought an equitable reduction to $2,300,000.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC failed to provide the required notice to seek a higher assessment, fixing the current value at $2,974,000.

The Board also dismissed the appellant's request for an equitable reduction, finding that the median assessment-to-sale ratio of comparable properties fell within the acceptable standard range, indicating no adjustment was necessary.

The appellant appealed the property assessments for a 90-acre dual-use farm with a purpose-built canola oil manufacturing facility for the 2014 to 2019 taxation years.

MPAC used the cost approach to determine the current value, which the appellant challenged, arguing for a sales comparison approach and a significantly lower value.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC met its burden of proof and that the cost approach, checked against available market data, produced a reasonable current value.

The Board upheld MPAC's assessments and found no adjustment for equity was required.

The property owners appealed their residential property assessment and brought a motion for disclosure of various documents from MPAC, including a map of the homogenous neighbourhood, spreadsheets of all residential properties, property assessment detail sheets, and lists of properties that received reductions.

The Assessment Review Board allowed the motion in part, ordering MPAC to provide the map it had agreed to produce.

The Board dismissed the remaining requests, finding them disproportionate, lacking in specificity, or seeking information already available to the owners through MPAC's online database.

The moving party in a property assessment appeal brought a motion for documentary disclosure of a detailed residential sales report from MPAC.

MPAC had offered to provide the report for a fee, but the moving party objected to the cost and sought an order for disclosure.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the request for 99 property details was disproportionate and amounted to a fishing expedition.

Furthermore, the Board noted that disclosure motions are intended for situations where a party refuses to disclose documents, not where they are available for a fee.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessments for a vacant residential lot in North Bay for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $89,000, $60,000, and $46,500 respectively, while the appellant argued the value should be $35,000 due to the lack of municipal services.

The Assessment Review Board found that the property was an unserviceable lot and preferred the appellant's comparable sale of an unencumbered, unserviceable lot for $36,000.

The Board reduced the assessment to $36,000 for all three taxation years.

The applicant applied for a reduction or cancellation of her 2016 property taxes under s. 357(1)(d1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, citing an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed the applicant's household income and expenses.

The Board found that the household's 2016 income was adequate to meet basic necessities and pay the annual property taxes.

The application was dismissed.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of a vacant residential lot in North Bay for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $85,000 for 2017 and 2018, and $80,000 for 2019, but conceded at the hearing that the value should be $80,000 for all years.

The appellants argued the value should be $70,000, citing the 2018 sale price of the subject property and the negative impact of bedrock requiring removal.

The Assessment Review Board found the 2018 sale of the subject property for $70,000 to be the best evidence of current value, supported by adjusting comparable sales for the cost to cure the bedrock issue.

The appeals were allowed and the assessment was reduced to $70,000 for all three taxation years.

The appellant appealed the current value assessment of a vacant residential lot in North Bay for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $85,000 for 2017-2018 and $80,000 for 2019, but at the hearing requested a reduction to $80,000 for all years.

The appellant argued the value should be $70,000, citing the sale of a neighbouring lot and the negative impact of bedrock on the property.

The Assessment Review Board agreed with the appellant, finding that the cost to cure the bedrock issue and the sale of the neighbouring lot supported a current value of $70,000.

The assessment was reduced accordingly.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a vacant residential lot for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $86,000, $57,000, and $45,000 for those years, respectively, but at the hearing requested a reduction to $45,000 for all three years.

The appellant argued the value should be $30,000 based on the sale of a comparable unserviceable lot.

The Assessment Review Board found the comparable sale of an unserviceable lot for $36,000 to be the best evidence of current value.

The Board reduced the assessment to $36,000 for all three taxation years.

Metro Ontario Inc. brought a motion to compel MPAC to disclose rental information for comparable grocery stores that MPAC relied on in its Statement of Response.

MPAC refused disclosure under section 53 of the Assessment Act without a Board order.

The Assessment Review Board ordered the disclosure of the requested information for the specific properties relied upon, subject to the execution of non-disclosure agreements and after providing notice to the affected third parties.

The Board also granted an extension of the schedule of events, finding that the section 53 application constituted an exceptional circumstance.

The applicant sought permission to file a late appeal of the 2018 property assessment for a vacant commercial lot.

The applicant claimed not to have received the notice of assessment but acknowledged receiving the municipal tax notice on March 1, 2018.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding that the applicant failed to file the appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment, as required by Rule 26(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The appellant appealed the property assessments for his property for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

He did not challenge the valuation but argued he was exempt from taxation based on constitutional and pseudolegal grounds, claiming he was not a 'person' under the Assessment Act.

The Assessment Review Board identified the appellant as an Organized Pseudo-Legal Commercial Argument (OPCA) litigant whose arguments were nonsensical and vexatious.

The Board dismissed the appeals as an abuse of process.

The Requester filed a Request for Review of an Assessment Review Board decision regarding the valuation of a hotel property for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

The Requester argued that the Hearing Member made a significant error of law by failing to apply a time adjustment to the hotel's 2015 actual room revenue results to reflect the January 1, 2012 valuation date.

The Board dismissed the request, finding that the Hearing Member did not simply adopt the 2015 results as the 2012 value, but rather used the hotel's stabilized performance to qualitatively determine where its Average Daily Rate should fall within the range of 2012 assessed values of comparable hotels.

No error of law or fact was established.

The moving party sought leave to file a late property tax assessment appeal for the 2017 taxation year.

The property owner submitted an affidavit stating that she was recovering from car accidents and her grandson failed to file the appeal on time.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding that the affidavit failed to establish that the owner did not receive the notice of assessment or that the appeal was filed within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment, as required by Rule 26(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The moving party, 2144944 Ontario Limited, brought a motion seeking an order to compel the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) to provide ten categories of documents for initial disclosure in a property assessment appeal.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding the requests overly broad, not proportional, and not tied to specific issues in dispute, as pleadings had not yet been filed.

However, noting the exceptional delay of nearly a year in issuing the decision on the motion, the Board found that the balance of prejudice favoured extending the time in the Schedule of Events and assigned a new commencement date to allow the parties to exchange pleadings and prepare for a hearing.

The appellant appealed the property assessment for a seasonal recreational property, challenging the supplementary assessment for a newly constructed building.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value of the land and the building using the cost approach, as the direct comparison approach evidence was insufficient.

The Board confirmed the vacant land assessment at $192,000 and reduced the supplementary assessment for the building from $476,000 to $406,000.

No equity adjustments were warranted.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the property owner's assessment appeals for the 2013 to 2016 taxation years.

The property owner failed to serve a Statement of Issues as required by the Assessment Review Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Board found that the owner's failure to comply with the Rules was a clear and egregious breach that prejudiced MPAC's ability to respond and manage the case.

The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their waterfront home for the 2017 to 2019 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $765,000, while the appellants argued for a value of $689,000.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC failed to discharge its statutory burden to prove the correctness of the current value, as its comparable sales were significantly lower in value and the subject property was 'overbuilt' for the area.

The Board also found the appellants' evidence insufficient to prove their proposed value.

Applying the Patry Enterprises framework, the Board reduced the assessment to the last uncontested assessed value of $687,000.

MPAC brought a motion to dismiss the property assessment appeals filed by Fiera Axium Solar Limited for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

The Company failed to provide its Statement of Issues by the deadline specified in the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure and did not respond to MPAC's communications or the motion.

The Board found that the Company's breach was entirely attributable to it and caused prejudice to MPAC by straining its resources and case management capabilities.

The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed.

The requesters sought a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that confirmed the current value assessment of their property at $1,122,000.

The requesters alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias and significant errors of fact and law in the Board's valuation approach.

The Associate Chair dismissed the request for review, finding no evidence of bias and concluding that the original panel made no significant errors in weighing the evidence and determining the property's value based on comparable sales.