OARB 2025

The current owner of the subject property brought a motion to dismiss the municipality's assessment appeal, arguing that the municipality failed to provide proper notice under section 40(9) of the Assessment Act by mailing the notice of appeal to the former owner.

The former owner was incorrectly listed on the returned assessment roll due to the timing of the sale.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that section 40(9) requires notice to be sent to the person liable to assessment as shown on the assessment roll.

The Board held that the assessment roll is binding until corrected, and the municipality complied with the statutory requirements by serving the person named on the roll within the limitation period.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a single-family dwelling in Hamilton, arguing for an equity reduction.

The parties agreed on a current value of $879,975 but disputed whether an equity reduction was warranted.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed the Assessment to Sales Ratio (ASR) studies provided by both parties.

After time-adjusting the appellant's sales data to align with the valuation day, the Board found a median ASR of 0.95 for the combined sample.

Consequently, the Board ordered a 5% downward adjustment, reducing the assessment to $836,000 to ensure equity with similar lands in the vicinity.

The requesting party, Cadillac Fairview, brought an unopposed motion for an order requiring the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) to disclose documents relating to third-party properties not under appeal.

Notice was served on the third-party property owners, none of whom objected.

As the request was unopposed by MPAC and the City of Toronto, the Assessment Review Board granted the order for disclosure pursuant to section 53(5) of the Assessment Act.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of her cottage property, arguing the current value of $352,000 was too high due to poor access, steep topography, and lack of services.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation provided comparable sales evidence supporting a range of values.

The Assessment Review Board accepted the comparable sales evidence but found the specific negative characteristics of the subject property warranted a value at the very low end of the range.

The current value was reduced to $323,000.

The appellants appealed the 2023 and 2024 property assessments of their single-family detached home, arguing the current value assessment of $1,398,000 was too high.

MPAC argued for a value of $1,576,000 based on the direct comparison approach.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the appellants' valuation based on assessed values rather than open market sales, but also found MPAC's comparables varied widely.

Relying on MPAC's most similar comparable property and applying a 10% negative adjustment for the subject property's smaller land area and lack of a garage and finished basement, the Board determined the correct current value to be $1,220,000.

The Board found no equity reduction was required.