OARB 2019

The appellants appealed the 2018 property assessment of their single-family detached home in Toronto, arguing the current value was too high and inequitable compared to similar properties.

MPAC estimated the current value at $380,000 based on the direct comparison approach and found no equity adjustment was required.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value to be $381,317 based on the time-adjusted sale price of the subject property itself.

The Board found no evidence to support an equitable reduction.

Because MPAC did not provide notice seeking a higher assessment, the Board confirmed the returned assessment of $379,000.

The appellant appealed the 2017 and 2018 property assessment of an island property in the Township of the Archipelago, which was assessed at $839,000.

The Assessment Review Board found that the best comparable property supported a current value of $509,000, rejecting MPAC's higher valuation based on properties with superior quality ratings.

The Board further found no evidence to support a reduction for equitable assessment purposes, as MPAC's equity analysis indicated the assessment was fair.

The appeal was allowed, and the assessment was reduced to $509,000.

The applicant applied to have his 2016 property taxes cancelled, reduced, or refunded under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, citing an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed the applicant's household income, expenses, and assets.

The Board found that the household's monthly income exceeded its expenses by over $900, and the family was meeting its monthly obligations, including property taxes.

Consequently, the Board concluded the applicant failed to demonstrate an inability to pay and dismissed the application.

The applicant applied to cancel her 2017 property taxes under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, citing inability to pay due to sickness and extreme poverty.

The applicant and her divorced spouse, who both receive Ontario Disability Support Program benefits, presented evidence of severe medical conditions affecting themselves and their child, resulting in a monthly household deficit.

The Assessment Review Board found the applicant credible and concluded she lacked the financial resources to pay the taxes due to sickness.

The Board ordered the municipality to cancel the 2017 property taxes in the amount of $4,966.55.

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

After an initial adjournment due to her representative's sudden illness, the Board scheduled a peremptory hearing date.

Neither the appellant nor her representative appeared at the peremptory hearing, nor did they file any documents.

Consequently, the Board granted the respondent's request to dismiss the appeals for non-attendance.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their 10-acre farm property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $292,000, while the appellants argued for a value of approximately $180,000.

The Assessment Review Board evaluated the competing valuation methods, preferring MPAC's cost approach for the buildings and a modified direct comparison approach for the land.

The Board determined the current value of the property to be $275,000 and found no reduction was necessary for equitable assessment.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion in writing to dismiss the respondent's property assessment appeals for the 2010, 2011, and 2012 taxation years.

Despite being assigned filing deadlines, no party filed any materials with the Assessment Review Board.

The Board dismissed MPAC's motion, holding that dismissal is an extreme remedy and there was no evidence before the Board to justify dismissing the appeals.

The moving party sought permission to file a late appeal of a property assessment for the 2016 and 2017 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board considered the request under Rule 26(b) of its Rules of Practice and Procedure, which requires the applicant to prove they were entitled to notice, did not receive it, and attempted to file within 30 days of becoming aware of the issues.

The Board found that the moving party failed to prove he did not receive the notice of assessment and failed to file the application in a timely manner.

The application for a late appeal was denied.