Ralph Comete v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2015 CanLII 40072

ISSUE DATE: July 9, 2015

FILE NO.: WR 131486

Assessed Person(s): Ralph Comete

Appellant(s): Ralph Comete

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 09

Respondent(s): City of Toronto

Property Location(s): 175 Geoffrey Street

Municipality(ies): City of Toronto

Roll Number(s): 1904-022-260-01500-0000

Appeal Number(s): 2980985, 3010626 and 3076776 (deemed 2015)

Taxation Year(s): 2013, 2014 (and deemed 2015)

Hearing Event No. 578530

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

Heard: March 12, 2015 in Toronto, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel⁺/Representative

Ralph Comete

David MacAlpine

Tony Racioppo

City of Toronto

No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY PETER ANDREWS

INTRODUCTION

1The subject property, 175 Geoffrey Street, is a two-and-one-half storey detached house located on a 3,250 square foot lot with an effective frontage of 26 feet and an effective depth of 125 feet. The property is improved with a 2,061 square foot residence constructed in 1910. The house is un-renovated and MPAC classifies the quality level of the property as 6.5. The property has an 842 square foot un-finished basement. The property is assessed at $716,000 for the 2013, 2014 and the deemed 2015 taxation years.

2Tony Racioppo, appearing on behalf of MPAC, called one witness Erin Comeau who was accepted by the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) as an expert in the valuation of houses in the High Park area of Toronto. Mr. Comeau stated that the subject property has been assessed based on the evidence of the sales of similar properties in the vicinity of the subject property. In evidence Mr. Comeau provided the sales of seven suggested comparable properties, one of which sold twice.

3David MacAlpine, appeared as a representative of the Assessed Person, Ralph Comete.

4Mr. MacAlpine argues that:

The age and condition of the subject property has not been correctly taken into consideration by MPAC in valuing the property.
All of the suggested comparable properties provided by MPAC are renovated properties while Mr. Comete’s property is not a renovated property. Mr. MacAlpine suggests that the subject property has obvious structural problems and clearly requires extensive updating.
The Appellant argues that since the house is over 100 years old and has not been renovated since construction the more reasonable way to arrive at the value of the subject property is to assign value only to the land. Accordingly the Appellant suggests a value of $480,000.

5The Board must determine both the correct current value of the subject property and whether the assessment of the subject property so determined is equitable with the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity of the subject property.

DECISION

6For the reasons stated below and as directed by s. 44.(3)(a) of the Assessment Act (“Act”) the Board finds that the current value of the subject property, as at the valuation day January 1, 2012, is $716,000.

7The Board finds that there is no evidence before it leading to the conclusion that the current value of the subject property, as determined above, requires a further adjustment in accordance with s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act.

8Accordingly the assessment of the subject property as at the valuation day, January 1, 2012, is confirmed at $716,000.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Current Value Analysis

9The initial task for the Board is to determine the current value of the subject property as required by s. 44.(3)(a) of the Act “…the Board shall…determine the current value of the land…”

10Section 19.(1) of the Act states that “…the assessment of land shall be based on its current value…” and section 1 of the Act defines current value as “…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…”

11The 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, as in this case, no such transaction took place, the next best measure of current value is arm’s 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 property and comparable properties.

12To 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.

13Further to be indicative of both the market and values on the valuation day a sale of a suggested comparable property should occur close to the valuation day. Generally the Board prefers the sale of properties that occur within six months on either side of the valuation day. When such evidence is either limited or not available, the Board has accepted sales of properties up to 18 months on either side of the valuation day, or in exceptional circumstances, greater time periods.

14Mr. Comeau provided the Board with eight sales of seven suggested comparable properties which he argues are the most similar properties to the subject property in the vicinity of the subject property. Mr. MacAlpine provided no suggested comparable properties.

15MPAC Properties A and B – 101 Glendale Avenue are the same property with two different sale dates, both dates close to the valuation day, and with two quite different physical conditions at their times of sale. Their significance is that Property A, at the time of its sale, had been renovated while Property B, at the time of its sale, was un-renovated. Property B sold pre-renovation in September 2011, for $710,000 and then sold again post-renovation as Property A in August 2012, for $1,175,000.

16Property A, having undergone a renovation in 2012, is clearly not directly comparable to the un-renovated subject property. However Property B is very comparable to the subject property, being un-renovated as is the subject property; having a similar site area, 2,815 square feet versus 3,250 square feet for the subject property; being very close in building total area to the subject property - 2,020 square feet versus 2,061 square feet; however it has a detached garage versus no garage for the subject property. Both properties were constructed in 1910 and neither property was renovated prior to the sale of Property B in September 2011.

17The Board places no weight on the sales of the remaining MPAC suggested comparable Properties C to H. The Board finds that since all these properties were renovated prior to being sold none were directly comparable to the un-renovated subject property.

18The Board finds that the best evidence of the current value of the subject property is the sale of 101 Glendale Avenue in September 2011 for $710,000 which the Board finds is appropriate evidence of the value of the subject property at $716,000.

Appellant’s Arguments

19The Appellant argued that the age and condition of the subject property have not been correctly taken into consideration by MPAC in valuing the subject property. The Board does not agree. Clearly the age of the suggested comparable properties provided by Mr. Comeau are similar to the subject property – built between 1900 and 1912 versus 1910 for the subject property. No argument was made that the subject property was in anything other than poor condition.

20The Appellant argued that all of the suggested comparable properties provided by MPAC were renovated properties and therefor since Mr. Comete’s property is not a renovated property it is not directly comparable to the subject property. The Board placed no weight on the sale of any property that was renovated at the time of sale.

21Mr. MacAlpine argued that the subject property has obvious structural problems and clearly required extensive updating. He noted that the house is over 100 years old and has not been renovated since construction. He suggested that a more reasonable way to arrive at the value of the subject property was to assign value only to the land.

22The Appellant suggested a more appropriate value for the subject property of $480,000.

23The Board finds no basis to support such a conclusion.

Equity Analysis

24The Act was amended for taxation years beginning with 2009 to require the Board to lower an assessment below current value if required to make the assessment equitable with the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity.

25Section 44.(3)(b) of the Act states that “… the Board shall… 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 land.”

26To support the equity of assessment of the subject property, Mr. Comeau provided a study of the Assessment to Sales Ratios (“ASR”) of 30 residential properties located within the vicinity of the subject property. The study has a range of individual ASRs from 0.70 to 1.18 and a median ASR of 1.00. Mr. Comeau suggests that a median ASR of 1.00 is indicative that similar properties in the vicinity of the subject property have been equitably assessed at their current values.

27Mr. MacAlpine provided no argument or evidence under s. 44.(3)(b).

28Accordingly, the Board finds that there is no evidence before it leading to the conclusion that the current value of the subject property, as determined above, requires a further adjustment in accordance with s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act.

2015 DEEMED APPEAL

29An 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.

30Section 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.

“Peter Andrews”

Peter Andrews

Vice Chair

Assessment Review Board

A constituent tribunal of Environment and Land Tribunals Ontario

Website: www.elto.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248```