Irene Subocz

The City of Toronto appealed the assessment of a 12-storey office building, arguing its value should be increased from $43.3 million to $84 million based on a 2014 sale.

The property owner argued the value should be $55.7 million based on a 2011 sale.

MPAC proposed a value of $70.9 million using the income approach.

The Assessment Review Board found that neither sale was the best evidence of value and applied the income approach.

The Board rejected arguments that surface parking constituted surplus land with development value, finding its current use was its highest and best use.

The Board determined the correct current value to be $60,422,738 and found insufficient evidence to warrant an equity reduction.

The City of Toronto appealed the assessment of a 12-storey office building, arguing its value should be based on a 2014 sale of $100 million rather than the returned assessment of $43.3 million.

The assessed person argued for a value of $55.7 million based on a 2011 sale.

The Assessment Review Board found neither sale was the best evidence of value for the January 1, 2012 valuation date.

Using the income approach, the Board preferred the assessed person's fair market rent of $14 psf over MPAC's $16 psf, and rejected arguments that the surface parking area had surplus development value.

The Board determined the correct current value to be $60,422,738 and found insufficient evidence to warrant an equity reduction.

The appellants appealed the property assessments for two adjacent commercial buildings in Toronto for the 2013, 2014, and deemed 2015 taxation years.

The Board considered valuation evidence based on the direct comparison and income approaches.

For 65 George Street, the Board found the best evidence of current value was the median sales value per square foot of all comparable sales, reducing the assessment to $1,980,000.

For 187 King Street East, the Board accepted MPAC's recommended value of $2,012,000, noting the appellant's appraisal report was less reliable as it was prepared for a different property and did not account for heritage designation differences.

The Board found no evidence to support an equity reduction.