Assessment Review Board

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a single-family detached residential dwelling in Hamilton for the 2024 and 2025 taxation years.

The appellant argued for a current value of $525,000, citing functional obsolescence due to accessibility modifications.

MPAC proposed a current value of $649,000 based on time-adjusted sales of comparable properties.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the appellant's comparables as they were not time-adjusted to the valuation day.

Relying on MPAC's evidence, the Board determined the current value to be $670,152 and found no equitable reduction was required under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act.

The appellant appealed the property assessment for a commercial property in Brampton for the 2021 to 2025 taxation years.

The parties reached a settlement agreement regarding the classification and assessed value of the property.

The Assessment Review Board issued a final decision implementing the agreement, reducing the total assessed value from $47,996,000 to $43,650,000 and confirming the classification split between Commercial (Excess Land) and Commercial (Full).

The appellant appealed the 2024 and 2025 property assessments of their residential property in Oakville, arguing the assessed value was too high.

MPAC had increased the assessment after discovering significant renovations and a basement apartment.

The Assessment Review Board evaluated comparable property sales provided by both parties and preferred MPAC's evidence, setting the current value at $1,315,000.

The Board then applied a 6% equity reduction based on the assessment-to-sales ratio of similar properties in the vicinity, resulting in a final assessed value of $1,236,000.

The appellant appealed the 2024 and 2025 property tax assessments for a residential property in Burlington.

MPAC assessed the property at $539,000, while the appellant argued for a value of $432,000.

The Assessment Review Board applied the direct comparison approach, utilizing a bracketing methodology with time-adjusted sale prices of comparable properties.

The Board adjusted MPAC's calculation to account for differences in building size, determining the correct current value to be $514,000.

The Board accepted MPAC's Assessment to Sales Ratio study, finding that the assessment was equitable with similar properties in the vicinity and no further reduction was warranted.

The appellants appealed the 2024 and 2025 property assessments for their 5.05-acre property, arguing it should be valued as 'farm lands used only for farm purposes' under s. 19(5) of the Assessment Act due to their boutique Christmas tree, foraging, and beekeeping operations.

The Assessment Review Board found the farming activity was limited in scale, generated minimal income, and lacked the characteristics of a bona fide farming business, concluding it was a hobby farm.

The Board determined the current value of the property to be $581,000 based on comparable sales provided by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, and found no equitable reduction was warranted.

The applicant appealed to the Assessment Review Board for a refund of her 2023 property taxes, citing an inability to pay due to extreme poverty under section 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Board found that the applicant's 2023 income of $3,519.52 constituted extreme poverty and that she was unable to pay the taxes levied.

While the applicant sought a refund of $8,988.45, which included additional municipal charges, the Board held that only the $3,276.54 levied as property taxes could be refunded under the Act.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the City was ordered to refund $3,276.54.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their single-family detached home in Toronto for the 2024 and 2025 taxation years, arguing the assessed value of $1,265,000 was too high.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable sales evidence provided by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) and determined the correct current value to be $1,297,000.

The Board declined to make an equitable reduction under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, finding that the assessment to sales ratio of 0.98 indicated similar properties in the vicinity were assessed at or near their current values.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their detached residential dwelling, arguing the current value determined by MPAC was too high.

MPAC assessed the property at $383,000, while the appellants sought a reduction to $270,000.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable sales data and time adjustment analyses from both parties.

The Board preferred MPAC's time adjustment analysis but rejected some of MPAC's comparables that abutted green space or had pools.

Relying on the remaining comparables, the Board determined the current value to be $314,000.

The Board also found that no equitable reduction was necessary based on MPAC's assessment-to-sale ratio analysis.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion for disclosure of subject sale information and appraisals regarding the 2021 purchase of the subject property.

The appellant opposed the motion, arguing the request was late and the information was irrelevant to the 2016 valuation date.

The Assessment Review Board found the motion was not brought too late and that the requested information was relevant to the issues raised by MPAC.

However, the Board found the request was too broad and ordered disclosure limited to the parameters set out in the Board's Disclosure Guideline.

The motion was granted in part.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a single-family detached home in Vaughan for the 2024 and 2025 taxation years.

The property was assessed at $2,127,000, but the appellant argued for a reduction to $1,697,350.

The Assessment Review Board applied the direct comparison approach, adjusting comparable sales for time and removing an 11% premium for properties abutting a golf course, to determine a current value of $1,910,000.

The Board rejected the appellant's equity analysis and accepted MPAC's assessment-to-sale ratio analysis, finding no further equitable reduction was required.

The applicant sought to have her 2023 property taxes cancelled, reduced, or refunded under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, claiming an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The Assessment Review Board found that the applicant's income of approximately $84,000 in 2023 was well above the threshold for extreme poverty, even accounting for $30,000 in unexpected housing expenses.

The applicant also failed to provide medical documentation of sickness or demonstrate how sickness caused an inability to pay.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought a reduction of his 2024 property taxes under the City of Toronto Act, 2006, claiming an inability to pay due to extreme poverty.

While the Assessment Review Board found the applicant's monthly income was low enough to constitute extreme poverty, it determined he was not unable to pay his property taxes.

The applicant possessed significant assets, including over $100,000 in a Tax Free Savings Account, which could be utilized to mitigate his property tax obligations.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant applied to the City of Mississauga to have her 2024 property taxes of $5,064.57 cancelled or reduced due to extreme poverty or sickness under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

While the Assessment Review Board found the applicant's monthly income of $730.92 met the threshold for extreme poverty, it determined she was not unable to pay her property taxes.

The applicant had over $14,000 in available bank accounts, which the Board concluded were resources that could be utilized to mitigate her property tax obligations.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the 2021 supplementary assessment and 2022 annual assessment of a newly constructed warehouse/sorting centre in Brampton.

The Board determined the appropriate valuation methodology was the Income Approach.

The Board found the correct capitalization rate to be 5.2%, resulting in a 2016 current value of $49,600,000.

Applying an agreed 12% equity reduction, the equitable assessment was determined to be $43,650,000.

The Board also addressed preliminary issues regarding the admissibility of late-filed documents and the credibility of MPAC's expert witness, finding no cumulative failure to adhere to professional standards.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their newly built two-storey detached residential dwelling in Ajax, arguing the current value was too high.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value as of the January 1, 2016 valuation day to be $719,000 based on time-adjusted comparable sales provided by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC).

The Board also found that an equitable adjustment was required based on an Assessment to Sales Ratio analysis, reducing the equitable current value to $654,000 for the s. 40 assessment and $440,000 for the s. 34 supplementary assessment.

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 requesting party sought an order requiring the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation to disclose financial documents relating to third-party properties not under appeal.

Three third-party property owners objected, citing the confidential and commercially sensitive nature of the information.

The Assessment Review Board granted the disclosure request, finding that the statutory requirement to use the information solely for the appeal and the execution of a Non-Disclosure Agreement provided sufficient protection for the third parties' commercially sensitive information.

The appellant appealed the supplementary and annual property tax assessments for a newly constructed single-family dwelling in Mississauga.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value of the property using the direct comparison approach, relying on MPAC's time-adjusted comparable sales.

The Board reduced the supplementary assessment to $1,262,000 and the annual assessment to $1,948,000, confirmed the effective date as September 28, 2023, and found no equitable reduction was required under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a single-family detached residential dwelling for the 2024 and 2025 taxation years, arguing the assessed value of $358,000 should be reduced to $240,000.

The Assessment Review Board applied the direct comparison approach, preferring the respondent's five comparable sales over the appellant's single older comparable property.

The Board determined the current value to be $362,000 and found no equitable adjustment was warranted based on the assessment-to-sales ratio analysis.

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.