Assessment Review Board

The requester, Delta Hotels & Resorts, sought to reinstate four property assessment appeals that were dismissed for non-attendance at a teleconference hearing.

The requester's representatives did not receive notice of the hearing because the notice was sent to an incorrect address.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and the municipality consented to the reinstatement, and minutes of settlement had already been signed.

The Assessment Review Board granted the request for review and reinstated the appeals, finding that the dismissal was through no fault of the requester and that there was no prejudice to any party.

The complainant appealed the City of Brampton's rejection of its application for a vacant unit rebate for a portion of an industrial/commercial building.

The Board found that the subject area was vacant for at least 90 days in the 2015 taxation year and that the complainant's rent ledger was sufficient evidence of lease termination.

However, because the parties could not establish whether the subject area was classified as commercial or industrial—which dictates different evidentiary requirements under O. Reg. 325/01—the Board issued an interim decision directing the parties to provide written submissions on the property's classification.

The appellants appealed the supplementary assessment and current value assessment of their newly constructed single-family dwelling in Brampton.

MPAC had returned a total current value assessment of $873,000.

The Board reviewed comparable sales data provided by both parties and accepted MPAC's recommended current value of $815,000.

The Board further applied an assessment to sale ratio of 0.925 to ensure equitable assessment with similar properties in the vicinity, reducing the final assessment to $754,000.

The appellant developer sought a refund of property taxes under s. 357(1)(c) of the Municipal Act, 2001, arguing that 4.69 acres of land dedicated to the City as roads and reserves upon registration of a plan of subdivision became exempt from taxation.

The appellant requested a pro rata refund based on the pre-registration assessed value of the entire parcel.

The Assessment Review Board denied the appeal, finding that MPAC had apportioned no value to the roads and reserves, and that the Board had no authority to assign a notional value based on a proportionate share of the pre-registration value.

The Board concluded that no refund of taxes was warranted.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a purpose-built automotive industrial facility for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

The Board determined the land value using the appellant's lower rate per acre, recognizing the property was landlocked with poor access.

The Board also accepted the appellant's measurement of excess land, finding no evidence that the disputed portions were being used.

However, the Board accepted the respondent's valuation of the structures and yardwork, rejecting the appellant's argument that deferred maintenance should further reduce the depreciated value, as this would allow the owner to benefit from their own neglect.

The total assessment was reduced from $21,986,000 to $18,451,387.

The appellant developer applied for a property tax refund under s. 357(1)(c) of the Municipal Act, 2001, arguing that 4.69 acres of land dedicated to the City as roads and reserves upon registration of a Plan of Subdivision became exempt from taxation.

The City made no decision, and the developer appealed to the Assessment Review Board.

The Board dismissed the appeal, finding that the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) had apportioned the entire assessed value of the pre-registration parcel to the newly created building lots and assigned no value to the roads and reserves.

Consequently, the dedicated lands did not become exempt from taxation with an assigned value that would warrant a tax refund.

The moving party, Golden Triangle Partnership Holdings Ltd., brought a motion before the Assessment Review Board to obtain disclosure from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) of financial information regarding a property in Cambridge.

Section 53 of the Assessment Act bars MPAC from providing this information absent a Board order.

The parties provided a draft order approved by MPAC and the City of Cambridge.

The Board granted the motion and issued the requested order for production of financial information.

The appellant appealed the property assessments for a partially completed single-family log house for the 2013 to 2016 taxation years.

The appellant argued that the percentage of completion used by MPAC was incorrect and that the current value should be lowered based on a previous Board decision and sales comparables.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed the sales comparables and determined the current value of the property, applying a lump sum adjustment for the incomplete construction consistent with the prior Board decision.

The Board found the resulting current value of $184,000 to be correct and equitable, confirming the returned assessments for all years under appeal.

The appellant appealed the 2016 property assessment of a large industrial facility in Pickering.

The returned assessment was $5,593,000.

Both parties agreed the assessment should be reduced but disagreed on the current value and whether an equity adjustment was required.

The Assessment Review Board preferred the appellant's sales comparison approach, setting the current value at $4,391,000 based on the sale of a highly comparable property.

The Board rejected the appellant's request for a further equity reduction, finding the established current value was equitable with similar properties in the vicinity.

The assessment was reduced to $4,391,000.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of his residential townhouse condominium located at the Devil's Glen Country Club for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

The appellant argued the assessment of $369,000 was excessive compared to similar properties.

The Assessment Review Board found that based on sales of comparable properties in the same development, the current value was $375,000.

As the established current value was higher than the assessed value and no party requested an increase, the Board confirmed the assessment at $369,000 and dismissed the appeal.

MPAC requested a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that reduced the assessed value of a property based on equity considerations.

MPAC argued the Board erred in law by excluding comparable properties from its equity analysis solely because they were located outside the municipality's boundaries.

The Associate Chair granted the request for review, finding that the Divisional Court has established that 'vicinity' in section 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act is not strictly limited to municipal boundaries.

The Board's equity adjustment was reversed, and the assessed value was set at $806,387 without an equity reduction.

The applicant requested a review to reinstate three property assessment appeals that were dismissed for non-attendance.

The applicant filed an affidavit demonstrating that he did not receive notice of the hearing.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation consented to the reinstatement, noting that a settlement had been reached.

The Assessment Review Board granted the request, finding the dismissal was through no fault of the applicant and there was no prejudice to any party.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) requested a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that reduced the current value of the subject property based on an equity analysis.

MPAC argued the Board erred by rejecting its equity analysis and ignoring earlier decisions regarding nearby properties.

The Associate Chair denied the request for review, finding that the presiding Member's treatment of evidence and determination of equity were within their jurisdiction and did not constitute an error of law or a breach of procedural fairness.

The appellants appealed the 2016 current value assessment of their residential property, which was assessed at $124,000.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed comparable sales data and time adjustment factors, determining that the best evidence of current value was the median per square foot value of four comparable properties.

The Board reduced the assessment to $102,000 but found no evidence to support a further equity reduction under section 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act.

The appellant appealed the tax classification of its property for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years, arguing it should be classified as Commercial (CT) rather than Industrial (IT).

The appellant also sought a refund for the 2014 taxation year under the Municipal Act, claiming the IT classification was a gross or manifest factual error.

The Assessment Review Board found that the property was not completely unused after the previous industrial tenant vacated, meaning the previous IT classification did not continue under Ontario Regulation 282/98.

The Board granted the appeals for 2015 and 2016, changing the classification to CT.

However, the Board dismissed the 2014 refund application, finding that the classification was a matter of judgment and not a clerical or factual error.

The appellants appealed the property assessment of their newly built single-family home, which was assessed at $1,381,000 for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

The appellants argued the value was significantly diminished due to a large, licensed medical marijuana grow operation located immediately next door, which produced unbearable odors and nuisance.

The Assessment Review Board agreed that the neighboring grow operation was a unique circumstance that negatively impacted the subject property's market value.

The Board reduced the current value assessment to $1,024,000, reflecting a midpoint between comparable sales and the assessed value of the neighboring grow house property.

The Board found no further equity reduction was required.

The Requestor sought to reinstate several property assessment appeals that were dismissed due to non-attendance at a teleconference.

The Assessment Review Board found that the non-attendance was due to highly exceptional circumstances, specifically the representative's preoccupation with his mother's care during her terminal illness.

The Board granted the request for review and reinstated the appeals, noting that dismissal would be disproportional and unfair to the taxpayer.

The appellant appealed the property assessments for a Small Box Shopping Centre for the 2013-2016 taxation years.

The Board determined the current value using the time-adjusted 2009 sale price of the property rather than the income approach agreed upon by the parties during summations.

The Board also applied an equity adjustment, rejecting MPAC's use of Fair Market Rents as a proxy for equity, and instead applying an Assessment to Sale Ratio of 0.84 derived from a study of 30 commercial properties in the vicinity.

The assessments were reduced accordingly.

The applicant requested a review to reinstate two property assessment appeals that were withdrawn without his knowledge or consent by a representative of the Altus Group.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) did not object to the reinstatement and the parties had already agreed on a settlement pending the reinstatement.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appeals were dismissed through no fault of the applicant, all parties consented, and there was no prejudice.

The request for review was granted and the appeals were reinstated.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of her single-family detached home for the 2013-2016 taxation years, originally assessed at $3,550,000.

The appellant argued for a reduction to $3,080,000 based on comparable properties and previous Board decisions, while MPAC defended the assessment based on its own comparables and a 5% positive adjustment for abutting green space.

The Assessment Review Board rejected both parties' comparable sales as insufficiently similar.

However, the Board agreed with the appellant that the 5% positive adjustment for the abutting green space was unreasonable due to nuisances such as a leash-free dog park, a public walkway, and a water culvert causing flooding.

The Board removed the 5% adjustment, reducing the current value assessment to $3,372,000.