Assessment Review Board

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the property assessment appeals filed by the appellant for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

The appellant failed to serve a Statement of Issues by the deadline set by the Assessment Review Board and did not respond to multiple requests from MPAC.

The Board found the appellant in clear and egregious breach of the Rules, which prejudiced MPAC's ability to manage the case.

The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their single-family home in Oakville for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years, arguing the current value should be reduced from $2,072,000 to $1,700,000.

MPAC and the Town of Oakville argued the assessment was fair or should be higher.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed comparable sales and determined the correct current value was $2,123,000.

The Board also found no equitable reduction was warranted.

Because the determined current value exceeded the returned assessment and no party sought an increase, the Board confirmed the assessment at $2,072,000.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the property assessment appeals filed by the owner for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The owner failed to provide his Statement of Issues by the date specified by the Assessment Review Board and did not respond to MPAC's correspondence or the motion.

The Board found that the owner's breach of the Rules prejudiced MPAC by straining its resources and causing it to incur additional expenses.

The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed.

The appellants appealed the 2017 and 2018 property assessments of their waterfront home, which MPAC had assessed at $410,000 and $409,000 respectively.

MPAC recommended a reduction to $377,000 based on an equity analysis, but the Board found that MPAC failed to meet its statutory burden of proving the correctness of the current value under s. 40(17) of the Assessment Act, as the comparable sales provided were not truly comparable.

Consequently, the Board reduced the assessment to the last uncontested value of $289,000 for both taxation years.

The applicant applied to the City of Toronto for a reduction, cancellation, or refund of her 2017 property taxes, citing an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty under section 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

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

The Board found that the applicant's household had sufficient funds to meet its monthly obligations, including property taxes, and maintained a bank balance of over $6,000 at the end of 2017.

Consequently, the Board concluded the applicant failed to demonstrate an inability to pay and dismissed the application.

MPAC brought a motion to dismiss the property owner's assessment appeals for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years due to the owner's failure to serve a Statement of Issues.

The Assessment Review Board found that the owner breached the Rules of Practice and Procedure in a clear and unilateral way, causing prejudice to MPAC's case management.

The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to dismiss the property owner's assessment appeals for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 taxation years.

The owner failed to serve a Statement of Issues by the deadline set in the schedule of events and did not respond to MPAC's subsequent request.

The Assessment Review Board found the owner in clear and egregious breach of the Rules of Practice and Procedure, which prejudiced MPAC's ability to manage the case.

The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed.

The appellants appealed the MPAC assessment of their residential condominium unit for the 2016 taxation year, arguing the current value should be reduced from $678,000 to $636,145 based on factors such as floor height, customization, and parking.

MPAC relied on builder sales of comparable units in the same building to support its assessment.

The Assessment Review Board found that while the appellants' arguments regarding floor height and customization were plausible, their monetized values were arbitrary and unsupported by evidence.

The Board determined that the best comparable properties supported a value of at least $673,216 before accounting for an additional parking spot, which would increase the value beyond MPAC's assessment.

The Board therefore confirmed the assessed value of $678,000.

The applicant sought permission to file a late appeal of its 2018 property assessment, having missed the deadline stated in MPAC's response to its request for reconsideration.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC had mailed its response to the wrong address, engaging the secondary statutory deadline under subsection 40(5) of the Assessment Act.

Calculating from the date MPAC was required to respond, the Board determined the applicant's filing was actually submitted before the true deadline.

The application was therefore treated as a timely appeal.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of an industrial property for the 2014, 2015, and 2016 taxation years.

The appellant argued that the current value should be $425,000, based on the 2015 purchase price of the property, which allegedly accounted for potential environmental contamination.

The respondent assessed the property at $1,280,000 using a modified cost approach and supported it with a comparable property sale.

The Assessment Review Board found that the 2015 sale was not an arm's length, open-market transaction and that there was no persuasive evidence of actual contamination on the property.

The Board accepted the respondent's comparable sales evidence and confirmed the assessment at $1,280,000.

The moving party sought leave to file a late request for reconsideration and a late appeal of its 2017 property assessment.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction to extend the time for a request for reconsideration because the property was in the multi-residential class, for which such a request is not a statutory precondition.

The Board also refused to allow a late appeal under Rule 26(b) because the moving party did not file the appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of his residential property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC returned an assessment of $252,000 but submitted the correct current value was $237,000 based on the direct comparison approach.

The appellant argued for a value of $200,000, citing increased traffic patterns.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC met its burden of proving its suggested current value, but after analyzing the comparable sales, determined the correct current value was $219,000.

The Board found no equitable adjustment was warranted under section 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act.

The assessment was reduced to $219,000.

The moving party brought a motion to dismiss the respondent company's property assessment appeal because the company failed to serve a Statement of Issues by the required deadline.

The Assessment Review Board found that the company's breach of the Rules was clear, egregious, and unilateral.

Accepting that the moving party suffered prejudice in its case management due to the failure, the Board granted the motion and dismissed the appeal.

The moving party sought leave to file a late appeal of her 2016 property tax assessment, claiming she did not receive the reassessment notice because it was sent to the wrong address.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding that it had no jurisdiction to extend the time to file a request for reconsideration outside the taxation year.

Because a timely request for reconsideration is a statutory prerequisite for a residential property appeal under the Assessment Act, the Board could not accept the late appeal.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of a newly built residential home for the 2017 taxation year, arguing the current value should be $810,990 based on the builder sale price.

MPAC assessed the property at $919,000 using a mass appraisal model and supported this value with comparable builder sales.

The Assessment Review Board found that builder sales tend to be lower than market-driven sales and accepted MPAC's comparable sales analysis, which suggested a higher value but confirmed the assessed value of $919,000.

The appeal was dismissed, and the decision was deemed to apply to the 2018 taxation year.

The applicant applied for a reduction or cancellation of his 2017 property taxes under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, citing sickness or extreme poverty.

The applicant failed to attend the peremptory hearing.

The City presented evidence that the applicant owned multiple properties with significant equity and had already paid his 2017 taxes in full.

The Assessment Review Board proceeded in the applicant's absence and dismissed the application, finding no demonstrated inability to pay.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of their single-family dwelling for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years, originally assessed at $1,433,000.

MPAC recommended a reduced value of $1,306,000 following an inspection.

The Assessment Review Board found the best comparable sale indicated a current value of $1,077,000.

The Board further determined that no reduction was necessary for equitable assessment purposes, as similar properties in the vicinity were generally assessed above their current value.

The assessment was reduced to $1,077,000.

The appellant appealed the 2017 and 2018 property assessments for her single-family detached dwelling in Toronto.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC met its burden of proving its proposed current value, but rejected MPAC's time adjustment study.

The Board determined the current value to be $1,134,000 based on the mean of six comparable sales.

Applying the test for similar lands in the vicinity, the Board found that an equitable adjustment to 89% of the current value was warranted, reducing the 2017 assessment to $1,009,000.

The 2018 returned assessment of $999,000 was confirmed as MPAC did not seek an increase.

The applicant applied to the City of Mississauga for a reduction, cancellation, or refund of his 2017 property taxes under s. 357(1)(d1) of the Municipal Act, citing an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed the applicant's household income and expenses, noting that the family's monthly income exceeded their expenses and they had no mortgage or reported debt.

The Board found that the applicant failed to demonstrate an inability to pay the property taxes and dismissed the application.

The appellants appealed the property assessments of their 16.9-acre rural residential property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the appellants' approach of applying a percentage increase to the previous assessment, preferring MPAC's sales comparison approach.

The Board determined the current value to be $186,000 based on the time-adjusted sales of two comparable properties.

The Board found no evidence to support a reduction for equitable assessment.

The 2017 assessment was confirmed at $183,000 to avoid an unfair increase without notice, and the 2018 assessment was reduced from $221,000 to $186,000.