OARB 2018

The appellant appealed the MPAC assessment of his 121.09-acre vacant property enrolled in the Managed Forests Program for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $65,000 based on the regulated value for managed forests, which was lower than its estimated likely sale value of $72,000.

The appellant argued the value should be between $40,000 and $50,000 due to timber quality and a higher percentage of wetland, but provided no evidence to substantiate this valuation.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's comparable sales evidence and confirmed the current value at $65,000.

The moving party sought permission to file a late appeal of its 2017 property assessment under Rule 26(b) of the Assessment Review Board Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The moving party had filed a timely request for reconsideration with MPAC but claimed it did not receive MPAC's response until after the appeal deadline.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party had received its original notice of assessment and failed to file its appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment issues, as required by the Rule.

MPAC brought a motion to dismiss the property owner's appeal of a $390,000 assessment for the 2015 taxation year, arguing it was moot because it had been replaced by a corrected assessment of $177,000.

The property owner opposed the motion and sought to set aside previous settlement agreements regarding supplemental and subsequent year assessments.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion to dismiss the appeal of the $390,000 assessment, finding it was moot.

However, applying section 40(26)(a) of the Assessment Act, the Board found there was a deemed appeal of the $177,000 corrected assessment which would proceed.

The Board declined to set aside the prior settlement agreements, finding no evidence of false pretenses or fraud.

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

The property, a commercial building previously set up as a dental clinic and spa, contained fixed dental and spa equipment.

The Town argued the property was being used for storage and was not capable of being leased.

The Assessment Review Board found that the equipment was fixed to the building for the purpose of selling it to a dentistry practitioner, not for storage.

The Board concluded the property was vacant and capable of being leased for immediate occupation, though the owner chose to sell rather than lease.

The applications for vacancy rebates were granted.

The moving party (City) brought a motion for a retroactive extension of time to serve its disclosure materials in a property tax assessment appeal.

The City missed the deadline due to a staff member's retirement and unfamiliarity with the summary proceeding schedule.

The Board found these constituted exceptional circumstances under Rule 82 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Board also found that the balance of prejudice favoured granting the extension, as the respondent had ample time to prepare and the City would be unable to present its case without the extension.

The motion was granted.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of their single-family home for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years, which was returned at $1,231,000.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value of the property to be $1,279,000 based on a comparable sale, adjusted for differences such as lot type, dwelling size, and the presence of a swimming pool.

The Board then applied an equity reduction factor of 0.953, derived from the mean Assessment to Sale Ratio of similar properties in the vicinity, resulting in a final assessed value of $1,219,000.

The appeal was allowed in part and the assessment was reduced.

The requester sought a review of an Assessment Review Board decision regarding the assessment of his property, alleging factual errors in MPAC's evidence and arguing that equity was in dispute.

The Board dismissed the request for review, finding that the original decision properly weighed the evidence and used the best evidence available.

The Board also found no error in the original decision's conclusion that equity was not in dispute, as the requester had provided no details about the comparable property.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their seasonal/recreational dwelling for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years, arguing the current value should be reduced from $749,000 to $540,000 due to topography, right-of-way access, easements, and waterfront condition.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appellants failed to prove their proposed value but accepted MPAC's revised assessment of $673,000 based on an inspection.

The Board reduced the 2017 assessment to $673,000 and confirmed the 2018 assessment at $673,000.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their single-family home for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years, arguing the current value of $774,000 was too high and should be $693,000.

MPAC argued the value should be between $984,000 and $1,054,000 based on comparable sales.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value to be $1,024,000 and found an equitable reduction to $858,112 was warranted.

However, because MPAC did not give notice of an intention to seek a higher assessment, the Board confirmed the original assessment of $774,000.

The appellants appealed the 2018 property assessment of their residential property in Toronto, which MPAC assessed at $3,042,000.

The Board found that the best evidence of current value was the March 2015 sale of the subject property for $2,859,187.

The Board declined to apply a time adjustment factor, finding that a sale within 12 months of the January 1, 2016 valuation date did not require adjustment.

The Board also declined to apply an equitable reduction, as the median assessment-to-sales ratio of 0.95 for similar properties fell within the acceptable range.

The assessment was reduced to $2,859,000.

The applicant sought permission to file a late appeal of its 2017 property assessment.

The applicant had filed a timely request for reconsideration with MPAC but claimed it did not receive MPAC's response until after the appeal deadline.

The Assessment Review Board denied the request, finding that the applicant did not meet the requirements of Rule 26(b) because it had received its original notice of assessment and failed to file the appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment.

The appellants appealed the 2018 property tax assessments for two properties associated with a nearby granite quarry.

MPAC assessed the properties at $422,000 and $412,000.

The appellants argued the properties should be assessed at zero because they were subject to a restrictive covenant limiting their use to residential dwellings solely related to the sustainable management of the quarry.

The Assessment Review Board found that the restrictive covenants constituted easements under section 9(3) of the Assessment Act.

Because the properties existed entirely for the benefit of the quarry (the dominant tenement), their value must be added to the quarry and their own assessments reduced accordingly.

The Board fixed the assessment of both properties at zero.

The moving party, a property owner appealing her property assessment, brought a motion for an order to summons the written testimony of the original MPAC assessor who had carriage of her file before going on maternity leave.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that a summons to witness is not available in written hearings under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Board also declined to exercise its discretion to order a written examination of the original assessor, finding the request disproportionate because a replacement assessor had already answered the moving party's questions and there was insufficient evidence that the original assessor's answers would be different.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a residential property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The appellant argued the property abutted an educational institution, warranting a negative adjustment, while the respondents argued it abutted green space.

The Assessment Review Board found the property abutted green space.

Based on sales of similar properties, the Board determined the current value was $1,599,000 and the equitable value was $1,551,000.

Because no party sought an increase to the returned assessment of $1,227,000, the Board confirmed the assessment at $1,227,000.

The moving party municipality brought a motion to dismiss the respondent corporation's application for municipal tax relief.

The corporation had applied for relief under a provision allowing relief for an applicant unable to pay taxes because of sickness or extreme poverty.

The municipality argued that only human persons could experience sickness or extreme poverty, and therefore corporations were ineligible.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the statutory definition of 'person' includes corporations, and while a corporation cannot be sick, it is capable of experiencing extreme poverty.

The Board concluded there was no legislative intent to exclude corporate applicants from seeking such relief.

The appellant appealed the 2017 and deemed 2018 property assessments of his residential rental property, which MPAC assessed at $117,000.

The appellant argued for a value of $91,200 based on a previous 2014 valuation.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the use of the 2014 valuation, noting that current value must be determined based on the January 1, 2016 valuation day.

Using a time-adjusted sales comparison approach of three similar properties sold within one year of the valuation date, the Board determined the average price per square foot and calculated the correct current value of the subject property to be $115,914.

The appellants requested a review of an Assessment Review Board decision regarding the valuation of their residential property.

They alleged the Board made significant errors of fact and law concerning comparable sales, time adjustment factors, equity, and traffic adjustments.

The reviewing member found no significant errors that would have affected the result, noting the original decision reasonably preferred localized data and required quantitative evidence for adjustments.

The request for review was denied.

The requesters sought a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that dismissed their property assessment appeal.

They argued the original member was biased towards MPAC, made errors of fact and law in preferring MPAC's equity analysis, and sought to introduce new evidence.

The Associate Chair dismissed the request for review, finding no evidence of bias, no significant errors of fact or law that would have affected the result, and that the proposed new evidence could have reasonably been obtained prior to the original hearing.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a residential dwelling for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC had returned an assessment of $1,144,000 and proposed a current value of $1,291,000 at the hearing, while the appellant requested the assessment be fixed at the last uncontested value of $858,000.

The Assessment Review Board determined the correct current value to be $1,137,000 based on the comparable properties provided.

The Board also found that a 6% reduction for equity was warranted, resulting in a final equitable assessment of $1,069,000.

The applicant applied for a cancellation, reduction, or refund of his 2017 property taxes under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, claiming extreme poverty.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had the financial ability to pay his taxes.

The Board noted the applicant's positive net monthly income, cash savings, lack of liabilities, and substantial home equity, concluding that the statutory test for relief was not met.