Assessment Review Board

The appellant appealed the 2017 property assessment of a single-family residence in Toronto.

While not disputing the current value, the appellant argued for an equitable reduction based on the assessment of similar properties in the vicinity.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value to be $1,773,720 based on a time-adjusted sale price.

The Board found that an equitable reduction was warranted under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, as the median assessment-to-sale ratio of similar properties in the vicinity was 0.813.

Applying this factor, the Board reduced the assessment to $1,441,000 for the 2017 and deemed 2018 taxation years.

The Appellants appealed the 2017 property assessment of their single-family detached home in Toronto, which MPAC had assessed at $1,160,000.

The Board determined the current value of the property as of January 1, 2016, to be $1,239,000 based on comparable sales.

However, applying an equity adjustment under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, the Board found that similar properties in the vicinity were assessed below their current values.

Consequently, the Board reduced the assessment to $1,038,000 for the 2017 and deemed 2018 taxation years.

The appellant appealed the 2016 property assessment of his rural residential property, which was assessed at $244,000.

The appellant argued the assessment was too high due to nuisance factors including a nearby quarry, road changes, a police firing range, and unsightly hydro lines.

The Assessment Review Board found that the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation met its burden of proof by providing comparable sales that supported the assessed value.

As the appellant provided no evidence to quantify the impact of the nuisance factors on the property's value, the Board confirmed the assessment at $244,000.

The appellant appealed the 2017 property assessment of his residential condominium unit, which MPAC assessed at $350,000.

The appellant argued the assessment was too high compared to his purchase price and other units in the building.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value to be $337,000 based on the median sale price per square foot of comparable units in the same building.

The Board declined to make an equitable reduction under s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, finding that the median Assessment to Sale Ratio of 1.01 fell within MPAC's acceptable standard.

The assessment was reduced to $337,000 for the 2017 and deemed 2018 taxation years.

The moving party sought an order permitting it to file an appeal of the 2017 assessment for four properties.

The moving party filed timely requests for reconsideration with MPAC but did not receive a response until after the statutory deadline for MPAC to mail its decision.

The Assessment Review Board found that because MPAC failed to mail the results within 180 days, the appeal period was triggered 90 days after the notice should have been mailed.

The appeal was therefore filed in time and the Board directed that the 2017 appeals, along with deemed 2018 appeals, be processed.

The appellant appealed the 2017 property assessment of her waterfront property, which MPAC assessed at $393,000.

The property had a Certificate of Prohibition registered on title due to its historical use as a waste disposal site, which the appellant argued severely impacted its marketability and value.

MPAC had historically applied a 20% negative adjustment for this issue.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable sales and determined the base current value to be $366,487.

Applying the historical 20% reduction, the Board reduced the assessment to $293,000.

The Board found no further equitable reduction was warranted as the median assessment-to-sale ratio for similar properties was within the acceptable range.

The moving party brought a motion to permit its appeal of a 2016 property assessment to proceed.

The moving party had filed a timely request for reconsideration but did not receive MPAC's rejection letter until months after the apparent appeal deadline had passed.

The Assessment Review Board held that under subsection 40(5.1) of the Assessment Act, the appeal period does not begin to run until MPAC's response is effectively communicated to the taxpayer.

Since the moving party filed its appeal immediately upon receiving the emailed response, the appeal was timely and permitted to proceed.

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

The main issues were the correct current value of the property as of January 1, 2016, and whether an equity adjustment was required.

The Board found that the total building area was 1,368 square feet, rejecting MPAC's revised measurement of 1,536 square feet.

Based on comparable sales, the Board determined the current value to be $979,000, reducing the assessment from $993,000.

The Board found no equity adjustment was required as the assessment to sale ratio of comparable properties fell within the acceptable standard.

The appellants appealed the 2015 and 2016 property assessments of their residential property in Toronto.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) originally assessed the property at $735,000 but revised its recommendation to $640,000 at the hearing, acknowledging the property's need for renovations.

The appellants argued for a value of $595,000 but failed to provide sufficient or corroborated evidence to support their valuation.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's comparable sales analysis as the best evidence and reduced the Current Value Assessment to $640,000.

The moving party brought a motion seeking permission to file a late appeal of their 2017 property assessment, believing they had missed the deadline after failing to receive MPAC's response to their request for reconsideration.

The Assessment Review Board determined that because MPAC likely did not mail the decision letter, the statutory timeline was extended.

The moving party's application was filed two weeks before this extended deadline and was therefore timely.

As the 2017 appeal was not disposed of before March 31, 2018, a deemed appeal for the 2018 taxation year was also created.

MPAC brought a motion to dismiss the property owners' 2017 and 2018 assessment appeals on the basis that the owners failed to comply with a Board order requiring an inspection of the property.

The Board found that both MPAC and the owners shared fault for the non-compliance, as MPAC delayed in contacting the owners to schedule the inspection and the owners delayed in responding.

Given the mutual fault, the Board held that dismissal was an inappropriate remedy and instead ordered the parties to schedule an inspection by a peremptory date, noting that costs would be the preferred remedy for future non-compliance.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their residential property in Toronto for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

MPAC assessed the property at $2,802,000.

The appellants argued for a lower value based on sales of comparable properties and an equity adjustment.

The Assessment Review Board analyzed the sales comparables and determined the current value to be $2,905,258.

The Board also found that the evidence did not support an equity adjustment.

The assessment was confirmed at $2,802,000.

The appellants appealed the 2017 property assessment of their residential property in Brampton, which was assessed at $980,000.

They argued the value should be discounted due to a creek, conservation land, and other restrictions.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value to be $971,000 based on comparable sales and a 20% adjustment for the creek.

The Board found no equitable reduction was required as the assessment to sale ratio of similar properties was within an acceptable range.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the assessment was reduced to $971,000 for the 2017 and deemed 2018 taxation years.

The appellants appealed the 2017 property assessment of their residential property in Aurora, which MPAC returned at $2,104,000.

The appellants argued the assessment was too high compared to similar properties in their subdivision.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value of the property to be $2,286,000 based on the most comparable sale.

However, applying an equity analysis, the Board found that similar properties in the vicinity were assessed substantially below their current values.

The Board applied an assessment-to-sale ratio of 0.806, resulting in an equitable reduction of the assessment to $1,843,000 for the 2017 and deemed 2018 taxation years.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a seasonal waterfront property on Lake Muskoka for the 2017 and deemed 2018 taxation years.

The appellant argued that the assessment methodology lacked transparency and that the assessment increase was disproportionate compared to a neighbouring property.

The Assessment Review Board found that the current value of $1,093,000 was supported by sales of comparable waterfront properties in the vicinity.

The Board also found no inequity in the assessment and confirmed the assessment as returned.

The moving party sought permission to file late property assessment appeals for the 2012 to 2016 taxation years, claiming he did not receive assessment notices because they were mailed to an old address.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party received effective notice of the assessments through his annual municipal tax notices.

Furthermore, the moving party failed to provide evidence that he filed the application within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessments, as required by Rule 26(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their home for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years, arguing the assessed value was too high.

MPAC had increased the assessment based on self-reported renovations, adjusting the property's 'effective age'.

The Assessment Review Board found that comparable properties in the neighbourhood likely had similar updates and that the sales of those comparable properties indicated a lower current value.

The Board reduced the assessment for both taxation years to $445,000.

The appellants appealed the 2015 and 2016 property tax assessments for a motel property, arguing the Current Value Assessment (CVA) of $446,000 should be reduced to $421,000.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appellants provided insufficient evidence to support a reduction.

The Board accepted MPAC's valuation, which relied on the Income Approach and was cross-checked with the Direct Sales Comparison method.

The appeal was dismissed and the CVA of $446,000 was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the returned assessment of $146,000 for their property for the 2016 taxation year, arguing the current value should be $100,000 and that the structures should be classified as farm land.

MPAC presented evidence supporting a current value of $142,000 based on comparable sales and a change in the condition of the structures from average to poor.

The Assessment Review Board accepted MPAC's recommended value of $142,000, finding the appellant failed to provide sales evidence to support a lower value or quantifiable evidence that the structures were used solely for farm purposes.

The assessment was reduced accordingly.

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

MPAC assessed the current value at $474,000 for 2017 and $454,000 for 2018, but took the position at the hearing that the value should be $454,000 for both years.

The appellants argued for a value of $400,000 based on general market trends and unquantified factors like winterization and privacy.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC provided the best sales evidence and confirmed the current value of $454,000 for both taxation years.