Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: April 10, 2015 FILE NO.: WR 130688

Assessed Person(s): TTF Holdings Inc. Appellant(s): TTF Holdings Inc. Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 9 Respondent(s): City of Toronto

Property Location(s): 135 Bethridge Road Municipality(ies): City of Toronto Roll Number(s): 1919-044-010-00901-0000 and 1919-044-010-00902-0000 Appeal Number(s): 2948192, 3014803 and 3095239 (deemed 2015) Taxation Year(s): 2014 (and deemed 2015) Hearing Event No. 570138

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

ARB Case Name: WR 130688 Heard: February 5, 2015 in Toronto, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties Counsel⁺/Representative

TTF Holdings Inc. D. Attard and A. Attard

MPAC B. Mohamed

City of Toronto No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY BARBARA KOWARSKY

ISSUE

1The issue is to determine whether the assessment of 135 Bethridge Road, located in the City of Toronto (“subject property”) as returned at $3,039,000 for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years is correct, and whether it is equitable with that of similar lands in the vicinity.

DECISION

2In order to determine the value assessment of a property, the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) is legislated to follow two steps.

3Section 44.(3)(a) of the Assessment Act (“Act”) which requires the Board to:

(a) “determine the current value of the land.”

4The Board determines the current value to be $2,708,000 for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years.

5Section 44.(3)(b) of the Act directs the Board to:

(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.”

6The Board finds that an adjustment for equity pursuant to s. 44.(3)(b) is not required.

7Therefore, the assessment of the subject property is reduced from $3,039,000 to $2,708,000 for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Subject Property

8The subject property is described as a commercial class building erected in 1968 in the section of Toronto, Ontario, known as Etobicoke. The building has a total area of 44,030 square feet (“sq. ft.”) comprising an attached office measuring 4,030 sq. ft., and 2,460 sq. ft. of interior finish. The average ceiling height is 23 feet. It is situated on a lot measuring 2.04 acres. The Appellant’s representatives agree with the description and the classification.

The Position of MPAC

9MPAC was represented by Bashir Mohamed. He submitted an MPAC summary report into evidence (Exhibit 1).

10He testified that:

i. The subject property sold in October, 2013.

ii. He used the direct sales approach in his assessment analysis that includes six suggested comparable properties that sold between August 2011 and December 2012.

iii. Where he felt it was necessary and applicable, he made site area adjustments based on vacant land sales in the vicinity ($600,000 per acre), and ceiling height adjustments. He applied the site area adjustment to two properties (30 Clairville Drive and 165 Rexdale Boulevard) and the ceiling height adjustment to two properties (156 Disco Road and 165 Rexdale Boulevard).

iv. He used the Automatic Cost System (“ACS”), which analysed the data and produced the results that he applied.

v. All six of these properties are situated in the same locale as the subject property and are subject to the same market area and economic influences.

vi. The lot sizes of his suggested comparables range from 1.56 to 2.74 acres; the total building areas range from 34,113 sq. ft. to 51,968 sq. ft.; the ceiling heights range from 17 to 31