Assessment Review Board

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their farm property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

At the hearing, the appellants agreed that the returned value of $346,000 was within their acceptable range of current value.

As the appellants consented to the respondent's opinion of value and took no position on the classification, the Assessment Review Board confirmed the returned assessment on consent.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their farm property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years, arguing the current value should be $300,000 rather than the assessed $360,000.

MPAC defended the assessment using the cost and direct comparison approaches.

The Assessment Review Board found MPAC's direct comparison approach using two comparable properties to be the best evidence, yielding a value of $371,000.

Since MPAC did not seek a higher assessment, the Board confirmed the returned assessment of $360,000 and dismissed the appeal.

The complainant appealed the Town of Milton's denial of vacancy rebate applications for a commercial property for the 2014 and 2015 tax years.

In a prior decision, the Assessment Review Board found that the property, which contained dental equipment affixed to the building, was vacant and capable of being leased for immediate occupation.

In this final decision, the Board ordered the Town to pay the uncontested vacancy rebate amounts of $5,055.49 for 2014 and $2,949.41 for 2015.

The appellants appealed the 2018 property assessment of their single-family detached home in Brampton, arguing the current value should be reduced to $520,000.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) returned an assessment of $578,000, while the City of Brampton sought an increase to $643,000.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed comparable sales data and time adjustment factors, finding that the returned assessment of $578,000 accurately reflected the property's current value, particularly when accounting for the lack of a finished basement apartment compared to the comparable properties.

The Board also found no evidence to warrant an equitable reduction under section 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act.

The assessment was confirmed at $578,000.

The moving party sought an extension of time to file a late appeal of an omitted property assessment issued in 2017.

The moving party had previously been denied an extension of time to file a request for reconsideration.

The Assessment Review Board found that because the moving party had received the notice of omitted assessment, he did not meet the essential requirements of Rule 26(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The application to file a late appeal was denied.

The appellant appealed the MPAC property assessment for the 2015 taxation year.

The subject property had previously been used as a marijuana grow operation and was deemed substantially un-useable, leading MPAC to reduce the returned assessment to $177,000.

The Board analyzed the sales of comparable properties and the 2014 sale of the subject property itself.

The Board found the current value of the property in its repaired condition to be $209,000, and reduced the corrected assessment to $133,000 after subtracting the agreed supplementary assessment.

The moving parties requested a review of a previous Assessment Review Board decision that classified their property in the multi-residential property class for the 2011 to 2016 taxation years.

They argued that no appeal had been filed for the 2013 taxation year, and therefore the Board had no jurisdiction to decide the classification for 2013 to 2016.

The Board found that the City of Oshawa did not file an appeal for the 2013 taxation year, and the deeming provisions of the Assessment Act did not apply because 2012 and 2013 had different valuation days.

The Board rejected the City's arguments based on equity and palpable error, concluding it had no jurisdiction to cure a failure to appeal.

The previous decision was varied to remove the appeals for the 2013 to 2016 taxation years that were not properly filed.

The appellant appealed the property assessment for a seasonal recreational property on Aylen Lake.

MPAC had assessed the vacant land at $192,000 and issued a supplementary assessment of $476,000 for a newly built structure, totaling $668,000.

The appellant argued for a total assessment of $525,000 to $560,000 based on independent appraisals.

The Assessment Review Board preferred the cost approach from one of the appellant's appraisals, determining the land value at $260,000 and the building value at $338,000.

Since MPAC did not request an increase for the land, the Board confirmed the land assessment at $192,000 and reduced the supplementary building assessment to $406,000.

The appellants appealed the 2017 and 2018 property tax assessments of their 157-acre farm property, arguing the assessed value of $321,000 was too high due to poor soil quality and limited workable land.

MPAC defended the assessment using a cost approach and direct sales comparison, suggesting the value should actually be $446,568 but acknowledging an erroneous discount had been applied.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed comparable sales and determined the correct current value was $374,000.

However, because MPAC had not formally applied to increase the assessment, the Board confirmed the original assessed value of $321,000.

The moving parties appealed the assessment of a shopping development and failed to serve a Statement of Issues by the deadline in the Schedule of Events.

They brought a motion to extend the time to serve their Statement of Issues, citing ongoing discussions with MPAC and the pending issuance of supplementary assessments as reasons for the delay.

MPAC consented to the extension.

The Assessment Review Board found that the confluence of substantial property changes, pending supplementary assessments, and communication errors constituted exceptional circumstances under Rule 82.

Finding no prejudice to any party, the Board granted the extension and set a new commencement date.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their seasonal recreational waterfront property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $880,000, while the appellants argued for a value of $770,000 to $780,000.

The Board found that MPAC had improperly increased the quality class of the property from 7.0 to 7.5 without justification, contrary to a prior agreement.

The Board also accepted the appellants' evidence regarding negative adjustments for shallow water, weeds, lack of legal access, and a detached garage.

The Board reduced the assessment to $845,000 and found no further adjustment for equity was warranted.

The appellants appealed the property tax assessments of their residential property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The property included a 1/70th interest in common lands.

The appellants argued the assessment was too high and improperly included the value of the common lands.

The Assessment Review Board found that the value of the common lands was properly deemed to be zero under the regulations, but that the overall current value of the property should be reduced based on comparable sales.

The Board confirmed the 2017 assessment at $344,000 and reduced the 2018 assessment from $404,000 to $377,000.

The appellants appealed the property tax assessment of their seasonal waterfront property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $480,000 for 2017 and $502,000 for 2018.

The appellants argued for a value between $420,000 and $450,000, citing negative adjustments for abutting commercial property and adverse conditions like flooding.

The Assessment Review Board found the correct current value to be $486,000 based on the direct comparison approach using two comparable sales from 2015.

The Board confirmed the 2017 assessment at $480,000 (as MPAC did not seek an increase) and reduced the 2018 assessment to $486,000.

The Board also found that an equitable reduction under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act was not required.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their single-family dwelling, which was assessed at $332,000 for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

They argued the assessment should reflect their June 2014 purchase price of $260,000.

The Assessment Review Board found the estate sale was a valid indicator of current value and applied a time adjustment factor to determine a current value of $315,000.

The Board further reduced this value to $301,000 after finding that similar properties in the vicinity were assessed below their current values, applying a mean assessment-to-sale ratio of 0.955 to achieve equitable assessment.

The Applicant applied for a refund of his 2017 property taxes under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, claiming extreme poverty.

The Applicant operated a small computer business and lived on the subject property with his family.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed the Applicant's income, expenses, and assets, noting that he managed his finances using credit cards and had even engaged in stock trading during the year.

The Board found that the Applicant had the ability to pay his property taxes in full and was not in a situation of extreme poverty.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant applied to the municipality for a reduction, cancellation, or refund of her 2016 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, acting under delegated authority, reviewed the applicant's financial situation, including her income, expenses, and lack of discretionary spending.

The Board found that the applicant was unable to pay her property taxes in full due to extreme poverty.

The Board granted the application and reduced the 2016 property taxes by $2,501.

The Appellants appealed the property assessment of their home for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

MPAC proposed a current value of $310,000 based on the direct comparison approach, while the Appellants argued for a value of $212,000.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC failed to discharge its statutory burden under s. 40(17) of the Assessment Act to prove the correctness of its proposed value, as its comparable sales did not logically support the proposed amount.

The Board also found the Appellants' evidence insufficient to establish a specific current value.

Following established framework, the Board reduced the assessment to the last uncontested value of $169,000.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their home, which MPAC had assessed at $263,000 for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC failed to meet its statutory burden under s. 40(17) of the Assessment Act to prove the correctness of the current value, as it could not explain how it arrived at its proposed value using the direct comparison approach.

The Board also found the appellants' evidence insufficient to establish a new current value.

Following established framework, the Board reduced the assessment to the last uncontested value of $137,000.

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

The Assessment Review Board found that the applicant demonstrated extreme poverty, with monthly expenses significantly exceeding her income.

However, because the applicant contributed $1,593.25 to an RRSP during the taxation year, the Board determined those funds were available to pay taxes.

The Board ordered a partial refund of $702.67, representing the total taxes levied minus the RRSP contribution.

The appellants appealed the property tax assessment of their single-family detached bungalow in Oakville for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the current value at $1,413,000, while the appellants argued for a value of $1,271,000.

The Board reviewed comparable sales and determined the current value to be $1,450,000, factoring in a $50,000 reduction for required repairs.

The Board also found that an equitable reduction under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act was not warranted, as the assessment to sales ratio of similar properties was within the acceptable range.

Because MPAC did not seek an increase, the Board confirmed the assessment at $1,413,000.