Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: September 11, 2015 FILE NO.: WR 127244

Assessed Person(s): Mary Patricia Woods and Robert Morton Woods Appellant(s): Robert Woods Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 14 Respondent(s): City of Markham

Property Location(s): 3 Sanctuary Way Municipality(ies): City of Markham Roll Number(s): 1936-030-231-32338-0000 Appeal Number(s): 2987140, 3022249 and 3082052 (deemed 2015) Taxation Year(s): 2013, 2014 (and deemed 2015) Hearing Event No. 562725

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

Heard: August 21, 2014 in Markham, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel/Representative
M. Woods	R. Woods
R. Woods
MPAC	L. George
City of Markham	No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY TANYA WALKER

BACKGROUND

1The property under appeal is located at 3 Sanctuary Way in the City of Markham. It was built in 2007 and is a condominium townhouse. It has a total building area of 2,286 square feet. It is located within the Swan Lake retirement community.

SUBMISSIONS

2Leah George, the representative for MPAC, contends that the assessed value of $645,000 for the subject property is reasonable, based on comparisons to six other properties in the vicinity. Ms. George also submitted a study of the sales prices of 371 properties in the vicinity of the subject property to demonstrate a 19.8% increase in sales prices for these properties from January 2010 to December 2012.

3Robert Woods, the representative for the Appellant, submits that the subject property is assessed at too high a value in comparison to the assessment and sale values of certain nearby properties. He submits that a fair and equitable assessed value should be, at most, $580,000.

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 $615,000 for the 2013 taxation year.

6Pursuant to s. 40.(26) of the Assessment Act (“Act”), the Appellant is deemed to have made the same appeal for the 2014 taxation year and the current value of $615,000 also applies to the 2014 taxation year.

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.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Legislation

8In determining the value at which land shall be assessed, the Board must have regard to the following provisions of the Act:

9Section 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.

10Section 19.(1) of the Act states:

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

11Section 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.

12Section 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.

13Section 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

14Under 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

15The 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.

16Ms. George introduced a Valuation Report including a Market Analysis Study into evidence as Exhibit A. The Market Analysis Study compares six sold properties to the subject property, as detailed in Table 1 below.

Table 1

	Subject Property	Sale A	Sale B	Sale C
Address	3 Sanctuary Way	26 Oasis Way	35 Oasis Way	42TH 42AD Augusta Drive Way
Year Built	2007	2007	2008	1999
Bldg. Size (sq. ft.)	2,286	2,322	2,279	2,059
Bedrooms	1	1	1	3
Storeys	2	2	1.5	1.25
Basement Area (sq. ft.)	1,509	1,500	1,510	1,685
Sale Amt. ($)		675,000	591,000	669,000
Sale Date		2011/07	2011/08	2013/09
Time Adj. Sale Amt. ($)		694,058	604,583	0

	Subject Property	Sale D	Sale E	Sale F
Address	3 Sanctuary Way	42TH 42AD Augusta Drive Way	34 Unit 53 Johnson Links Way	28 Johnson Links Way
Year Built	2007	1999	1999	1999
Bldg. Size (sq. ft.)	2,286	2,059	2,059	2,059
Bedrooms	1	3	3	3
Storeys	2	1.25	1.25	1.25
Basement Area (sq. ft.)	1,509	1,685	1,685	1,685
Sale Amt. ($)		645,000	615,000	630,000
Sale Date		2011/11	2012/07	2013/01
Time Adj. Sale Amt. ($)		649,867	595,670	0

17Sales C and F were not time adjusted as these sales occurred in 2013 and MPAC did not calculate time-adjustment factors for that year. Ms. George submits that the properties which are the subjects of Sales C, D, E and F are inferior to the subject property.

18Ms. George submits that the best comparator is the property which is the subject of Sale A and that the property which was the subject of Sale B is also relatively comparable. The time-adjusted sale amount for the property which is the subject of Sale A is $694,058, significantly more than the assessed value of the subject property. The time-adjusted sale amount for the property which is the subject of Sale B is $604,583, substantially less than the assessed value of the subject property. Ms. George submits that, given the similarities of the subject property and of the property that was the subject of Sale A, and the fact that the property which was the subject of Sale B has only a one-car garage, while both the subject property and the property which was the subject of Sale A have two-car garages, an assessment value of $645,000 is reasonable for the subject property.

19Ms. George also submitted a decision of the Board issued on August 11, 2014 with respect to 18 Sanctuary Way into evidence as Exhibit B. The Board confirmed an assessment value of $644,000 for 18 Sanctuary Way. 18 Sanctuary Way is very similar to the subject property in terms of building area and basement area. Like the subject property, it has a two-car garage.

20Mr. Woods submitted his own set of comparable sales into evidence as Exhibit C, as detailed in Table 2 below:

Table 2

	Subject Property	Sale I	Sale II
Address	3 Sanctuary Way	24 Sanctuary Way	47 Sanctuary Way
Bldg. Size (sq. ft.)	2,286	2,000 – 2,249 (approx.)	2,000 – 2,249 (approx.)
Bedrooms	1	2	3
Sale Amt. ($)		614,000	600,000
Sale Date		2013/05	2012/05
Time Adj. Sale Amt. ($)		N/A	568,800

21Mr. Woods submitted that the most comparable property is Sale I from Table 2. Like the subject property, this home is a “Mallard” model with a two-car garage. Sale II by contrast, is a different model of home.

22Mr. Woods also relies upon Sale B from Table 1 above. However, as noted by Ms. George, this property has only a one-car garage while the subject property has a two-car garage.

23The Board finds that the properties which are the subject of Sale A in Table 1 and Sale I in Table 2 are substantially similar to the subject property and therefore useful comparators. The Board finds that Sale I from Table 2 militates in favour of reduction of the assessment value. The time-adjusted sale amount for Sale 1 from Table 2 is not available as MPAC did not calculate time-adjustment factors for 2013, however, if the time-adjustment factor for December 2012 is applied, the time-adjusted sale amount for Sale 1 from Table 2 would be $580,844. Given that the sale to assessment ratio evidence submitted by MPAC in Exhibit A demonstrated an inflationary trend in property values between January 2010 and December 2012, the Board finds that a further downward adjustment to the sale price of Sale 1 from Table 2 is required to account for the additional passage of time between December 2012 and the date of the sale in May 2013. Consequently, adjusting the sale price for comparator I from Table 2 to account for the passage of time between the valuation date and the sale, utilizing the other comparators submitted, most notably Sales A and B from Table 1, and taking account of the Board’s decision with respect to the assessment value of 18 Sanctuary Way, the Board finds the current value of the subject property to be $615,000.

24Mr. Woods also drew to the attention of the Board the fact that all amenities within the Swan Lake community, including road maintenance, are funded by monthly maintenance fees paid by the residents. The only service provided by the City of Markham is garbage collection.

25In relation to Mr. Woods’ arguments with respect to the provision of services and amenities by the condominium corporation, rather than the municipality, the Board notes that, pursuant to s. 19.(1) of the Act, the assessment of land is calculated based on its current value. The Act does not account for issues of the nature raised by Mr. Woods. While the Board is sympathetic to Mr. Woods’ concerns, the Board must apply the provisions of the Act.

Reference to Similar Lands in the Vicinity

26The 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.

27Ms. George introduced a study of 371 residential properties in the area. This study demonstrated that MPAC’s assessment methodology achieved equitable assessments because the median time-adjusted ASR was 1.00, which falls within the acceptable range of 0.90 – 1.10, as mandated by the International Association of Assessing Officers.

28Having 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

29The subject property is assessed at $615,000 as at the valuation date, January 1, 2012.

30The evidence does not indicate the necessity for a reduction to achieve equity with the assessments of other lands in the vicinity.

2015 DEEMED APPEAL

31An 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.

32Section 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.