Assessment Review Board

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of a single-family dwelling for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years, arguing the value should be reduced from $228,000 to between $152,000 and $160,000.

The Board refused to qualify the appellant's proposed expert witness due to disclosure failures and an ill-defined compensation arrangement.

Relying on the direct comparison approach, the Board accepted MPAC's revised valuation of $203,000.

The Board found no reduction was necessary for equitable assessment purposes, as evidence showed similar properties in the vicinity were assessed at their current values.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a vacant residential lot for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

The appellant argued that the assessed value of $83,000 (and $80,000 for 2019) was too high due to the presence of solid bedrock and a poor view, which required a cost to cure.

The Assessment Review Board agreed that a negative adjustment was warranted for the bedrock, applying a $15,000 cost to cure to the average sale price of comparable properties.

The Board reduced the current value assessment to $71,000 for all three taxation years.

The City of Toronto requested the dismissal of the applicant's property tax relief applications due to a lack of supporting financial documentation.

The applicant's son, acting as her representative, requested an adjournment, citing difficulties in obtaining the documents from 2016.

The Assessment Review Board declined to dismiss the applications immediately, noting the representative's lack of legal understanding, and instead granted a peremptory adjournment.

The Board ordered the applicant to produce specific financial records before the next hearing, warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessments for a vacant residential lot in North Bay for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $115,000, $99,000, and $95,000 respectively, while the appellant argued the value should be $50,000 due to solid bedrock and lack of municipal services.

The Assessment Review Board found that the property was not designated unbuildable and was serviceable, but applied a $15,000 cost-to-cure adjustment for blasting bedrock to the average comparable sale price of $88,000.

The Board reduced the current value assessment to $73,000 for all three taxation years.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a single-family residential property in Toronto for the 2017-2019 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the current value at $2,974,000, but sought an increase to $3,250,000 at the hearing.

The appellant sought an equitable reduction to $2,300,000.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC failed to provide the required notice to seek a higher assessment, fixing the current value at $2,974,000.

The Board also dismissed the appellant's request for an equitable reduction, finding that the median assessment-to-sale ratio of comparable properties fell within the acceptable standard range, indicating no adjustment was necessary.

The Appellant brought a motion for additional initial disclosure from MPAC to assist in preparing its Statement of Issues regarding the assessment of its retail property.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding that the Appellant failed to establish that the disclosure already provided by MPAC in its 'AboutMyProperty' database was insufficient to explain the assessed value.

The Board applied the principle of proportionality and relied on its previous decision in Accu Servo, which dealt with identical disclosure requests.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a single-family residential property for the 2017-2019 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the current value at $2,974,000 but sought an increase to $3,250,000 at the hearing.

The Board rejected the increase because MPAC failed to provide the required notice under the Board's Rules.

The appellant sought an equitable reduction to $2,300,000, arguing that similar properties in the vicinity were assessed at a lower value.

The Board analyzed the assessment-to-sale ratios of 18 comparable properties and found the median ratio was 0.96, which falls within the acceptable standard range.

Therefore, the Board concluded no equitable reduction was required and confirmed the assessment at $2,974,000.

The appellant appealed the property assessments for a 90-acre dual-use farm with a purpose-built canola oil manufacturing facility for the 2014 to 2019 taxation years.

MPAC used the cost approach to determine the current value, which the appellant challenged, arguing for a sales comparison approach and a significantly lower value.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC met its burden of proof and that the cost approach, checked against available market data, produced a reasonable current value.

The Board upheld MPAC's assessments and found no adjustment for equity was required.

The moving party, 183119 Canada Inc., brought a motion seeking an order for the disclosure of eight sets of documents from MPAC regarding property assessment appeals for a car dealership.

MPAC opposed the motion, arguing the requests were irrelevant, disproportionate, or sought information already available.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding the moving party failed to establish the relevance of the requested documents and that the broad requests were not proportionate to the proceedings.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessments for a dual-use farm with a newly built, idle canola oil manufacturing facility for the 2014 to 2019 taxation years.

MPAC used the cost approach to determine the current value, which the appellant challenged, arguing for a lower value based on a sales comparison approach.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC met its burden of proof and that the cost approach, validated by market data, produced a reasonable current value.

The Board upheld MPAC's assessments and found no adjustment for equity was required.

The property owners appealed their residential property assessment and brought a motion for disclosure of various documents from MPAC, including a map of the homogenous neighbourhood, spreadsheets of all residential properties, property assessment detail sheets, and lists of properties that received reductions.

The Assessment Review Board allowed the motion in part, ordering MPAC to provide the map it had agreed to produce.

The Board dismissed the remaining requests, finding them disproportionate, lacking in specificity, or seeking information already available to the owners through MPAC's online database.

The moving party in a property assessment appeal brought a motion for documentary disclosure of a detailed residential sales report from MPAC.

MPAC had offered to provide the report for a fee, but the moving party objected to the cost and sought an order for disclosure.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the request for 99 property details was disproportionate and amounted to a fishing expedition.

Furthermore, the Board noted that disclosure motions are intended for situations where a party refuses to disclose documents, not where they are available for a fee.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's property assessment appeals for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

The appellant failed to serve a Statement of Issues as required by the Assessment Review Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Board found that the appellant's breach was clear, egregious, and unilateral, and that it caused prejudice to MPAC's case management.

The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed.

The applicant applied for a reduction or cancellation of her 2016 property taxes under s. 357(1)(d1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, citing an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty.

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

The Board found that the household's 2016 income was adequate to meet basic necessities and pay the annual property taxes.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the current value assessment of a vacant residential lot in North Bay for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $85,000 for 2017-2018 and $80,000 for 2019, but at the hearing requested a reduction to $80,000 for all years.

The appellant argued the value should be $70,000, citing the sale of a neighbouring lot and the negative impact of bedrock on the property.

The Assessment Review Board agreed with the appellant, finding that the cost to cure the bedrock issue and the sale of the neighbouring lot supported a current value of $70,000.

The assessment was reduced accordingly.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessments for a vacant residential lot in North Bay for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $89,000, $60,000, and $46,500 respectively, while the appellant argued the value should be $35,000 due to the lack of municipal services.

The Assessment Review Board found that the property was an unserviceable lot and preferred the appellant's comparable sale of an unencumbered, unserviceable lot for $36,000.

The Board reduced the assessment to $36,000 for all three taxation years.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of a vacant residential lot in North Bay for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $85,000 for 2017 and 2018, and $80,000 for 2019, but conceded at the hearing that the value should be $80,000 for all years.

The appellants argued the value should be $70,000, citing the 2018 sale price of the subject property and the negative impact of bedrock requiring removal.

The Assessment Review Board found the 2018 sale of the subject property for $70,000 to be the best evidence of current value, supported by adjusting comparable sales for the cost to cure the bedrock issue.

The appeals were allowed and the assessment was reduced to $70,000 for all three taxation years.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a vacant residential lot for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $86,000, $57,000, and $45,000 for those years, respectively, but at the hearing requested a reduction to $45,000 for all three years.

The appellant argued the value should be $30,000 based on the sale of a comparable unserviceable lot.

The Assessment Review Board found the comparable sale of an unserviceable lot for $36,000 to be the best evidence of current value.

The Board reduced the assessment to $36,000 for all three taxation years.

The appellant appealed the property assessments for his property for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

He did not challenge the valuation but argued he was exempt from taxation based on constitutional and pseudolegal grounds, claiming he was not a 'person' under the Assessment Act.

The Assessment Review Board identified the appellant as an Organized Pseudo-Legal Commercial Argument (OPCA) litigant whose arguments were nonsensical and vexatious.

The Board dismissed the appeals as an abuse of process.

Metro Ontario Inc. brought a motion to compel MPAC to disclose rental information for comparable grocery stores that MPAC relied on in its Statement of Response.

MPAC refused disclosure under section 53 of the Assessment Act without a Board order.

The Assessment Review Board ordered the disclosure of the requested information for the specific properties relied upon, subject to the execution of non-disclosure agreements and after providing notice to the affected third parties.

The Board also granted an extension of the schedule of events, finding that the section 53 application constituted an exceptional circumstance.