Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE:
July 14, 2015
WR 130639
Assessed Person:
819094 Ontario Limited
Appellant:
819094 Ontario Limited
Respondent:
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 09
Respondent:
City of Toronto
Property Location:
191 – 195 Carlingview Drive
Municipality:
City of Toronto
Roll Number:
1919-038-260-02210-0000
Appeal Numbers:
3001207 and 3075706 (deemed 2015)
Taxation Years:
2014 (and deemed 2015)
Hearing Event No.
569053
Legislative Authority:
Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended
Heard:
February 12, 2015 in Toronto, Ontario
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Representative
819094 Ontario Limited.
J. Lim
MPAC
J. Yuen
City of Toronto
No one appeared
DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY CRISTINA MARQUES and MARGARITA OKHOVATI
ISSUE
1The subject property is 1.01 acre lot improved with two single-storey structures built in 1977 and 1978 with a total of 10,876 square feet (“sq. ft.”). One structure operates as a retail store, and the other as a nightclub. It is located south of Dixon Road, on the east side of Carlingview Drive, next to highway 427, with access from Carlingview Drive.
2For the 2014 taxation year, the property is classified in the commercial property class (CT) and is assessed at $2,258,000.
3MPAC recommends that the assessment of the subject property for 2014 be reduced from $2,258,000 to $2,184,000. Julie Yuen, appearing for MPAC, testifies that the recommendation is based on a comparable sales analysis.
4The appellant, through the representative Jude Lim, submits that the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) should determine the current value of the subject property to be $1,677,000.
DECISION
5The Board must determine both the correct current value for the subject property and whether the assessment of the subject property is equitable with the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity of the subject property:
For 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 property of the January 1, 2009 valuation day is $2,087,000.
Further, the Board finds that there is no evidence before it to support the conclusion that the assessment of the subject property, as determined above, requires a further adjustment in accordance with s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act.
6Accordingly, the assessment of the subject property for the 2014 and 2015 taxation years is reduced from $2,258,000 to $2,087,000 in the commercial property class.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Legislation
7The Board must have regard to s. 1, 19.(1), 19.2(1), 40.(17), 40.(19), 44.(3)(a) and (b) of the Act when determining whether or not the assessment under appeal is correct.
8Section 1 of the Act defines current value as follows:
“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.
9Section 19.(1) of the Act states:
19.(1) Assessment based on current value. – The assessment of land shall be based on its current value.
10Section 19.2(1) of the Act provides:
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:
For the period consisting of the four taxation years from 2009 to 2012, land is valued as of January 1, 2008.
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.
11Section 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.
12Section 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.
13Section 44.(3)(a) and (b) of the Act state:
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.
Current Value – Analysis and Evidence
Position of MPAC
14Ms. Yuen testified that MPAC values properties such as the subject property using the Automated Cost System (“ACS”). In this methodology an estimate is made for the replacement of the components of the structure based on the current value. The total replacement cost is then adjusted for depreciation, age and obsolescence. This analysis indicates a value of the building and then the value of the land is added to it.
15Ms. Yuen, in support of the assessment as returned, presented Exhibit 1 consisting of a document asserting the assessor’s position in relation to the valuation attributed to the subject property.
16The assessor identified nine sales of properties in the Etobicoke area. The proposed comparables are considered by MPAC to be similar to the subject property on the basis of building and lot size, year built, and height. The assessor testified that the sale prices have not been time adjusted because they occurred in close proximity to the valuation day of January 1, 2012.
17Details of each property proposed by MPAC are summarized in Table 1:
Table 1
Lot size (Acres)
Building Size (sq. ft.)
Year Built
Sale Date
Sale($)
Building Sale Value ($)
Land Sale Value ($)
Land Sale Value per Acre ($)
191-195 Carlingview Drive Subject property
1.01
10,876
1977 & 1978
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
19 Shaft Road
0.57
13,384
1961
Sep-2012
1,470,000
299,281
1,170,719
2,053,893
14 Ronson Drive
0.89
12,263
1961
May-2011
1,420,000
350,205
1,069,795
1,202,217
35 Kelfield Street
0.45
6,075
1962
Jun-2011
1,015,000
172,549
842,451
1,872,113
21 Kelfield Street
0.65
15,535
1961
Feb-2011
1,362,500
342,237
1,020,263
1,569,635
38 Kelfield Street
0.40
8,545
1961
Dec-2012
1,250,000
309,904
940,096
2,350,240
150 Skyway Avenue
0.66
6,842
1965
Mar-2012
1,260,000
320,155
939,845
1,424,008
163 Carlingview Drive
1.49
18,642
1968
Apr-2012
2,300,000
636,557
1,663,443
1,116,405
280 Carlingview Drive
1.41
18,861
1964
Nov-2009
1,900,000
854,417
1,045,583
741,548
404 Attwell Drive
0.83
18,642
1966
May-2012
1,000,000
442,444
557,556
671,754
17Ms. Yuen stated that the unadjusted median sale prices for the suggested comparables establish a Land value of $1,424,008 per acre, and since the structure valuation is not an issue, the assessment for the subject property is determined as follows:
Land $1,424,000
Building $ 760,000
Total $2,184,000
Position of the Appellant
18Mr. Lim submitted Exhibit 2 consisting of a property profile with photographs and four comparable sales. One out of the four properties is also proposed by MPAC as a good comparable. That property is 280 Carlingview Drive. Details of the other three properties proposed are summarized in Table 2:
Table 2
Lot Size (Acres)
Building Size (sq. ft.)
Year Built
Sale Date
Sale($)
Building Sale Value ($)
Land Sale Value ($)
Land Sale Value per Acre ($)
615 Dixon Road
3.57/ 155,509 sq. ft.
Vacant land
n/a
Feb-2011
3,700,000
n/a
3,700,000
1,036,415/ 24 sq. ft
2068 Kipling Avenue
1.6 / 69,260 sq. ft.
5,701
n/a
Sep-2011
1,400,000
n/a
n/a
875,000/ 16 sq. ft.
5745 Atlantic Drive
1.41
13,940
n/a
Apr-2012
2,150,000
n/a
n/a
1,524,823/ 17 sq. ft
19Mr. Lim argued that the comparables reveal a median sale price of $16.59 per sq. ft. of land and a median value of $154.23 per sq. ft. of building demonstrating that MPAC is overvaluing the subject property. He submitted that the subject property’s current value should be (10,876 x 154.23) $1,677,000 (rounded).
20During cross-examination of Mr. Lim, Ms. Yuen suggested to him that the sale of 615 Dixon was a vacant land sale, and that 5745 Atlantic Drive is located in Mississauga.
21Mr. Lim rebutted Ms. Yuen’s suggestion with respect to 615 Dixon Road by stating that at the time of the sale, in February 2011, 615 Dixon Road had a structure, and the same utility as the subject property and other comparables. However, the Board received no evidence regarding the type or the size of the building that existed on the property at the time of the sale. As well, the Board notes that the lot size of this property is too large at 3.57 acre to be a good comparable. For those reasons this property is rejected by the Board.
22As for 5745 Atlantic Drive, Mr. Lim is of the opinion that the property has the same utility as the subject property and the Board should accept it as a good comparable. The Board rejects this property as a good comparable because evidence shows that the property is located in a different municipality and therefore, the market might differ from one municipality to the other.
The Board’s Analysis – Section 44.(3)(a) – Current Value
23The best indicator of current value is an arm’s length and market-tested sale of the subject property on the valuation date, January 1, 2012, or close to it. If no such transaction has taken place, the Board looks to sales of comparable properties in the vicinity to determine if the sales evidence suggests that current value requires correction.
24To permit a direct comparison to be made between the subject property and a comparable there must be sufficient elements of such as total building area and lot area, age and quality of construction. The Board does not agree with Mr. Lim’s suggested use of a “per square foot” of building value to directly compare the current value of the subject property to the per square foot value of the sale of the suggested comparable properties because the similarities between properties are not sufficient. As stated one of the comparables is located in Mississauga which might have a different market value than Etobicoke.
25The Board finds that the comparable sales presented by both parties (10 in total) provide the best evidence of the current value of the subject property. The 10 sales preferred by the Board for this analysis are similar to the subject property in the sense that they all are commercial properties, within the same vicinity as the subject property. The 10 properties sold for a median unadjusted land value of $1,313,012 per acre. MPAC recommends an assessment of $1,424,000 per acre; the Board will adjust the assessment accordingly.
26Mr. Lim presented no evidence or argument indicating that he disagrees on the valuation of the structure. The Board must utilize the best evidence to determine the probable current value, which in this instance is derived from Table 1, whereby the Board adds the building value of the subject property, which has been determined by Ms. Yuen to be $760,184.00 to the site value.
27The Board finds the current value to be $2,087,000, calculated as follows:
Land (1.01 acres x $1,313,012) $1,326,142
Building $ 760,184
Total $2,087,000 (rounded)
The Board’s Analysis – Section 44.(3)(b) – Equity Analysis
28Section 44.(3)(b) mandates and directs that after determining current value, the Board shall have reference to the value at which similar lands in the vicinity are assessed.
29The parties agreed that equity is not an issue. There is no evidence before the Board to suggest that the assessment of the subject property requires an adjustment below current value to make it equitable with the assessment of similar lands in the vicinity.
CONCLUSION
The Board finds that the current value of the subject property, as at January 1, 2012, for the 2014 taxation year, is $2,087,000.
2015 DEEMED APPEAL
30An 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.
31Section 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.
“Cristina Marques”
CRISTINA MARQUES
MEMBER
“Margarita Okhovati”
MARGARITA OKHOVATI
MEMBER
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