Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: July 17, 2015
Assessed Person(s): Rosa Samuels
Appellant(s): 2402357 Ontario Limited
Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 9
Respondent(s): City of Toronto
Property Location(s): 161 Bartley Drive
Municipality(ies): City of Toronto
Roll Number(s): 1908-121-115-01200-0000
Appeal Number(s): 3001752 and 3076611) (deemed 2015)
Taxation Year(s): 2014 (and 2015 deemed)
Hearing Event No. 573250
Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended
Heard: May 5, 2015 in Toronto, Ontario
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel+/Representative
MPAC
Sal Ladar
2402357 Ontario Limited
Andrew Attard
City of Toronto
No one appeared
DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY WARREN MORRIS
INTRODUCTION
1This appeal relates to the assessed value of a 46,509 square foot (“sq. ft.”) industrial warehouse building situated on a 1.9 acre (82,764 sq. ft.) L-shaped lot on the southwest corner of Bartley Drive and Hobson Avenue, in the industrial park area of Toronto bordered by the Don Valley Parkway to the west, Eglinton Avenue to the north, O’Connor Drive to the east and Taylor Creek Park to the south. The building was built in three phases. The first phase was built in 1954 consisting of 2,393 sq. ft. of office (12.5 foot ceiling height) and 10,147 sq. ft. of warehouse with 14.5 foot ceiling height. The warehouse was expanded by 8,150 sq. ft. and 25,819 sq. ft. with 14.5 foot ceiling in 1966 and 1982 respectively. The description of the property was not in dispute. The building became vacant in 2013 and continued to be vacant at the time of MPAC’s inspection on June 17, 2014. Base on the last tenants, the property falls in the Industrial tax class.
2During the Request of Reconsideration (“RFR”) process, MPAC recommended a reduction from the returned assessment of $3,086,000 to $2,589,000. The Appellant believed the assessment was still too high given that the property was purchased in an arm’s length transaction for $1,500,000 on October 28, 2013. The Appellant appealed MPAC’s decision to the Board.
3At the hearing, MPAC acknowledged that the subject property had environmental contamination issues however it did not have information as to the cost to remedy the contamination. MPAC presented three analyses that included various combinations of eleven comparable property sales. The analysis resulting in the lowest value showed a median sale price of $55.68 per sq. ft., which translates to a value of $2,589,000 for the subject property. MPAC did not include the sale of the subject property in its analyses as it took the position that the sale was not a valid open market transaction.
4The Appellant’s position was that MPAC’s comparable sales were not relevant because the best evidence is the sale of the subject property itself. Since the sale of the subject property occurred 22 months after the valuation date, the Appellant asserts that the correct current value should be a time-adjusted reduction of the October 28, 2013 sale price of $1,500,000, that being $1,320,000.
5At the completion of the hearing, the Board reserved its decision.
ISSUE
6The issues are to determine the current value of the property, and to ensure that the current value is equitable relative to the assessed values of similar properties in the vicinity. More specifically, the Board must determine whether sale of the subject property in October 2013 meets the definition of “current value” under section. 1 of the [Assessment Act](https://