Robert Cushing

The appellant appealed the 2021, 2022, and 2023 property assessments of a commercial retail store, arguing the current value assessment of $420,000 was too high and should be reduced to $357,000 with a further equity reduction to $332,000.

The Board rejected the respondent's valuation methodology of using assessed values to adjust time-adjusted sale prices.

Applying the direct comparison approach using two comparable sales, the Board determined the correct current value to be $376,000.

The Board declined to make a further equity reduction, finding the respondent's equity analysis demonstrated that similar properties in the vicinity were assessed at or near their current value.

In a property assessment appeal, the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to exclude the appellant's proposed expert witness.

MPAC argued that the expert had previously acted as the appellant's paralegal representative and authored its Statement of Issues, thereby acting as an advocate.

The Assessment Review Board applied the White Burgess framework and found that the expert's prior role as an advocate rendered him unable to provide fair, objective, and non-partisan evidence.

The motion was granted, and the expert's report was removed from the record.

In a property assessment appeal, MPAC brought a motion to disqualify the appellant's proposed expert witness, who had previously drafted the appellant's pleadings.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion, finding that an expert witness cannot also assume the role of an advocate in the same proceeding, and ordered his expert report removed from the record.

The appellant brought a cross-motion to disqualify MPAC's expert witness on the grounds that her report lacked a summary of qualifications and that her conclusion matched the assessed value, allegedly showing bias.

The Board dismissed the cross-motion, finding no evidence of bias, but ordered the expert to amend her report to include her qualifications.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a purpose-built gluten-free flour facility for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years.

The Board determined the current value of the property to be $637,500 as of the January 1, 2016 valuation date, preferring a direct comparison approach using four comparable properties and rejecting the respondent's reliance on a power of sale transaction.

The Board also found no equitable reduction was warranted under section 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, as the assessment to sale ratio of comparable properties did not justify a reduction.

A commercial tenant sought declarations regarding the proper method for allocating property taxes under a shopping plaza lease and the proper allocation of tax shortfalls arising from statutory tax-capping rules between 2001 and 2008.

The court interpreted the lease to require use of MPAC valuation records (“working papers”) as the primary method of allocating property taxes rather than a proportionate-share-by-square-footage approach.

The court also addressed the landlord’s allocation of tax shortfall created by legislative caps, holding that the landlord’s historical allocation was arbitrary and lacked a principled basis.

Preferring the methodology of the tenant’s expert, the court held that shortfall should be allocated proportionately among eligible tenants, including uncapped shortfall tenants.

The tenant was therefore entitled to recalculation of taxes and potential refunds or credits based on the correct methodology.