Jose Angolano and Mirta Angolano v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2015 CanLII 30374

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: May 26, 2015 FILE NO.: WR 128137

Assessed Person(s): Jose Angolano and Mirta Angolano Appellant(s): Jose Angolano and Mirta Angolano Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 09 Respondent(s): City of Toronto

Property Location(s): 49 Crittenden Square Municipality(ies): City of Toronto Roll Number(s): 1901-125-490-01000-0000 Appeal Number(s): 2993201, 3017413 and 3075280 (deemed 2015) Taxation Year(s): 2013, 2014 (and deemed 2015) Hearing Event No. 562832

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

Heard: October 7, 2014 in Toronto, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel+/Representative
J. Angolano	Self-represented
MPAC	G. Tom and M. Quiachon
City of Toronto	No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY TANYA WALKER

BACKGROUND

1The property under appeal is located at 49 Crittenden Square in the City of Toronto. It was built in 1976 and is a detached single-family dwelling. It has a total building area of 1,328 square feet.

SUBMISSIONS

2Gregory Tom and Michael Quiachon, the representatives for MPAC, contend that the assessed value of $318,000 for the subject property is reasonable, based on comparisons to six other properties in the vicinity. Mr. Tom and Mr. Quiachon also submitted a study of the sales prices of 360 properties in the vicinity of the subject property to demonstrate a 21.94% increase in sales prices for these properties from January 2010 to December 2012.

3Jose Angolano, the Appellant, submits that the subject property is assessed at too high a value based on its state of repair, its location and its previous assessment value. He submits that a fair and equitable assessed value should be, at most, $270,000.

ISSUE

4The Assessment Review Board (“Board”) must determine the correct current value for the subject property, and if that value is equitable with assessments of similar lands in the vicinity.

DECISION

5The Board determines the current value of the subject property to be $308,000 for the 2013 taxation year.

6Although a separate appeal was filed with respect to the 2014 taxation year, pursuant to s. 40.(26) of the Assessment Act (“Act”), the Appellant is deemed to have made the same appeal for the 2014 taxation year as for the 2013 taxation year and the current value of $308,000 also applies to the 2014 taxation year. Consequently the Board has addressed both appeals in a single set of reasons.

7The Board has made reference to the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity and finds that no adjustment is required to make the assessment of the subject property equitable with the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity.

8Therefore, the assessment for the subject property is reduced from $318,000 to $308,000 for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Legislation

9In determining the value at which land shall be assessed, the Board must have regard to the following provisions of the Act:

10Section 1 of the Act states:

“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.

11Section 19.(1) of the Act states:

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

12Section 19.2(1) 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.

13Section 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.

14Section 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.

Analysis

15Under the Act the Board is required to:

1. find the current value of the subject property;
2. make reference to the value at which similar lands in the vicinity are assessed; and
3. adjust the assessment of the subject property if the adjustment would result in a reduction in the assessment.

Current Value

16The best measure of the current value of a property is the price at which it sold in an arm’s-length transaction on the valuation date. In the absence of such a transaction, the Board must consider recent arm’s-length sales of comparable properties in the same vicinity.

17Mr. Tom and Mr. Quiachon introduced a Market Analysis Study into evidence as Exhibit A in support of the $318,000 assessment as returned. This document compares six sold properties to the subject property, as detailed in Table 1 below:

Table 1

	Subject Property	Property A	Property B	Property C
Address	49 Crittenden Square	26 Tunmead Square	5 Lighthall Crescent	50 Crow Trail
Year Built	1976	1976	1976	1976
Bldg. Size (sq. ft.)	1,328	1,124	1,244	1,312
Effective Site Area (sq. ft.)	5,500	5,240	5,900	5,060
Bedrooms	4	3	4	4
Storeys	2	2	2	2
Basement Area (sq. ft.)	664	562	622	656
Sale Amt. ($)		364,900	335,000	331,000
Sale Date		2011/10	2012/01	2012/06
Time-Adj. Sale Amt. ($)		371,534	333,836	319,621
Time-Adj. Sale Amt. per sq. ft. ($)		330.55	268.36	243.61

	Subject Property	Property D	Property E	Property F
Address	49 Crittenden Square	46 Crittenden Square	103 Crittenden Square	63 Loradeen Crescent
Year Built	1976	1976	1976	1976
Bldg. Size (sq. ft.)	1,328	1,252	1,328	1,334
Effective Site Area (sq. ft.)	5,500	5,000	5,500	6,269.81
Bedrooms	4	4	4	4
Storeys	2	2	2	2
Basement Area (sq. ft.)	664	626	664	667
Sale Amt. ($)		258,500	340,000	328,000
Sale Date		2010/10	2012/07	2012/07
Time-Adj. Sale Amt. ($)		286,716	326,546	315,021
Time-Adj. Sale Amt. per sq. ft. ($)		229.01	245.89	236.15

18Mr. Angolano relies on the same comparators, with the exception of Property D, and also submitted one additional comparable sale, as detailed in Table 2 below:

Table 2

	Subject Property	Property 1
Address	49 Crittenden Square	21 Crow Trail
Year Built	1976	1976
Bldg. Size (sq. ft.)	1,328	1,230
Effective Site Area (sq. ft.)	5,500	5,500
Bedrooms	4	3
Storeys	2	2
Basement Area (sq. ft.)	664	615
Sale Amt. ($)		320,000
Sale Date		2012/04
Time-Adj. Sale Amt. ($)		312,640
Time-Adj. Sale Amt. per sq. ft. ($)		254.18

19Mr. Tom and Mr. Quiachon submit that the best comparators are Properties B and E. Each of these properties is the same age as the subject property. Property E is located on the same street and is identical to the subject property in terms of both building size and lot size.

20The Board has considered all of the sales comparators and finds them similar to the subject property in terms of age of construction, building size and lot size. The median time adjusted sales values per square foot is $249.63 which is higher that the assessed value of the subject property at $231.93.

21Consequently, the Board accepts that the value as returned of $318,000 is prima facie reasonable, based on the sales comparators submitted by the parties. The Board now considers the arguments advanced by Mr. Angolano in support of a reduction in the value.

Locational Factors

22Mr. Angolano submits that the assessment value of the subject property should be reduced to account for its locational proximity to an industrial area.

23MPAC explained that the assessment value of Property D has been reduced by one per cent, or approximately $3,000, to account for its proximity to an industrial area. The Board inquired as to why the subject property had not been accorded a similar reduction. MPAC explained that the reduction was accorded to Property D because it backs onto Tapscott Road which is considered to be an industrial thoroughfare. The subject property is located on the opposite side of Crittenden Square and so does not back onto Tapscott Road.

24Mr. Angolano also submits that the assessment value of the subject property should be reduced to account for its proximity to a natural gas pipeline. MPAC explained that it does not account for the presence of pipelines in its assessment. Mr. Angolano submits that this is a factor which should be considered.

25Mr. Angolano further submits that Crittenden Square is narrower than most residential streets and that the assessment value of the subject property should be reduced to account for this factor.

26The Board notes that the comparator sales submitted were located in close geographic proximity to the subject property including Property E, which is located on the same street. As the values of each of these properties would be affected by locational factors to the same extent, the Board finds that no adjustment is required to account for the location of the subject property.

Real Estate Market Value

27Mr. Angolano submitted a variety of documents into evidence as Exhibit B. Included among these documents are a collection of newspaper articles and media reports which forecast a decline in Canadian real estate values.

28The Board notes that, pursuant to s. 19.2(1) of the Act, the assessment of the subject property is to be determined based on its current value as of the valuation date. As such, prognostications of a future decline in the real estate market in general are of little assistance to the Board.

Previous Assessment Adjustment

29Mr. Angolano submitted a copy of his property assessment notice for the 2013 - 2016 property tax years. This document lists the value of the subject property, as of January 1, 2008, as $266,000. Mr. Angolano also submitted a copy of his property assessment notice for the 2009 – 2012 property tax years. This document reflects the value of the subject property, as of January 1, 2008, as $216,000. Mr. Angolano testified that the current value of the subject property, as of January 1, 2008, was originally assessed at $266,000, but was subsequently reduced to $216,000 by MPAC pursuant to a request for reconsideration.

30Mr. Angolano submits that MPAC failed to account for this reduction in assessing the current value of the subject property, as of January 1, 2012, and consequently approached the issue from the wrong starting point.

31The Board notes that the concerns raised by Mr. Angolano are relevant to the manner in which any increase in the assessment of the subject property is to be phased in, pursuant to s. 19.1(3) of the Act. However, the assessment value of the subject property itself is determined based on its current value, in accordance with s. 19(1) of the Act. As stated above, the determination of current value is based on recent arm’s-length sales of comparable properties in the same vicinity. Consequently, the assessment value of the subject property, as of January 1, 2008, is not directly relevant to the current value of the subject property, as of January 1, 2012.

32Mr. Angolano also submitted that the assessment value of the subject property should be reduced to account for structural defects. Mr. Angolano submitted photographs into evidence to document these defects which include cracks in the foundation and the driveway and windows, and fencing and a shower unit which are in a poor state of repair. Mr. Angolano did not submit any evidence with respect to the cost of repairing these defects.

33MPAC concedes that the condition of the subject property is slightly below the average for the vicinity. It submits that a $10,000 adjustment is appropriate to account for the condition of the windows and incomplete renovations which have left exposed piping.

34Based on the photographic evidence submitted, and in the absence of any evidence as to the cost of repairs or the impact of these defects on the current value of the subject property, the Board accepts this adjustment as reasonable.

35The Board therefore sets the current value of the subject property at $308,000.

Reference to Similar Lands in the Vicinity

36The assessment to sales ratio (“ASR”) of a property compares its value as assessed with its sales price. An ASR of 1.00 indicates that the assessment value is identical to the sales price.

37Mr. Tom and Mr. Quiachon introduced a study of 360 residential properties in the area. This study demonstrated that MPAC’s assessment methodology achieved equitable assessments because the median time-adjusted ASR was 0.96, which falls within the acceptable range of 0.95 – 1.05, as mandated by the International Association of Assessing Officers.

38Mr. Angolano submitted listing data from the Toronto Real Estate Board for four properties in the vicinity of the subject property, as detailed in Table 3 below:

Table 3

	Property I	Property II	Property III	Property IV
Address	87 Crow Trail	44 Blackwater Crescent	50 Crittenden Square	55 United Square
Sale Date	2012/06	2011/10	2011/10	2011/10
Sale Amount ($)	271,000	267,500	260,000	265,000
Time-Adj. Sale Amount ($)	261,786	272,315	264,680	269,770
Annual Property Taxes ($)	2,086.70	2,358.08	2,200	2087.36
Applicable Tax Year	2012	2010	2011	2011

39Mr. Angolano submits that the taxes levied on these properties reflect assessment values in excess of the sale prices received. Mr. Angolano submits that this disparity reflects a failure in MPAC’s assessment methodology.

40MPAC notes that Property IV was sold by the Toronto Dominion Bank, presumably as a result of a mortgage default. MPAC therefore submits that the sale price of Property IV does not reflect its true value.

41The Board has not been provided with the current value assessments for the properties detailed in Table 3 above. Given the broader range of the study submitted by MPAC which considered 356 additional sales, the Board prefers this evidence as to the accuracy of MPAC’s assessment methodology.

42Having reduced the current value for the subject property for the reasons detailed above, the Board does not find that any further adjustment is required to achieve equity with similar lands in the vicinity, as required by s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act.

CONCLUSION

43The Board determines the current value of the subject property to be $308,000 for the 2013 taxation year.

44Although a separate appeal was filed with respect to the 2014 taxation year, pursuant to s. 40.(26) of the Act, the Appellant is deemed to have made the same appeal for the 2014 taxation year as for the 2013 taxation year and the current value of $308,000 also applies to the 2014 taxation year. Consequently the Board has addressed both appeals in a single set of reasons.

45The Board has made reference to the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity and finds that no adjustment is required to make the assessment of the subject property equitable with the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity.

46Therefore, the assessment for the subject property is reduced from $318,000 to $308,000 for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years.

2015 DEEMED APPEAL

47An appeal for the 2014 taxation year is presently before the Board. Section 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 2014 appeal before March 31, 2015. For that reason, this decision also applies to the 2015 taxation year.

48Section 40.(26) of the Act directs:

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.