Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: May 23, 2014

FILE NO.: WR 124112A

AMENDED DECISION ISSUED ON: July 14, 2015

Assessed Person(s): Krista Franklin

Appellant(s): Krista Franklin

Respondent(s): MPAC, Region 09

Respondent(s): City of Toronto

Property Location(s): 82 Lynwood Avenue

Municipality(ies): City of Toronto

Roll Number(s): 1904-054-340-03200-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3030679 and 3036126 (deemed 2014)

Taxation Year(s): 2013 (and deemed 2014)

Hearing Event No. 553580

Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended

APPEARANCES:

Parties Counsel⁺/Representative

K. Franklin J. Fraleigh

MPAC J. Twist

City of Toronto No one appeared

HEARING EVENT INFORMATION:

Hearing: Held in the City of Toronto on March 4, 2014

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY TYRONE D. SKANES

Amended pursuant to Rule 130 of the Assessment Review Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, effective April 2, 2013

PRELIMINARY MATTER

1Prior to the start of the hearing, James Twist, representing the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”), advised the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) that the tax year of 2012 being appealed in this matter was in error. The actual appeal year should be 2013 but the appellant mistakenly filled in the wrong year on the application, when e-filing.

2Mr. Twist advised that the assessment for the subject property, for the 2013 taxation year, was returned at $2,548,000.

3Mr. Twist presented a motion to the Board to amend the tax appeal year from 2012 to 2013 with the revised assessment so the matter would not have to be adjourned.

4John Fraleigh, the appellant's representative advised that he joined with Mr. Twist in his motion request. He was ready to proceed and did not want the matter adjourned.

5The Board recognized that all parties were present and ready to proceed and it would not be in anyone’s interest to adjourn the matter because of a clerical error. The Board granted the parties joint motion to amend the tax appeal year from 2012 to 2013 with the assessment returned at $2,548,000.

ISSUE

6The subject property, 82 Lynwood Avenue, is a single family two and one half stories detached house that has an effective lot size of 8,250 square feet (“sq. ft.”) with an effective frontage of 55 feet (“ft.”) and an effective depth of 150 ft. The house has an effective build year of 2005 but had a major renovation completed in 2009 with a 1,561 sq. ft. addition to the structure. The house has a total building area of 5,363 sq. ft. with 2,209 sq. ft. on the first floor, 2,386 sq. ft. on the second floor and 768 sq. ft. on the upper floor. There is a 1,686 sq. ft. basement of which 1,433 sq. ft. is finished. There is a detached garage. The quality class is 8.0. The subject property has not been inspected for this matter and has negative adjustments totalling 22% for abutting a multi residential building and proximity to a school and a commercial enterprise.

7The Appellant agreed that the description of the subject property was essentially correct.

8Mr. Twist, appearing on behalf of MPAC testified that the assessment was returned at $2,548,000. The assessor said that he believed that this assessment was reasonable and recommended that it be confirmed for the 2013 taxation year, in the residential tax class.

9Mr. Fraleigh, representing the Appellant testified that he believed the assessment was too high and was asking the Board to reduce it $1,900,000.

10The issue before the Board for determination is whether the assessment of the subject property for the 2013 taxation year is at current value and whether it is equitable with the assessment of similar lands in the vicinity.

DECISION

11The Board finds that the current value of the subject property is $2,548,000.

12The Board has made reference to similar lands in the vicinity and finds that no reduction is required for equity under s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act.

13Accordingly, as at the valuation day, January 1, 2012, the assessment of the subject property for the 2013 taxation year and the deemed 2014 taxation year is confirmed at $2,548,000.

Amended pursuant to Rule 130 of the Assessment Review Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, effective April 2, 2013

REASONS FOR DECISION

Relevant Legislation

14For the 2013 taxation year, in determining the value at which land shall be assessed, the Board must have regard to the following provisions of the Act:

15Section 19.(1) of the Act states:

19.(1) Assessment based on current value. – The assessment of land shall be based on its current value.

“current value” means, in relation to land, the amount of money the fee simple, if unencumbered, would realize if sold at arm’s length by a willing seller to a willing buyer.

16Section 19.2(1) 3 of the Act states:

19.2(1) Valuation days. – Subject to subsection (5)¹, the day as of which land is valued for a taxation year is determined as follows:

2. For the period consisting of the four taxation years from 2009 to 2012, land is valued as of January 1, 2008.

3. For each subsequent period consisting of four consecutive taxation years, land is valued as of January 1 of the year preceding the first of those four taxation years.

17Section 44.(3) of the Act states:

44.(3) Same, 2009 and subsequent years. – For 2009 and subsequent taxation years, in determining the value at which any land shall be assessed, the Board shall,

(a) determine the current value of the land; and

(b) have reference to the value at which similar lands in the vicinity are assessed and adjust the assessment of the land to make it equitable with that of similar lands in the vicinity if such an adjustment would result in a reduction of the assessment of the land.

18Section 40.(17) of the Act states:

40.(17) Burden of proof. – For 2009 and subsequent taxation years, where value is a ground of appeal, the burden of proof as to the correctness of the current value of the land rests with the assessment corporation.

19Section 40.(19) of the Act states:

40.(19) Board to make determination. – After hearing the evidence and the submissions of the parties, the Board shall determine the matter.

MPAC's Position

Current Value

20The best test of current value is an arm’s length and market tested sale of the subject property on the valuation day, January 1, 2012 or close to it. If there has been no recent sale of the subject property, as in this case, the next best measure of current value is arms' length and market tested sales of comparable properties in the same vicinity and market on or close to the valuation day. This measure acts as a benchmark and a gauge of the accuracy for the assessed value of the subject and comparable properties.

21To enable an estimate of value for the subject property to be derived from a comparable property there must be sufficient elements of similarity, in terms of physical factors such as total building area, land area, land frontage, age of construction, physical condition, etc.; and in terms of neighborhood characteristics such as access to amenities, type and nature of housing etc., so as to enable a direct comparison to be made between the comparable property and the subject property.

22Mr. Twist testified that the direct sales comparison approach to value had been used in determining current value. He entered a Valuation Report into evidence as Exhibit 1.

23The assessor said that the sales of four properties in proximity to the subject property had been used. These properties sold between September 2010 and December 2012. Sales A, B and C occurred within one year either side of the valuation date, which the Board considers appropriate for comparison. Sale D occurred 15 months prior to the January 1, 2012 valuation date.

24All of the properties are located within the homogenous neighbourhood of D69, the South Hill district of Toronto.

25The assessor entered a map of the area into evidence as Exhibit 2.

26The assessor said the comparable properties are very similar to the subject property. All of the comparable properties are the same structure type as the subject property at two and one half stories.

27The lot sizes vary and range from Sale A being 550 sq. ft. larger to Sale C being 1,226 sq. ft. smaller than the subject property. The building area of the comparable properties is similar to the subject property and range from Sale A being 626 sq. ft. larger to Sale B being 1,106 sq. ft. smaller. All of the comparable properties have detached garages and all have some portion of the basement finished with the exception of Sale B, which does not have a finished basement.

28The assessor said that the sales of the comparable properties were time adjusted to the valuation date of January 1, 2012. The Time Adjusted Sale (“TAS”) prices ranged from a high of $2,703,800 for Sale D to a low of $2,320,244 for Sale B. The assessments for the comparable properties ranged from a high of $3,082,000 for Sale D to a low of $2,375,000 for Sale B.

29The assessment as returned for the subject property falls within both of these ranges at $2,548,000.

30The assessor said that he believed that Sale D was the most comparable to the subject property. He said that in making adjustments from Sale D to the subject property that he determined the market value of the subject property to be between $2,600,000 to $2,700,000.

31The assessor presented a Price Change over Time analysis where the sales of 360 residential properties from the subject property’s neighbourhood and adjacent neighbourhoods were examined between January 2010 and December 2012, a 36 month period. It was determined that there had been an approximate market increase during this time period of 19.22%. The assessor said that this analysis was used to establish Time Adjustment Factors (“TAF”), found in Table 1 of Exhibit 1, centred on the valuation date of January 1, 2012 and adjusted sales to reflect economic conditions as of the valuation date.

Equity

32The assessor entered an Equity Analysis report into evidence. The sales of 30 residential properties, located within 0.38 kilometres of the subject property, between January 2010 and December 2012 were examined.

33The assessor said that MPAC standards indicate that a median Assessment to Sales Ratio (“ASR”) should fall within a range of 0.95 to 1.05 with an ideal ASR being 1.0. If the median ASR falls within this range it indicates that current value assessments are reflective of sales prices in the vicinity.

34The assessor testified that he determined the median ASR to be 1.06. He concluded that similar properties in the vicinity were being assessed higher than their current values. He opined that an adjustment for equity was not warranted in this instance.

35The assessor completed his presentation by saying that he believed he had met the burden of proof of determining current value and the recommended assessment of $2,548,000 was reasonable and asked that it be confirmed for the 2013 taxation year, in the residential tax class.

36On cross-examination the representative questioned the assessor at length about how he had gathered the evidence that he had presented. The assessor said that he collected the information, performed the analysis and then completed the report. He said that the market analysis section of the report used the sales of similar properties in the neighbourhood that demonstrated comparability to the subject property and that the information was housed in MPAC's database. Mr. Fraleigh asked the assessor how he arrived at his conclusion that the market value of the subject property was between $2,600,000 and $2,700,000 and Mr. Twist said he based that range of values on his comparison of Sale D, which he believed was the best comparable property. Mr. Fraleigh asked if this was his opinion on value and the assessor admitted it was. The representative clarified with the assessor that he had not inspected the subject property for this appeal and he said he had not. The representative asked the assessor if he was aware that there was a mould and asbestos problem in the house and asked if this would affect the value of the subject property. The assessor admitted he did not know if there was a mould problem and said it was possible that it could affect value, depending on the extent of the problem. The representative asked the assessor if he had inspected any of the comparable properties and he admitted that he had not. Lastly, the representative questioned the assessor on his equity analysis and the assessor admitted that the conclusion at the median ASR was 1.06 was outside of MPAC's standards.

37During the cross-examination Mr. Fraleigh entered a photograph of Sale A into evidence as Exhibit 3.

38The Board clarified with the assessor if he knew what the bench years were in regards to the valuation date that the Board usually considers appropriate for comparison. The assessor admitted he knew that it was one year either side of the valuation date. The equity analysis presented by the assessor contained a number of 2010 sales and the Board asked if removing those sales from the analysis would affect his conclusions. The assessor took a few minutes to review the report and advised that by removing the 2010 sales the median ASR was now 1.02 and the average ASR was 1.04. However, he advised that he was maintaining his original report and conclusions because it was his opinion that Sale D was the best comparable property.

39The representative had no questions of the assessor based on the Board's questions.

Appellant's Position

40Mr. Fraleigh, representative for the Appellant, provided affirmed testimony. He later advised the Board that he was the appellant's husband. He entered a documentary package into evidence as Exhibit 4.

41Mr. Fraleigh also had a large hockey bag with him that he said contained evidence of mould from the subject property. The exhibits were contained in sealed plastic bags. The Board advised Mr. Fraleigh that it did not have the facilities to accept and store possible bio-hazardous materials as exhibits and because of this, the Board would not accept these exhibits. He said that he understood but wanted to show the Board the exhibits without opening the bags and he would take them with him when he left.

42The Board cautioned Mr. Fraleigh that the materials were to stay inside the closed bag and he could briefly show them to demonstrate his point but were to be immediately returned to the closed bag and he agreed.

43The representative testified that the Appellant purchased the subject property in 2007 for $1,370,000. There was an extensive renovation and addition to the house in 2008 - 2009 that cost $247,000.

44Mr. Fraleigh said that it was discovered that there was mould in the house and asbestos in the insulation. He showed the Board two filters from the home's Heating Ventilation Air Conditioning (“HVAC”) system. One was a new filter and the second was used and had been removed and it was obviously very dirty. He said that these filters are normally changed once a year but in this house they have to be changed every six months. He said that there was mould inside the filter that had been collected through the HVAC system.

45Mr. Fraleigh referred the Board to three photographs at Tab 2 that purport to show mould on window frames and sills. There is condensation on the windows and there is a dis-colouration and collection of some material but the Board is unable to determine if it is, in fact mould.

46Mr. Fraleigh referred the Board to a photograph at Tab 2 that shows insulation in and around part of the subject property’s HVAC system. He said that this material contains asbestos that is harmful to human health. He referred the Board to a letter from Dr. Sheila Jacobson of Clairhurst Pediatrics that indicates a party identified as “Andrew” has recently been seen for a chronic cough and that he had been referred to Dr. Massam, Pediatric Pulmonologist, for pneumonitis related to mold spores.

47Mr. Fraleigh advised that Andrew is his son and says that his health problems have been caused by the presence of mould and asbestos in the house.

48Mr. Fraleigh did not present the Board with a report from a company specializing in identifying mould and asbestos, which confirmed the presence of mould and asbestos and offering a strategy to deal with the problem.

49Dr. Jacobson did not provide a report, other than the one mentioned above, that substantiated her belief that the child's breathing problems were caused by the presence of mould spores in the house or if it was from some other source.

50Mr. Fraleigh said that there was a problem with the house not being level and the rooms not square. He referred the Board to photocopies of photographs at Tab 2 that he said demonstrated how the rooms are not square. He did not offer any evidence of how it affected the value of the house.

51Mr. Fraleigh placed considerable weight on the difference between the subject property and MPAC's Sale B, at 185 Balmoral Avenue. He agreed that the physical characteristics between the properties are similar. However, he says that the subject property should be valued much less than this property because of substantial improvements that had been made. He said that 185 Balmoral Avenue is more valuable because it is situated on the south side of the street, which causes it to command a premium based on more daylight exposure. He said this property has a better physical location than the subject property.

52The representative did not present the Board with any evidence, other than his opinion, that would substantiate his claims that 185 Balmoral Avenue is valued substantially more than the subject property because of the above mentioned reasons.

53Mr. Fraleigh testified that there is a problem with the property line between the subject property and 80 Lynwood Avenue. He said that the subject property’s driveway encroaches onto the neighbour’s property line by two ft. He said this is presently not a problem because of the good relationship he has with the neighbour. He said if this relationship changed then permission to use that two ft. strip could be withdrawn at any time and this would cause a problem with getting motor vehicles into the garage at the rear of the subject property.

54Mr. Fraleigh did not present the Board with a property survey or a letter from the neighbour at 80 Lynwood Avenue to substantiate this point.

55Mr. Fraleigh said that he had serious problems with how the assessor conducted his analysis and collected his evidence. He said that an inspection of subject properties and comparable properties is essential to being able to collect relevant and appropriate evidence to support their position.

56The representative referred the Board to two reports at Tab 6. The first is Valuation Guidelines, March 2007, Office of the Chief Appraiser, Public Works and Government Services Canada (“PWGSC”). The second is Canadian Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, Appraisal Institute of Canada.

57The representative pointed out section 2.9 in the first report that advised “the appraiser designated in the Contract for Services must inspect the subject property”. He said that this was instructive as it mandated that an appraiser must inspect a subject property. However, on reading the Preface of this report it is obvious that It applies only to PWGSC employees and does not apply to appraisers in general.

58Mr. Fraleigh referred to the second report, section 7.5, Scope of work. Paraphrasing this section says that Scope includes but is not limited to, the extent of:

• 7.5.1.i inspection
• 7.5.1.ii research into physical and economic factors that could affect the property.

59What this report did not specifically define is what exactly should an inspection entail. Does driving by and viewing a property constitute an inspection or does it mean actually having to enter the property and have a look around? The report did not advise and Mr. Fraleigh did not elaborate or provide further information or citations.

60Mr. Fraleigh highlighted an increase in traffic on Lynwood Avenue due to the improvement on St. Clair Avenue West. He said a considerable number of motor vehicles use the surrounding streets as a form of traffic bypass. He did not provide the Board with a traffic volume report to advise how many vehicles use the street and the peak hours when traffic volume is highest. He said the local city councillor had been consulted and some form of action may be taken in the future.

61Mr. Fraleigh referred the Board to a property profile for the subject property that had been prepared for the 2008 assessment. Under the data element section the subject property was given negative adjustments totalling 22% for abutting a multi residential, a commercial enterprise and for proximity to an education facility. He questioned why this was not reflected on the property description of Appendix A, Exhibit 1. The assessor apologized and advised that it was an oversight that it had not been included. However, he assured the Board that those negative adjustments still applied to the subject property.

62Mr. Fraleigh expressed severe doubt that those negative adjustments still applied but he did not have any evidence to support his contention. He asked the Board to find that the adjustments were not applied and to reduce the assessment by 14%.

63Mr. Fraleigh completed his presentation by saying that he did not have a problem with any of MPAC's comparable properties and focused his comparison to 185 Balmoral Avenue. He said that the subject property was clearly inferior to this property in every aspect; location, quality of construction, finishes, landscaping and yard improvements, street appeal and presence and most importantly significant environmental issues impacting occupancy health. He said that given the sale price of 185 Balmoral Avenue was $2,450,000 there is no way the subject property's CVA can be $2,548,000.

64Mr. Fraleigh asked the Board to reduce the subject property’s assessment to $1,900,000, which he said is indicative of the fair market value for the subject property.

65On cross-examination the assessor questioned the representative about whether he had any quotes for the cost of removing the mould and asbestos from the subject property and he said he did not. He also asked Mr. Fraleigh if he has the subject property’s survey to prove his contention that the property line encroached on the neighbouring property by two ft. and he said he did not.

MPAC Summation

66The assessor summed up his argument by saying that in his opinion the assessment of the subject property was below market value, which he believed to be in the $2,600,000 to $2,700.000 range. He said he believed the assessment was fair and reasonable and asked that it be confirmed at $2,548,000 for the 2013 tax year, in the residential tax class.

Appellant Summation

67Mr. Fraleigh summed up the Appellant's argument by saying that MPAC routinely makes mistakes in their valuation process.

68He said that s.40.(17) of the Act places the burden of proof on MPAC for proving the correctness of the assessment and he opined that the assessor had failed to do so in this instance.

69He said that the assessor had not conducted an inspection of the subject property or any of the comparable properties and in his opinion this was fatal to their position, in that in Exhibit 4, the PWGSC document instructs that an appraiser must inspect a property and that the Appraisal Institute of Canada document in the same exhibit says that an inspection must be done.

70He said that, in his opinion, Sales A and B are clearly superior to the subject property as he has been in both homes.

71He said that Sale C is, in his opinion, the most comparable to the subject property.

72The representative said that the assessor’s equity analysis showed that with the median ASR at 1.06 that properties were over assessed and the median ASR was outside of MPAC’s own standards.

73He said that the CVA of the subject property did not take into account the mould and asbestos problem in the house.

74Mr. Fraleigh concluded by saying that MPAC had failed in its burden of proof on both current value and equity and the Board should accept his position that the assessment should be lowered to $1,900,000.

Board's Deliberations

75The Board has carefully considered the testimony of the parties and the documentary evidence tendered as exhibits.

76MPAC submitted four properties as comparables and the Board has carefully considered them.

77The assessor said that Sale D was the best comparable to the subject property. However, the sale date of this property is 15 months removed from the valuation date and outside of the bench years, which the assessor acknowledged he is aware of, that the Board considers appropriate for comparison. Therefore, the Board rejects this property from consideration.

78The Board finds that the remaining comparable properties are more similar than dissimilar in physical characteristics and location. The lot sizes are similar, the building area is within 1,106 sq. ft. of the subject property and all have detached garages. All of the properties are the same type of structure, all have had some substantial level of renovation and are located in the same homogenous neighbourhood. The Board accepts these properties for comparison.

79The Board performed a per sq. ft. calculation for each of the comparable properties TAS price. The average of these calculations was $475 sq. ft. for the three remaining comparable properties. Applying this value per sq. ft. to the subject property's total building of 5,363 sq. ft. returned a value of $2,547,425 or $2,548,000 (rounded).

80The Appellant's representative did not present any sales evidence to support his position that the assessment should be lowered to $1,900,000. Rather, he chose to highlight deficiencies that he says are present in the subject property affecting its value and to counter MPAC’s position by proving that its method of determining current value and equity is flawed.

81Mr. Fraleigh said in his presentation that MPAC routinely makes mistakes but he did not offer any evidence to support this assertion. There may be a difference in how evidence is evaluated by the parties but the Board did not find any mistakes made by MPAC and the representative did not provide any evidence of any, except for his opinion.

82The representative provided photographic and physical exhibits of the subject property that he said proves there Is mould and asbestos in the subject property. While being able to look at the exhibits and see that there is a presence of some foreign matter, particularly in the HVAC filters, the Board was unable to determine if what it was seeing was actually mould. The representative did not have a report from a company or individual that specialized in dealing with mould, mildew or asbestos that could instruct the Board to the extent of the problem and what it would cost to effect repairs.

Amended pursuant to Rule 130 of the Assessment Review Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, effective April 2, 2013

83Therefore, the Board is unable to make a determination if there is an environmental hazard associated with the subject property and to what extent it affects the current value.

84Mr. Fraleigh presented a letter from his son’s doctor advising that he had been referred to a specialist for health concerns that the doctor says are related to mould spores. However, this does not advise the Board if the problem was caused by an environmental hazard in the subject property or if is from another source. Therefore, the Board places no weight on the doctor’s letter.

85Mr. Fraleigh did not present any evidence, other than his opinion, that aspects of real estate affect value, such as location on a certain side of the street, landscaping and other considerations. A letter or report from a real estate broker or agent who was familiar with the area market would have been instructive for the Board. The representative did not provide any evidence or information that he was expert in real estate valuation and his opinion is worth no more and no less than any other lay person. Therefore, the Board rejects this argument.

86Mr. Fraleigh referred to an increase in traffic on area streets because of the improvements made to St. Clair Avenue West. However, he did not present a traffic volume study report to support this position. He did say that the problem has been discussed with the area's city councillor and will be addressed in the future. However, the Board cannot give consideration for an alleged problem without substantiation.

87Mr. Fraleigh presented evidence that he said indicated there was a problem with the house not being level. He did not offer any supporting expert evidence from a surveyor who could advise the extent of the problem. He also did not offer any evidence of how much this affected the value of the subject property. Therefore, the Board rejects this argument.

88Mr. Fraleigh said that there was a two ft. encroachment onto the property line of the adjoining property at 80 Lynwood Avenue, along the driveway leading to his detached garage. He said that only the good relationship he had with the neighbour allowed him to continue using the driveway to access the garage with his motor vehicles. He said if this relationship changed he could effectively be barred from using the garage. He did not tender the property survey to support this argument or a letter from his neighbour confirming that there was an encroachment. Mr. Fraleigh did not offer any evidence on how this could affect the value of the subject property. Therefore, the Board will not consider this argument.

89The Board was not persuaded by Mr. Fraleigh’s arguments that certain alleged conditions in the subject property existed and if they did to what extent did those conditions affect value. The absence of expert reports that the Board would have found instructive regarding the various deficiencies highlighted by Mr. Fraleigh, proved fatal in his attempting to articulate how the value of the subject property is affected and should be reduced.

90Based on the evidence, the Board finds that the current value for the subject property as at the January 1, 2012 valuation date to be $2,548,000.

91The Board is also required under s. 44.(3) sub-paragraph (b) of the Act, to have reference to the value at which similar lands in the vicinity are assessed and adjust the assessment of the land to make it equitable with that of similar lands in the vicinity if such an adjustment would result in a reduction of the assessment of the land.

92For purposes of establishing equity, properties do not need to be comparable; they need to be of a similar nature and within a reasonable proximity. MPAC presented the sales of 30 residential properties within 0.38 kilometers of the subject property which

Amended pursuant to Rule 130 of the Assessment Review Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, effective April 2, 2013

occurred between January 2010 and December 2012. The assessor stated that he determined the ASR to be 1.06. As pointed out by the Board, the equity analysis presented by the assessor contained a number of 2010 sales and the Board asked if removing those sales from the analysis would affect the assessor’s conclusions. By removing the 2010 sales, the median ASR was now 1.02 and the average ASR was 1.04. A value within 10 percentage points is usually considered an acceptable value. In this case, the average ASR of 1.04 suggests that MPAC's methodology may be producing assessments approximately four per cent higher than values determined by sales which falls within an acceptable range of values. The Board therefore finds that no adjustment is required for equity in accordance with s. 44(3) (b) of the Act.

CONCLUSION

93The Board finds that the current value of the subject property is $2,548,000.

94The Board has made reference to similar lands in the vicinity and finds that no reduction is required for equity under s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act.

95Accordingly, as at the valuation day, January 1, 2012, the assessment of the subject property for the 2013 taxation year and the deemed 2014 taxation year is confirmed at $2,548,000

2014 Deemed Appeal

96An appeal for the 2013 taxation year is presently before the Board. Subsection 40.(26) provides that the appellant is deemed to have made the same appeal for the subsequent taxation year if the appeal is not finally disposed of before March 31 of the subsequent taxation year. The Board has not disposed of the 2013 appeal before March 31, 2014. For that reason, this decision also applies to the 2014 taxation year.

97Section 40.(26) of the Act directs:

40.(26) Deemed appeals, 2009 and subsequent years. – For 2009 and subsequent taxation years, an appellant shall be deemed to have brought the same appeal in respect of a property,

(a) in relation to the assessments under sections 32, 33 and 34 for the year; and

(b) in relation to the assessment, including assessments under sections 32, 33 and 34, for a subsequent taxation year to which the same general reassessment applies, if the appeal is not finally disposed of before March 31 of the subsequent taxation year or, if an assessment has been made under section 32, 33 or 34, before the 90th day after the notice of assessment was mailed.

Footnotes

1. 1Subsection 5 permits the Minister to prescribe a different valuation day. A different day has not been prescribed.