OARB 2018

The appellant appealed the 2017 property assessment of a 68-acre seasonal/recreational property, arguing the assessed value of $105,000 was too high.

The property featured a small hunt camp with no plumbing or electricity and poor seasonal access.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable sales provided by MPAC and the appellant's evidence regarding the property's limitations.

The Board rejected the appellant's average per-acre calculation but applied the per-acre value of the most comparable property, resulting in a reduced current value of $80,000.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the deemed 2014, 2015, and 2016 property assessment appeals, arguing that changes in the property's classification and assessed value meant the same general reassessment did not apply.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the Assessment Act only requires the same valuation day to apply and the appeal to not be disposed of by March 31 of the taxation year for an appeal to be deemed.

The Board held that identical issues are not a condition for deeming an appeal.

The appellants appealed the MPAC assessment of their island property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the current value at $325,000.

The Board found that MPAC failed to prove the assessed value, determining the current value to be $263,552 based on the most comparable property.

The Board further granted an equitable reduction under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, reducing the assessment to $246,000 based on the assessed values of similar shared-island properties in the vicinity.

The appellants appealed the current value assessment of their single-family detached dwelling for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $2,728,000 for 2017 and $2,610,000 for 2018.

The Assessment Review Board found that the best evidence of current value was the actual sale of the subject property for $2,600,000 one month prior to the valuation date, without the need for time adjustment.

The Board also found that an equitable reduction under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act was not required, as MPAC's equity analysis demonstrated that the level of appraisal and coefficient of dispersion fell within accepted industry standards.

The assessment was reduced to $2,600,000 for both taxation years.

The appellants appealed the 2017 and 2018 property assessments of their 45-acre property, arguing it was assessed too high.

The Assessment Review Board found that the property must be valued as farmland under subsection 19(5.1) of the Assessment Act because the retired farmer owner continued to occupy the land.

After reviewing both the direct comparison approach and the cost approach, the Board determined the current value of the property was $200,000, reducing the assessment from $234,000.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of his single-family home for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $441,000 and $415,000 respectively, but recommended a reduction to $389,000 based on an equity study.

The appellant argued the current value should be between $337,000 and $365,000.

The Assessment Review Board found the best sales evidence supported a current value of $365,000.

The Board declined to make a further equity adjustment, finding insufficient evidence that similar properties in the vicinity were assessed below their current values.

The assessment was reduced to $365,000 for both taxation years.

The son of a deceased property owner applied for property tax relief under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 on behalf of his mother and the estate of his late father, citing sickness or extreme poverty.

The City of Toronto brought a preliminary motion challenging the estate's eligibility to apply.

The Assessment Review Board held that an estate is not a 'person' under the Act and therefore cannot apply for tax relief.

The Board further held that eligibility for tax relief based on sickness or extreme poverty ends upon death, as a deceased person has no necessities of living.

The application was amended to proceed with the mother as the sole applicant.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a seasonal waterfront home on Bigwin Island for the 2017 and deemed 2018 taxation years, seeking a 10 to 15% reduction.

The appellant argued that properties on the island were selling for less than their assessed values due to lack of interest and association restrictions, but provided no comparable sales evidence.

The respondent provided four comparable sales and an equity analysis supporting the assessment.

The Assessment Review Board found the current value of the property to be higher than assessed, but as the respondent did not apply for an increase, the Board confirmed the assessment at $1,781,000 and found no adjustment was required for equity.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their single-family dwelling for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years, seeking a reduction from $250,000 to $189,000 due to functional obsolescence, heavy traffic, and water quality issues.

MPAC sought to confirm the assessment at $250,000 based on comparable sales.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value to be $199,000 by applying the mean time-adjusted sale value per square foot of MPAC's comparable properties and applying a 10% downward adjustment for functional obsolescence and heavy traffic.

The Board found no further equity adjustment was required.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's property assessment appeals due to her failure to comply with procedural steps, including exchanging disclosure and attending a mandatory settlement meeting.

The appellant, a practicing lawyer, argued she did not receive the notices because she had vacated the subject property and did not receive forwarded mail.

The Assessment Review Board found that while the appellant had a duty to keep her address current, her failure to participate in the settlement meeting alone was not sufficient grounds to dismiss the appeals.

The motion was denied, but the appellant was precluded from adducing documents or raising new issues at the hearing.

The appellants appealed the 2017 and 2018 property assessments for their water-access cottage property on Lake Temagami.

MPAC had assessed the property at $331,000 for 2017 and $324,000 for 2018.

The appellants argued the assessment and quality of construction rating were too high, proposing a value between $270,000 and $285,000 based on comparable sales.

The Assessment Review Board rejected MPAC's time adjustment factors due to flawed comparable selection but maintained the quality of construction rating.

After analyzing comparable sales, the Board determined the current value to be $282,000.

The Board found no equitable reduction was required, as the median assessment-to-sale ratio for similar properties was within an acceptable range.

The appellants appealed the 2017 and 2018 property assessments of their residential property, arguing the returned value of $579,000 was too high due to the proximity and encroachment of an abutting gravel pit.

The Assessment Review Board found that the advancing gravel pit activity negatively affected the property's value.

After reviewing comparable sales, the Board concluded the current value was $499,000.

The Board found no evidence to support a further reduction for equity.

The assessment was reduced to $499,000.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a waterfront cottage in Muskoka Lakes Township for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The property was assessed at $670,000 based on a January 1, 2016 valuation day, but the appellant argued the value should be $570,000.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable sales evidence provided by both the appellant and the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC).

The Board found that the assessed value of $670,000 fell at the low end of the range of comparable sale prices and represented the current value.

The Board also accepted MPAC's equity analysis, concluding that no reduction was required to make the assessment equitable with similar properties in the vicinity.

The appeal was dismissed and the assessment was confirmed.

The corporate property owner requested the reinstatement of four property assessment appeals that were mistakenly withdrawn by its agent due to a clerical error involving a similar roll number.

The Assessment Review Board found that the request met the requirements of Rule 122 of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, as it was filed by a party within 30 days and the withdrawal was the result of a good faith typographical error.

The Board granted the request and reinstated the appeals.

The appellant appealed the MPAC property assessment of his single-family detached home for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years, arguing the assessed value of $904,000 was too high.

The appellant purchased the property from a builder for $851,000 in November 2015, shortly before the January 1, 2016 valuation date.

MPAC argued for a time-adjusted value of $914,000 and presented comparable sales.

The Assessment Review Board rejected MPAC's time adjustments and comparable sales, finding the actual open-market sale price of $851,000 to be the best evidence of current value.

The assessment was reduced accordingly.

MPAC brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's property assessment appeals due to her failure to comply with the Board's Schedule of Events, specifically failing to provide disclosure and participate in a mandatory settlement meeting.

The appellant, a practicing lawyer, argued she did not receive the notices because she had vacated the subject property and did not receive couriered documents.

The Board found that the appellant had a duty to keep her address current, especially as a member of the Law Society.

However, the Board concluded that failing to participate in a settlement meeting was not, in itself, sufficient grounds to dismiss the appeals.

The motion was denied, but the appellant was precluded from adducing documents or raising new issues at the hearing due to her failure to provide disclosure.

The appellant appealed the 2017 and 2018 property assessments for a residential dwelling in Vaughan, arguing the returned assessment of $2,963,000 was too high based on a 2014 purchase price.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value as of January 1, 2016, was $3,336,000 based on time-adjusted sales of comparable properties.

Applying an equity adjustment, the Board found the equitable value to be $3,096,000.

Because this equitable value remained higher than the returned assessment and MPAC did not seek an increase, the Board confirmed the assessment at $2,963,000.

The complainant appealed the City of Markham's denial of a commercial vacancy tax rebate for the 2015 taxation year.

The City had denied the application because the complainant failed to provide requested supporting documentation, including a sketch, rent roll, and MLS listing.

The Assessment Review Board found that the complainant failed to comply with the City's valid request for information under section 364(8) of the Municipal Act, 2001, and did not communicate that some of the requested documents did not exist.

The appeal was dismissed and the rebate amount was determined to be $0.

The property owners brought a motion seeking permission to file late appeals of their property assessments for the 2015, 2016, and 2017 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board found it lacked jurisdiction to extend the time for the 2015 and 2016 appeals because the mandatory statutory precondition of a timely request for reconsideration had not been met.

However, because MPAC had inexplicably processed a 2017 request for reconsideration, the Board found the 2017 appeals were filed within the statutory timeframe and accepted them, while also creating deemed appeals for 2018.

The appellants appealed the 2017 and 2018 property assessments of their single-family detached residence, arguing the assessed value of $491,000 was too high due to its proximity to a busy road and compared to similar properties.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable sales evidence provided by both parties.

The Board found that the current value of $491,000 was correct and that no adjustment was required for proximity to traffic.

The Board also found no evidence to support a reduction for equity purposes.

The assessment was confirmed.