OARB 2017

The appellants appealed the 2016 current value assessment of their single-family detached dwelling, which was returned at $389,000.

They argued the assessment was too high due to the property's proximity to the Thunder Bay airport flight path and resulting noise.

MPAC presented six comparable sales to support the assessment.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appellants provided no quantitative market evidence to support a negative adjustment for the airport proximity.

The Board concluded that the returned assessment was fair, reasonable, and equitable based on the comparable sales and equity analysis provided by MPAC.

The appeal was dismissed and the assessment confirmed.

The appellants appealed the 2013-2016 property assessments of their home, arguing the value should be reduced from $1,504,000 to $1,250,000 due to damage caused by a nearby municipal sewer construction project.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appellants provided no sales evidence or repair cost estimates to support a reduction.

Relying on the sales of six comparable properties provided by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, the Board concluded the returned value was accurate and equitable.

The appeals were dismissed and the assessments confirmed at $1,504,000.

The appellants appealed the 2016 property assessment of their freehold townhome in Toronto, assessed at $720,000.

They argued the assessment was inequitable compared to other units in the complex because the common areas and laneway were attached to their roll number, increasing their effective site area.

The Assessment Review Board found that the current value of the property as of January 1, 2012, was $750,000, supported by the December 2011 sale of the subject property for $750,000.

The Board also found that the assessment was equitable based on the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation's equity analysis, which produced a median assessment-to-sales ratio of 0.99.

The Board confirmed the assessment at $720,000 and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants appealed the 2015 property assessment of their fully renovated home.

Following a major renovation, MPAC initially issued a supplementary assessment of $2,156,000, but later corrected the quality class rating and removed a negative adjustment, increasing the assessment to $2,673,000 prior to the return of the assessment roll.

The appellants argued this was an impermissible change of opinion under s. 32(1.1) of the Assessment Act.

The Assessment Review Board held that MPAC had broad authority under s. 32(1) to correct any error or misstatement before the annual roll return.

The Board further found that the assessed value of $2,673,000 accurately reflected the current value based on comparable sales and was equitable with similar properties in the vicinity.

The assessment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the Current Value Assessment (CVA) of their property at 893 Bloor Street West for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

The property had been vacant and under renovation for 10 years.

MPAC requested confirmation of the CVA at $1,361,000 based on comparable sales.

The appellant argued for a lower value between $939,000 and $1,040,000 due to chronic vacancy.

The Assessment Review Board found that the property was not chronically vacant but rather under continuous renovation by the owner's choice.

The Board accepted MPAC's comparable sales analysis and confirmed the CVA at $1,361,000, finding no equity adjustment was required.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of her semi-detached home in Toronto, arguing that the current value of $1,100,000 was inequitable and that she was entitled to further negative variable adjustments for proximity to heavy traffic and a multi-residential property.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable sales and found that the current value was within the range of similar properties.

The Board applied a negative 4% adjustment for proximity to a multi-residential property, bringing the calculated value to $1,130,094, which supported the assessed value of $1,100,000.

The Board found no inequity and confirmed the assessment.

The appellants appealed the 2016 property assessment of their seasonal waterfront property, which was assessed at $209,000.

The property was largely unfinished, lacking drywall, heating, and full plumbing.

MPAC conceded the property was more unfinished than initially accounted for and recommended a reduction to $139,000.

The appellants sought a further reduction to $80,000-$100,000 based on a realtor's estimate.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's recommended value of $139,000, finding the realtor's estimate unreliable.

The Board also found no determinative evidence to warrant a further reduction based on equity with similar properties in the vicinity.

The appellants appealed the 2016 property assessment of their home, which was returned at $296,000.

The property is located in a Potential Regressive Landslide Area.

The appellants argued that an appraisal demonstrated a more reasonable value of $280,000.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed the market analysis provided by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and determined that the most reasonable current value of the subject property was $280,000.

The Board reduced the assessment from $296,000 to $280,000 for the 2016 taxation year.

The Requester sought a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that confirmed the assessments of 14 residential condominium properties.

The Requester alleged that the Presiding Member was biased in preferring MPAC's comparable properties and erred in law by accepting MPAC's definition of encumbrance and comparing an affordable housing program to a mortgage.

The Board found no reasonable apprehension of bias and no material error of law or fact, concluding that the Presiding Member properly exercised his discretion.

The request for review was denied.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of a mixed-use commercial and residential property in Toronto.

MPAC requested confirmation of the returned Current Value Assessment (CVA) of $1,014,000, while the appellants sought a reduction to $889,000 based on an Assessment to Sales Ratio (ASR) adjustment.

The Assessment Review Board found that the current value of the property was $1,147,413 based on comparable sales, but confirmed the returned assessment of $1,014,000 as MPAC did not request an increase.

The Board rejected the appellants' request for a further equity adjustment, holding that an ASR above 1.0 cannot be used to make a finding of inequity to reduce an assessment.

The applicants sought $17,215.54 in costs against the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) following a series of property assessment appeals and a successful request for review.

The applicants alleged that MPAC acted unreasonably, frivolously, vexatiously, and in bad faith by ignoring appraisal reports, failing to negotiate, and presenting misleading evidence.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the costs request, finding that MPAC's conduct did not meet the high threshold required for a costs award under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Board noted that MPAC communicated regularly, made corrections to the assessment, and was not obligated to accept the applicants' appraisal evidence.

The appellants appealed the 2016 property assessment of their vacant residential lot, which was assessed at $35,000.

They argued the value should be reduced to $4,000 due to lack of road access, steep topography, and potential environmental contamination from its prior use as rail land.

The Assessment Review Board found that the property was comparable to other vacant lots in the area that sold for approximately $35,000.

The Board rejected the appellants' arguments regarding access, topography, and contamination due to insufficient evidence impacting value.

The appeal was dismissed and the assessment was confirmed at $35,000.

The appellant appealed the 2016 property assessment of her 6.69-acre farm property, which was assessed at $237,000.

The appellant argued that the residence, coverall, and land were overvalued and that the land should be classified as the lowest soil class.

The appellant failed to serve any documentary evidence prior to the hearing, and the Board refused to admit her late documents.

The Board accepted MPAC's valuation methodology, which used the cost approach for buildings and soil classification tables for land, supported by comparable sales.

The Board confirmed the assessment at $237,000 and found no equity adjustments were warranted.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to prevent the appellants from re-arguing the effect of industrial wind turbines on the assessed value of their farmland for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

The appellants had previously raised the same issue for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years, and the Assessment Review Board had ruled that the potential for wind turbines had no impact on the property's current value.

The Board granted MPAC's motion, finding that the three conditions for issue estoppel were met and that there had been no change in facts or circumstances since the prior decision.

The assessments for 2015 and 2016 were confirmed.

The requester sought to reinstate four property assessment appeals that were withdrawn in error due to a mistakenly forwarded letter.

The Assessment Review Board granted the request for review and reinstated the appeals, finding that the withdrawal was a clerical error, the request for reinstatement was made the next day, and there was no prejudice to the respondents.

The appellants appealed the 2016 property assessment of their vacant residential lot, arguing the assessed value of $38,500 was too high and should be reduced to $22,000 due to a road traversing the land.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed sales data of similar vacant lots and determined the current value of the property was actually $45,000.

The Board found no evidence to quantify the impact of the road or to support an equity reduction based on the comparables provided by the appellants.

Because MPAC did not request an increase, the Board confirmed the assessment at $38,500.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a seasonal waterfront home, arguing the assessment was too high because the home was under construction, lacked deeded road access, and was subject to two easements.

The Assessment Review Board found the sales evidence supported a base current value of $650,000.

The Board reduced this value by 20% to $520,000 to reflect the unfinished state of construction on the valuation date.

The Board dismissed the road access argument for lack of evidence but granted a further $30,000 reduction to account for the two easements crossing the property.

The final assessment was reduced from $559,000 to $490,000.

The moving party brought a motion for production to compel MPAC to produce documents relevant to determining the Current Value Assessment of its properties.

MPAC consented to some productions but disputed others on grounds of relevance, settlement privilege, and lack of notice to third-party property owners.

The Assessment Review Board ordered MPAC to produce the requested income, expense, and valuation records for the subject properties and specific comparable properties, subject to the execution of confidentiality and non-disclosure undertakings by the moving party's representatives.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of her semi-detached home in Toronto, arguing that the current value assessment of $1,100,000 was inequitable and should be reduced to between $878,000 and $950,000.

MPAC defended the assessment using the direct sales comparison approach and an equity analysis.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable sales and the appellant's concerns regarding property condition, lack of parking, and proximity to a multi-residential property.

The Board found that the current value of the property was $1,100,000 and that there was no evidence to conclude the assessment was inequitable relative to similar lands.

The assessment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 2016 property assessment of his residential property, which was assessed at $250,000.

The appellant argued the assessment was too high and should be reduced to $150,000, while the respondent recommended a reduction to $218,000.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable sales evidence and determined that the most comparable property indicated a value of $170,000.

The Board found no equity adjustment was required and reduced the assessment to $170,000.