Assessment Review Board

The appellants appealed the current value assessment of a commercial property in Burlington for the 2013 to 2016 taxation years.

The parties agreed to use the income approach to value but disputed the fair market rents for three units and the appropriate vacancy allowance.

The Assessment Review Board determined the fair market rents based on the actual leases in place, finding that the respondent's comparable properties were too distant and failed to account for the subject property's poor exposure and access.

The Board applied a standard 3% vacancy allowance, concluding that the property's specific challenges were already reflected in the reduced rents.

The assessment was reduced from $14,960,000 to $12,599,000.

The City of Toronto appealed the classification of a property from multi-residential to commercial parking lot for the 2007 and 2008 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board found that a change event occurred after June 30, 2006, when the property's use changed from vacant land to a commercial parking lot.

The Board determined it had jurisdiction to change the classification because MPAC had the legislative authority to do so but failed to issue a supplementary classification.

The appeal was allowed and the classification was changed.

The requester sought to reinstate three property assessment appeals that were dismissed after its representative failed to file a Statement of Issues due to an administrative oversight.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation consented to the reinstatement.

The Assessment Review Board granted the request for review and reinstated the appeals, finding no fault on the part of the assessed person and no prejudice to any party.

The requester sought to reinstate several property assessment appeals that were withdrawn due to an administrative error by the Board.

The Board had mistakenly processed a withdrawal request for all appeals filed by the requester's representative, rather than just those of another client.

Finding that the withdrawal was a clerical error and that refusing reinstatement would cause significant prejudice without prejudicing the respondents, the Board granted the request for review, reinstated the appeals, and deemed a section 40 appeal for the 2014 taxation year.

The appellant appealed the 2015 and 2016 property assessments for a residential property, arguing the assessment was too high compared to similar properties with better finishes.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value of the property was $263,000 based on comparable sales.

However, applying an 8% equity adjustment to align with the assessment-to-sales ratio of similar properties in the vicinity, the Board reduced the assessment to $242,000 for both taxation years.

The appellants appealed the current value assessment (CVA) and the industrial classification of their property for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

The property was used for a digital printing, graphic design, and mailing business.

The Assessment Review Board confirmed the CVA at $690,000, finding MPAC's comparable sales evidence more reliable.

However, the Board allowed the appeal regarding classification, finding that the custom digital printing services did not constitute 'manufacturing, producing or processing anything' under O. Reg. 282/98.

The property's classification was changed from industrial to commercial.

The requesters sought a review of a previous Assessment Review Board decision that denied a vacancy rebate for their self-storage property for the 2012 taxation year.

While the review was pending, the Divisional Court issued a binding decision in a similar case, clarifying that storage units are eligible for vacancy rebates if they are not rented to a customer.

Applying the Divisional Court's interpretation, the Associate Chair granted the request for review, cancelled the previous decision, and found the subject property eligible for a vacancy rebate, directing the parties to determine the quantum.

The Assessment Review Board issued a final decision confirming its interim decision regarding the assessment of a property owned by the appellant.

The Board confirmed the property is in the residential property class, determined the lot size to be 18,999.20 square feet, and set the total assessment value at $34,750 for the 2013 to 2016 taxation years.

Neither party provided further evidence of similar properties as requested in the interim decision.

The moving party brought a motion in writing seeking an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because its representative planned to attend a conference.

The other parties consented to the adjournment.

The Assessment Review Board denied the motion, finding that accommodating a representative's personal schedule at a late stage did not justify an adjournment, and that granting it would undermine the Board's mandate to resolve appeals efficiently.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of his residential condominium unit for the 2016 taxation year, seeking a reduction from the returned value of $324,000 to between $300,000 and $305,000 based on the purchase price and comparable sales.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed the comparable sales provided by both the appellant and the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation.

The Board found the appellant's comparable sales were either significantly smaller or sold too far from the valuation date, and concluded the returned assessment of $324,000 was correct and equitable.

The appeal was dismissed and the assessment confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 2016 supplementary assessment of his residential property, arguing it was incorrectly classified as Quality Class 7 instead of Quality Class 6 following renovations.

The Assessment Review Board accepted the evidence of the MPAC property valuation specialist that the extensive interior upgrades supported a Quality Class 7 classification.

Relying on a comparable sale, the Board reduced the supplementary assessment to $253,000 and the total assessment to $831,000, as recommended by MPAC.

The applicants sought a cancellation, reduction, or refund of their property taxes for the 2014 and 2015 taxation years under section 323(1)(h) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, due to home renovations that prevented normal use of the property.

The applications were filed after the statutory deadlines of February 28, 2015, and February 29, 2016.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the appeals, finding that it has no inherent or equitable jurisdiction to modify or extend the mandatory statutory filing deadlines.

The Union filed a motion in writing seeking an adjournment of the hearing because its representative would be on vacation.

The City consented to the adjournment.

The Board denied the motion, finding that the Union had known about the hearing for 50 days before filing the motion and that accommodating a pre-planned vacation at a late stage did not justify an adjournment, especially given the Board's statutory duty to hear appeals efficiently.

The requester sought to reinstate a 2014 property assessment appeal that was withdrawn due to a mutual misapprehension between the parties.

The requester had settled with MPAC for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years but was unaware the 2014 assessment had also increased.

MPAC consented to the reinstatement and provided executed Minutes of Settlement for 2014.

The Assessment Review Board granted the request, finding the withdrawal was a bona fide error and refusing reinstatement would cause significant prejudice.

The appeal was reinstated and processed in accordance with the settlement.

The appellants appealed the 2016 property assessment of a commercial building in downtown Toronto, seeking a reduction from $1,462,000 to $1,234,000.

The appellants argued that the sales comparison approach used by the respondent was inappropriate due to the high crime rate and negative character of the subject property's immediate neighbourhood, proposing an income capitalization approach instead.

The Assessment Review Board found that while the location likely had a negative impact on value, the appellants failed to provide sufficient evidence to quantify that impact or to support their proposed capitalization rate and market rents.

The Board confirmed the assessment as returned and found no adjustment was necessary for equity.

The appellants appealed the City of Markham's rejection of their applications for a commercial vacancy rebate for the 2014 and 2015 taxation years.

The City rejected the applications because the appellants failed to provide requested documentation within the specified timeframes.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appellants failed to comply with the requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001, as they could not prove they submitted the requested information.

The Board confirmed the City's decision to reject the applications.

The appellants appealed the 2016 property assessment of their single-story residential home, which had its attached garage renovated to accommodate a travel agency business.

The appellants did not dispute the total assessed value of $389,000 but objected to the apportionment of the assessment between residential and commercial tax classes.

The Assessment Review Board found that the undisputed operation of a business in the renovated garage supported the apportionment.

The Board confirmed the assessment and its apportionment.

The applicant appealed to the Assessment Review Board seeking cancellation of her 2015 property taxes due to sickness and extreme poverty under section 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

The applicant is a single mother who provides 24-hour care for her adult son with severe autism, preventing her from seeking employment.

The Board found that the applicant met the criteria for both sickness (due to the stress and demands of caring for her disabled son) and extreme poverty, noting her limited income, lack of assets other than her primary residence, and the undue hardship that would result from forcing her to sell her home.

The Board granted the application and cancelled the property taxes in the amount of $6,785.12 for the 2015 taxation year.

The Applicant applied for a cancellation, reduction, or refund of her 2014 property taxes under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, citing sickness and extreme poverty following the death of her husband.

The Assessment Review Board found that while the Applicant suffered from depression, she did not meet the threshold for extreme poverty.

Evidence showed she had access to significant funds, including a $50,000 loan and a $40,401 life insurance payout, and her credit card statements indicated she did not live within her means.

The application was dismissed.

MPAC requested a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that deemed section 40 appeals for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years and found a valid appeal was filed for 2014.

The Associate Chair granted the request for review, finding that appeals cannot be deemed for the first year of a reassessment cycle and that the appellant failed to provide evidence of filing the mandatory Request for Reconsideration for 2014.

The section 40 appeals for 2013 and 2014 were dismissed.