Assessment Review Board

The moving party brought a motion on consent to correct a palpable error in the assessment roll for a condominium parking unit for the 2011-2014 taxation years.

The property had remained on the parent roll with the developer listed as the assessed person, resulting in the moving party inheriting historic tax arrears.

The City wrote off the arrears, leaving only the incorrect ownership and description on the roll.

The Assessment Review Board found that the failure to apportion and reflect the correct ownership was a palpable error under s. 40.1(a) of the Assessment Act and ordered the roll corrected.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a waterfront property in Burlington for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years, arguing for a 25% reduction due to the property's location on a laneway with restricted access.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) presented comparable sales supporting the assessed value of $3,048,000.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appellant provided no quantitative evidence to support a reduction and that the comparable sales justified the assessment.

The Board confirmed the assessment at $3,048,000 and found no equity adjustment was required.

The appellant appealed the property assessment for a recreational camp located on Crown land leased from the Ministry of Natural Resources under a land use permit.

The appellant argued the property's value should be reduced to reflect the restrictions of the permit.

The Assessment Review Board found that under section 18 of the Assessment Act, the tenant of Crown land must be assessed as though they were the owner.

The Board accepted MPAC's recommended current value of $145,000, confirming the 2014 assessment and reducing the 2015 assessment from $228,000 to $145,000.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of her single-family detached home for the 2014 and 2015 taxation years, arguing it was over-assessed due to incomplete construction and defects.

The Assessment Review Board found the current value to be $1,017,200 based on comparable sales, but accepted the assessor's recommendation to reduce the assessment by 10% to account for the home being only 90% complete.

The assessment was reduced from $961,000 to $865,000.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a multi-tenant industrial building for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years.

Both parties agreed that the initial assessment of $4,611,000 was excessive and presented revised valuations based on comparable sales.

The Assessment Review Board evaluated the sales evidence, excluded certain distressed and multi-property sales, and determined a median sales price per square foot.

The Board reduced the assessment to $4,166,000, finding this current value to be equitable with the assessments of similar industrial properties in the vicinity.

The appellant municipality appealed the property tax assessment of a vacant lot owned by a non-profit service organization, arguing it should be classified as industrial rather than residential.

The municipality contended that the non-profit did not 'occupy' the vacant land as required by the regulation.

The Assessment Review Board found that 'occupy' means having control over the property, which the owner possessed.

The Board also determined that the definition of 'land' in the regulation includes 'vacant land'.

The appeal was dismissed and the residential classification was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a waterfront residential property in North Bay for the 2014 and deemed 2015 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value of the property based on its 2012 purchase price and subsequent renovations, setting the current value at $431,000 for 2014 and $467,000 for 2015.

The Board then conducted an equity analysis using the Assessment to Sale Ratio of comparable properties in the vicinity.

Finding that MPAC's methodology resulted in assessments approximately 4% lower than market values in the area, the Board applied an equity reduction, lowering the final assessments to $414,000 for 2014 and $448,000 for 2015.

The moving parties, retail tenants at Toronto Pearson International Airport, brought a motion for the production of assessment details, market information, and valuation records from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC).

The Assessment Review Board ordered MPAC to produce the requested documents, subject to the execution of strict confidentiality and non-disclosure undertakings by the moving parties' legal counsel and consultants, to protect the sensitive commercial information of other airport tenants and regional shopping centres.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a residential condominium for the 2014 and 2015 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value of the property based on sales of comparable properties within the same building.

The Board reduced the assessment from $220,000 to $215,000 for 2014, and from $224,000 to $219,000 for 2015, finding these values to be equitable with similar lands in the vicinity.

The moving parties, who operate retail businesses at Toronto Pearson International Airport, brought a motion for the production of assessment details, rent rolls, and market information from MPAC regarding various airport and shopping centre properties.

The Assessment Review Board ordered MPAC to produce the requested information, subject to the execution of strict confidentiality and non-disclosure undertakings by the moving parties' counsel and consultants to protect the sensitive business information of the affected property owners and tenants.

The appellant brought a motion for the production of documents relating to the assessment of several third-party properties.

On consent of the parties, the Assessment Review Board ordered the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation to produce the requested income, expense, lease, and valuation information, subject to the execution of confidentiality and non-disclosure undertakings by the appellant's counsel and consultants.

The appellant, Mississauga Complex Portfolio Inc., brought a motion for the production of documents from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) relating to the assessment of third-party properties.

On consent of the parties, the Assessment Review Board ordered MPAC to produce income, expense, rent roll, lease information, and other valuation documents for the specified properties.

The production was made subject to the execution of confidentiality and non-disclosure undertakings by the appellant's legal counsel and expert consultants.

The appeals were adjourned to a prehearing conference.

The appellant brought a motion for the production of documents from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) relating to the assessment of a property in Mississauga.

On consent of the parties, the Assessment Review Board ordered MPAC to produce income, expense, rent roll, lease information, and other documents for specified third-party properties, subject to the appellant's counsel and consultants executing undertakings of confidentiality and non-disclosure.

The appeals were adjourned to a prehearing conference.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a gas station for the 2014 and 2015 taxation years, originally assessed at $1,694,000.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) recommended a reduction to $1,178,000 based on a revised valuation report and re-measurement of the building area.

The appellant argued for a further reduction to $927,000 based on equity with other properties.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's evidence as the most compelling, finding the current value to be $1,178,000 and concluding that no further adjustment for equity was required.

MPAC brought a motion seeking an order that the assessed parties be estopped from raising the January 1, 2012 current value or equity as an issue in their 2014 and 2015 property assessment appeals.

The Board found that the issues of current value and equity had already been decided in a previous hearing for the 2013 taxation year.

Applying the three-part test for issue estoppel, the Board granted the motion, finding that the same parties were involved, the same questions had been decided, and the previous decision was final.

The Board confirmed the assessment of the property for the 2014 and 2015 taxation years at $148,000.

MPAC brought a motion under s. 40.1 of the Assessment Act to correct a palpable error on the assessment roll.

Due to a series of property transfers and roll number re-assignments, the Chews had been incorrectly assessed and paying property taxes for a neighbouring property they did not own from 2009 to 2014.

The Board found that the error was inadvertent and palpable, as the roll plainly contradicted the legal title.

The Board exercised its discretion to correct the roll, removing the Chews and adding the true owners as the assessed persons for the relevant taxation years.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their property, which had been contaminated by a formaldehyde spill from a transport truck accident.

The appellants argued the property had no market value and the assessment should be reduced to zero until remediation was complete.

MPAC presented comparable sales supporting an assessment of $320,000.

The Assessment Review Board found that while the spill occurred and the property remained vacant, the appellants provided no quantitative evidence to substantiate the impact of the spill or stigma on the current value.

The Board reduced the 2013 assessment to $320,000 and confirmed the 2014 and deemed 2015 assessments at $320,000.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a retail plaza for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation years.

Both parties agreed to use the income approach to value but disagreed on the fair market rent (FMR).

MPAC used a weighted mean FMR based on comparable properties, while the appellant argued for using the actual rental income generated by the property.

The Assessment Review Board found that while MPAC's approach was generally reasonable, four leases from the subject property should be included in the FMR calculation for one of the occupancy codes.

The Board recalculated the FMR and reduced the current value assessment from $3,978,000 to $3,645,000.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a seasonal dwelling for the 2013, 2014, and deemed 2015 taxation years.

MPAC had assessed the property at $146,000 but recommended a reduction to $94,000 based on a sales comparison approach.

The appellant argued the assessment should be reduced to $85,000, the price for which the property sold in October 2014, noting it lacked waterfront ownership and development rights.

The Assessment Review Board found the 2014 sale to be the best evidence of current value, rejecting MPAC's comparables which all had waterfront ownership.

The Board reduced the assessment to $85,000 for all years under appeal.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of a waterfront residential property in North Bay, which MPAC assessed at $196,000 for the 2014 and 2015 taxation years.

The appellant argued the property was in poor condition and sought a value of $150,000.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the direct comparables proposed by both parties due to significant differences in lot size, building size, and condition.

Instead, the Board applied the median Assessment to Sale Ratio (ASR) of 1.19 derived from the parties' sales data to the assessed value, determining the correct current value to be $165,000.

The Board found no further adjustment was required for equity and reduced the assessment accordingly.