Benjamin Blufarb

The appellant appealed the property assessment of two townhouse complexes, arguing they should be classified as 'new multi-residential' rather than 'multi-residential' under O. Reg. 282/98.

The properties underwent extensive renovations between 2012 and 2014 while vacant.

The Assessment Review Board found that the renovations did not meet the statutory requirement of being 'built' or 'converted from a non-residential use' pursuant to a building permit.

The Board held that the correct property class for the 2016 taxation year remained multi-residential.

The Bluffers Park Yacht Club appealed the property assessments for the 2009-2015 taxation years.

The parties agreed on the cost approach to value and the depreciated value of the improvements, but disputed the land value.

The appellant argued for a lower value based on its lease with the City and land use restrictions, while MPAC relied on comparable sales of parkland.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the lease rate as below market and instead utilized comparable sales of small hazard land parcels on Lake Ontario, adjusting for size.

The Board determined the current value of the property to be $4,404,504 for the 2009-2012 taxation years and $5,409,422 for the 2013-2015 taxation years, and found no basis for an equity adjustment.

The Bluffers Park Yacht Club appealed the property assessments of its site for the 2009 to 2015 taxation years.

The parties agreed on the cost approach to value and the depreciated value of the improvements, leaving only the land value in dispute.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the appellant's reliance on its lease rate with the City, finding it was a below-market rate influenced by political considerations.

The Board also rejected the appellant's comparable sales of large, remote hazard lands.

Instead, the Board relied on sales of small hazard land parcels on Lake Ontario, applying a size adjustment to determine a land value of $4,000,000 for 2008 and $5,000,000 for 2012.

Adding the agreed improvement values, the Board determined the total current value to be $4,404,504 for 2009-2012 and $5,409,422 for 2013-2015, and found no adjustment for equity was required.

The appellant appealed the 2013 and 2014 property tax assessments for a contiguous 5.16-acre parcel improved with multi-residential townhouse structures.

The properties were assessed at a combined current value of $9,676,000.

The appellant argued for a 50% reduction due to the dilapidated condition of the properties at the time of acquisition.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the appeal and confirmed the assessments, finding that the appellant's recent purchase of the properties for $10,000,000 as a redevelopment site was the best indicator of current value.

The Board rejected the appellant's expert evidence for failing to account for this recent market sale.

An application for leave to appeal from a decision of the Assessment Review Board concerning the current value assessment of a commercial property.

The applicant argued the Board committed an error of law by requiring the use of at least two of the three generally accepted property valuation approaches to establish current value.

The court held that, read as a whole, the Board’s reasons did not impose such a legal requirement but instead reflected a preference for the respondent’s expert evidence using the direct sales comparison approach.

The alleged error concerned the weight given to evidence, which is a question of fact and not appealable under the Assessment Act.

Leave to appeal was therefore denied.