Property Tax Assessment

The appellants appealed the MPAC property tax assessments for their 50-acre farm property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $828,000 for 2017 and $686,000 for 2018, while the appellants argued the current value was $550,000.

The Assessment Review Board evaluated comparable sales evidence from both parties, applying a time adjustment factor to account for a rising market.

The Board determined the median value of the most comparable sales was $13,218 per tillable acre.

Consequently, the Board reduced the current value of the subject property to $661,000 for both the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The appellants appealed the property tax assessments of their farm property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable sales data, soil classifications, and topographical features to determine the current value.

The Board found that valuation based on tillable acreage was most appropriate and applied a time adjustment factor to comparable sales.

The 2017 assessment was reduced from $1,709,000 to $1,576,000, while the 2018 assessment was confirmed at $1,545,000 as the respondent did not seek an increase.

The appellants appealed the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation's (MPAC) current value assessment of their 97.18-acre farm property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $1,191,000 for 2017 and $1,026,000 for 2018, while the appellants argued for a value of $860,000.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed comparable farm sales, focusing on tillable acreage and soil classes, and determined that the correct current value was $1,007,000 for both taxation years.

The Board ordered the assessments reduced accordingly.

The appellant appealed the 2018 property assessment of his single-family detached home in Sudbury, arguing the assessed value of $277,000 was too high due to restrictions on the use of his side yard following a septic tank replacement.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable sales provided by both the appellant and the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation.

The Board found that the property's marketability was lessened by the land use restrictions and determined the correct current value to be $252,000, reducing the assessment accordingly.

The moving parties sought permission to file a late appeal of their property assessments for the 2014, 2015, and 2016 taxation years.

They argued that a 2013 settlement agreement with MPAC should apply to subsequent years.

The Assessment Review Board denied the request, finding that the moving parties failed to meet the requirements of Rule 26(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

Specifically, they did not provide evidence that they failed to receive their notices of assessment, nor did they file their application within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment issues.

The appellants appealed the property tax assessment and the denial of a tax relief application for their residential property, which sustained land damage from a severe rainstorm that eroded an abutting ravine.

They sought a tax reduction under s. 323(1)(h) of the City of Toronto Act, arguing the damage prevented normal use of the land, and a reduction in the assessed value under the Assessment Act.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed both appeals.

The Board found that the primary residential use of the property was not interrupted, disqualifying it from tax relief.

Furthermore, the Board upheld MPAC's assessed value of $1,384,000, finding that MPAC had already appropriately adjusted the assessment downward to account for the damaged land and loss in market value.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their farm property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

At the hearing, the appellants agreed that the returned value of $346,000 was within their acceptable range of current value.

As the appellants consented to the respondent's opinion of value and took no position on the classification, the Assessment Review Board confirmed the returned assessment on consent.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their farm property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years, arguing the current value should be $300,000 rather than the assessed $360,000.

MPAC defended the assessment using the cost and direct comparison approaches.

The Assessment Review Board found MPAC's direct comparison approach using two comparable properties to be the best evidence, yielding a value of $371,000.

Since MPAC did not seek a higher assessment, the Board confirmed the returned assessment of $360,000 and dismissed the appeal.

The complainant appealed the Town of Milton's denial of vacancy rebate applications for a commercial property for the 2014 and 2015 tax years.

In a prior decision, the Assessment Review Board found that the property, which contained dental equipment affixed to the building, was vacant and capable of being leased for immediate occupation.

In this final decision, the Board ordered the Town to pay the uncontested vacancy rebate amounts of $5,055.49 for 2014 and $2,949.41 for 2015.

The appellants appealed the 2018 property assessment of their single-family detached home in Brampton, arguing the current value should be reduced to $520,000.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) returned an assessment of $578,000, while the City of Brampton sought an increase to $643,000.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed comparable sales data and time adjustment factors, finding that the returned assessment of $578,000 accurately reflected the property's current value, particularly when accounting for the lack of a finished basement apartment compared to the comparable properties.

The Board also found no evidence to warrant an equitable reduction under section 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act.

The assessment was confirmed at $578,000.

The moving party sought an extension of time to file a late appeal of an omitted property assessment issued in 2017.

The moving party had previously been denied an extension of time to file a request for reconsideration.

The Assessment Review Board found that because the moving party had received the notice of omitted assessment, he did not meet the essential requirements of Rule 26(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The application to file a late appeal was denied.

The moving parties requested a review of a previous Assessment Review Board decision that classified their property in the multi-residential property class for the 2011 to 2016 taxation years.

They argued that no appeal had been filed for the 2013 taxation year, and therefore the Board had no jurisdiction to decide the classification for 2013 to 2016.

The Board found that the City of Oshawa did not file an appeal for the 2013 taxation year, and the deeming provisions of the Assessment Act did not apply because 2012 and 2013 had different valuation days.

The Board rejected the City's arguments based on equity and palpable error, concluding it had no jurisdiction to cure a failure to appeal.

The previous decision was varied to remove the appeals for the 2013 to 2016 taxation years that were not properly filed.

The appellant appealed the MPAC property assessment for the 2015 taxation year.

The subject property had previously been used as a marijuana grow operation and was deemed substantially un-useable, leading MPAC to reduce the returned assessment to $177,000.

The Board analyzed the sales of comparable properties and the 2014 sale of the subject property itself.

The Board found the current value of the property in its repaired condition to be $209,000, and reduced the corrected assessment to $133,000 after subtracting the agreed supplementary assessment.

The appellants appealed the 2017 and 2018 property tax assessments of their 157-acre farm property, arguing the assessed value of $321,000 was too high due to poor soil quality and limited workable land.

MPAC defended the assessment using a cost approach and direct sales comparison, suggesting the value should actually be $446,568 but acknowledging an erroneous discount had been applied.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed comparable sales and determined the correct current value was $374,000.

However, because MPAC had not formally applied to increase the assessment, the Board confirmed the original assessed value of $321,000.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their seasonal recreational waterfront property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $880,000, while the appellants argued for a value of $770,000 to $780,000.

The Board found that MPAC had improperly increased the quality class of the property from 7.0 to 7.5 without justification, contrary to a prior agreement.

The Board also accepted the appellants' evidence regarding negative adjustments for shallow water, weeds, lack of legal access, and a detached garage.

The Board reduced the assessment to $845,000 and found no further adjustment for equity was warranted.

The moving parties appealed the assessment of a shopping development and failed to serve a Statement of Issues by the deadline in the Schedule of Events.

They brought a motion to extend the time to serve their Statement of Issues, citing ongoing discussions with MPAC and the pending issuance of supplementary assessments as reasons for the delay.

MPAC consented to the extension.

The Assessment Review Board found that the confluence of substantial property changes, pending supplementary assessments, and communication errors constituted exceptional circumstances under Rule 82.

Finding no prejudice to any party, the Board granted the extension and set a new commencement date.

The appellants appealed the property tax assessment of their seasonal waterfront property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $480,000 for 2017 and $502,000 for 2018.

The appellants argued for a value between $420,000 and $450,000, citing negative adjustments for abutting commercial property and adverse conditions like flooding.

The Assessment Review Board found the correct current value to be $486,000 based on the direct comparison approach using two comparable sales from 2015.

The Board confirmed the 2017 assessment at $480,000 (as MPAC did not seek an increase) and reduced the 2018 assessment to $486,000.

The Board also found that an equitable reduction under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act was not required.

The appellants appealed the property tax assessments of their residential property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The property included a 1/70th interest in common lands.

The appellants argued the assessment was too high and improperly included the value of the common lands.

The Assessment Review Board found that the value of the common lands was properly deemed to be zero under the regulations, but that the overall current value of the property should be reduced based on comparable sales.

The Board confirmed the 2017 assessment at $344,000 and reduced the 2018 assessment from $404,000 to $377,000.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their single-family dwelling, which was assessed at $332,000 for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

They argued the assessment should reflect their June 2014 purchase price of $260,000.

The Assessment Review Board found the estate sale was a valid indicator of current value and applied a time adjustment factor to determine a current value of $315,000.

The Board further reduced this value to $301,000 after finding that similar properties in the vicinity were assessed below their current values, applying a mean assessment-to-sale ratio of 0.955 to achieve equitable assessment.

In a property assessment appeal, the municipal assessment corporation proposed that its representative, an unlicensed property assessor, also testify as a witness.

The appellants objected, arguing that only licensed paralegals could perform this dual role under the Board's Rules.

The Assessment Review Board held that its Rules do not prohibit an unlicensed representative from acting as both an advocate and a witness.

The Board found that the specific rule permitting paralegals to perform the dual role was enacted to satisfy the Law Society's Paralegal Rules of Conduct, not to restrict unlicensed representatives who are otherwise permitted to appear.