OARB 2025

The appellant appealed the property assessment of his waterfront residential property for the 2024 and 2025 taxation years, arguing the assessed value of $941,000 was too high and seeking a reduction to between $500,000 and $600,000.

MPAC proposed a current value of $843,000 based on comparable sales.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the appellant's valuation methods, which relied on non-time-adjusted sales and a ratio applied to a neighbour's assessment.

Relying on MPAC's comparable sales data, the Board determined the current value to be $867,000.

The Board also found no equitable reduction was required under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, as MPAC's Assessment to Sales Ratio analysis demonstrated similar properties were assessed at or near their current values.

The appellants appealed the 2022-2025 property assessments for a property in Hamilton, including supplementary assessments made under s. 34 of the Assessment Act.

The Board raised a preliminary question of law regarding the applicable valuation day for the s. 34 assessments.

Although all parties agreed the valuation day was January 1, 2016, the Board required legal submissions to determine if this was correct in law, departing from previous Board decisions that suggested a different valuation day applied to supplementary assessments.

The Board concluded that s. 19.2 of the Act prescribes the valuation day for all assessments for a taxation year, including s. 34 supplementary assessments.

Therefore, the valuation day for the s. 34 assessments is January 1, 2016.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion for disclosure and an order for property inspection in the context of appeals concerning the 2024 and 2025 property assessments of an apartment building.

The appellant opposed the motion, arguing the requests were out of time and irrelevant because the current value was not in dispute.

The Assessment Review Board granted an extension of time due to exceptional circumstances, noting the appellant had recently served an expert report providing an opinion of value.

The Board granted most of the disclosure requests and ordered the property inspection, finding them relevant to the income approach valuation and highest and best use analysis, but denied one request as overbroad.

The appellants appealed the 2024 and 2025 property tax assessments for their single-family detached home, seeking a reduction in the current value from $1,658,000 to $1,478,000.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) argued the value should be increased to $1,744,000.

The Assessment Review Board evaluated the expert evidence using the Direct Comparison Approach and determined the best comparable property indicated a current value of $1,655,000.

The Board rejected the appellants' request for an equitable reduction, finding their assessment to sales ratio analysis unreliable.

The appeal was allowed in part, reducing the assessed value to $1,655,000.

The applicant applied to the Assessment Review Board under section 323(1) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 for the cancellation of his 2024 property taxes, claiming an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty following a catastrophic accident.

The Board found that while the applicant's sickness reduced his household income, his income less non-discretionary expenses still left an annual surplus of at least $50,000.

The Board held that discretionary expenses cannot take precedence over the payment of property taxes and dismissed the application.

The appellants appealed the 2024 and 2025 property assessments of their residential property, arguing the current value assessment of $833,000 was excessive due to flood zone restrictions imposed after they purchased the vacant lot.

The Assessment Review Board found that neither party provided sufficient sales evidence to substantiate a correct current value.

The Board determined the 2016 current value to be $767,000 by applying market-derived adjustments to the available comparable sales data.

The Board declined to make an equity reduction under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, finding that similar properties in the vicinity were not generally underassessed.

The appellants appealed the 2024 and 2025 property assessments of their residential property, arguing the assessed values of $758,000 and $620,000 were too high due to incomplete renovations, location on a busy road, and a damaged accessory structure.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation argued for a value of $620,000 based on the purchase price and building permit value.

The Assessment Review Board rejected MPAC's valuation, finding it lacked sufficient evidence and failed to account for the unfinished state of the renovations.

Relying on a comparable property sale, the Board reduced the current value to $447,000 for both taxation years and found no further adjustment for equity was required.

The City of Hamilton brought a motion for disclosure within an assessment appeal, seeking a construction contract and a 2023 appraisal report from the appellant property owner.

The appellant opposed, arguing the documents were irrelevant to the issues of land value and equity, and that their production was disproportionate.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion, finding that building value remained in dispute and the requested documents were relevant and proportionate to the issues in the appeal.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of a newly constructed multi-residential building in Hamilton for the 2022-2025 taxation years.

The original assessment was $36,759,000.

The Board applied the income approach to value, determining a current value of $35,430,731 by blending the parties' evidence on fair market rents, vacancy rates, operating expenses, and capitalization rates.

The Board then applied a 3% reduction for equitable assessment based on the assessment-to-sale ratio of a comparable new multi-residential property, resulting in a final assessed value of $34,368,000.

The Assessment Review Board issued an order revising the returned assessments for various mining properties owned by Vale Canada Limited, Glencore Canada Corporation, and Xstrata Canada Corporation for the 2017 to 2025 taxation years.

The revisions were based on a joint submission by the parties following a previous interim decision.

The Board ordered the assessments to be revised to reflect the agreed-upon current values and apportionments set out in the attached schedule.

The applicant applied to have their 2024 property taxes cancelled, reduced, or refunded due to sickness or extreme poverty under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Assessment Review Board found that the applicant's net income, which included a legal settlement, exceeded their basic living expenses, leaving sufficient funds to cover the taxes.

The applicant also had equity in their property and incurred discretionary expenses.

The application was dismissed as the applicant failed to demonstrate an inability to pay.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their waterfront property for the 2024 and 2025 taxation years, arguing the current value was incorrect and inequitable.

They also sought to appeal assessments for the past 19 years due to alleged errors.

The Assessment Review Board denied the request to extend the time to appeal past years, as the appeal was brought under s. 40 of the Assessment Act, which does not permit such extensions.

On the issue of current value, the Board rejected the appellants' reliance on assessed values of other properties and instead relied on MPAC's comparable sales data.

The Board determined the correct current value to be $442,000 based on the average time-adjusted sales price of comparable properties with detached garages and apartments above them.

The Board found no equitable reduction was required.

The applicants appealed to the Assessment Review Board for the cancellation of their 2023 property taxes, citing an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Board found that the applicants' household expenses exceeded their income after one applicant became legally blind and unable to work, forcing the other to leave employment to provide care.

The Board concluded that the applicants were unable to pay their property taxes due to sickness and ordered the cancellation of the $8,307.94 levied for the 2023 taxation year.

The applicant applied to the Assessment Review Board for a cancellation, reduction, or refund of her 2024 property taxes, citing an inability to pay due to sickness and extreme poverty under section 323(1) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

The Board reviewed the applicant's household income, expenses, and the equity in her condominium.

The Board found that the applicant's remaining income after basic expenses was sufficient to cover the levied taxes, and that she had substantial equity in her property.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant applied for a property tax refund under s. 357(1)(g) of the Municipal Act, arguing that renovations to convert an office building into a self-storage facility prevented the normal use of the property for at least three months in 2023.

The municipality denied the application and the appellant appealed to the Assessment Review Board.

The Board found that renovations did prevent normal use of the property from January 1, 2023, until a partial occupancy permit was issued on September 18, 2023.

The Board ordered a pro-rated tax refund of $39,887 based on a 50% current value adjustment for the affected areas.

The appellant appealed the current value assessment of her waterfront property for the 2023-2025 taxation years, as well as a supplementary assessment for a newly erected detached garage.

The Assessment Review Board determined that the valuation day for the supplementary assessment under s. 34 of the Assessment Act is the date the improvement commenced to be used, which was September 15, 2023.

The Board increased the base current value of the property to $322,000 based on comparable sales evidence, confirmed the supplementary assessment value of $75,000, and adjusted the effective date of the supplementary assessment to September 15, 2023.

No equitable reduction was found to be required.

The Applicant applied to the City of Toronto to have his 2023 property taxes cancelled, reduced, or refunded under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, citing an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the application, finding that the Applicant failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence of his income and expenses to demonstrate an inability to pay the taxes levied in 2023.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of a newly built multi-residential property in Hamilton for the 2022 to 2025 taxation years.

The parties agreed on the income approach to value but disputed the inputs, including fair market rents, vacancy allowance, expense allowance, and capitalization rate.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value to be $37,222,907 based on a blend of the parties' evidence.

The Board further found that a 3% reduction was required for equitable assessment, reducing the final assessed value to $36,106,000.

The requesting party, Metro Ontario Inc., sought an order requiring the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) to disclose lease and income documents for several properties not under appeal.

Notice was served on the owners of the other properties, and no objections were received.

As the request was unopposed by MPAC and the other parties, the Assessment Review Board granted the order for disclosure subject to terms imposed by MPAC under s. 53(5) of the Assessment Act.

The requesting party brought an unopposed motion for an order requiring the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation to disclose lease documents relating to properties not under appeal.

The Board found that the requesting party had served notice on the owners of the other properties and that no objections were received.

The Board granted the request and ordered disclosure within 10 days.