Appellants v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2015 CanLII 58806

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: September 18, 2015

FILE NO.: WR 132937

Assessed Person(s): See schedule "A" attached

Appellant(s): See schedule "A" attached

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation ("MPAC") Region 15

Respondent(s): City of Mississauga

Property Location(s): See schedule "A" attached

Municipality(ies): City of Mississauga

Roll Number(s): See schedule "A" attached

Appeal Number(s): See schedule "A" attached

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

Hearing Event No.: 583852

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

Heard: June 3, 2015 in Mississauga, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel+/Representative
Appellants (as per Schedule "A" attached)	G. Brown
MPAC	C. Stoeken
City of Mississauga	No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY SONIA LIGHT

ISSUE

1The subject properties are located at 1900 The Collegeway, a residential condominium building in the Erin Mills neighbourhood of Mississauga. They are all units in the 01 line of the building.

2The assessments for the current value assessments for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years were returned as follows:

Unit No.	Returned Assessment 2013	Returned Assessment 2014
301	$966,000	$898,000
2001	$1,003,000	$933,000
2101	$1,005,000	$934,000
2201	$995,000	$933,000
2501	$1,047,000	$982,000

3The representative for all of the Appellants argues that the assessments as returned for the subject properties, for both the 2013 and 2014 taxation years are all too high.

4MPAC is recommending that the returned assessments for the subject properties respecting the 2013 taxation year be reduced to the same levels as the returned assessments for the 2014 taxation years and that the returned assessments for the 2014 taxation year be confirmed.

5The Assessment Review Board ("Board") must determine whether the assessments for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years are correct and equitable.

6The Board heard the evidence in these appeals together with the evidence respecting the other appeals on the docket respecting units in the same condominium complex.

DECISION

7For the reasons stated below and as directed by s. 44.(3)(a) of the Assessment Act ("Act") the Board finds that the current values of the subject properties are correctly reflected in the table above under the column headed Returned Assessment 2014 taxation.

8The Board finds no basis to support a further reduction in the current value pursuant to s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act based on equity considerations.

9Accordingly, the aforementioned returned assessments for the subject properties for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years shall be in the amounts listed in the table above under the column headed Returned Assessment 2014 as recommended by MPAC.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Legislation

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 1 of the Act defines "current value" as:

"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.

12Section 19.2(1) 2 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) 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.(26) of the Act directs:

40.(26) 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.

Current Value Analysis

15Mr. Stoeken is a property valuation analyst with MPAC. In this capacity with MPAC, he is responsible for reviewing the assessment of multi-residential properties. In preparation for this hearing Mr. Stoeken prepared a valuation report respecting the returned assessments of the subject properties for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years which included an equity analysis.

16The issue before the Board is determining the current value of the subject properties as of January 1, 2012. The best evidence of these values would be sales of the subject properties and of comparable units close to the valuation date.

17Mr. Stoeken presented to the Board as Exhibit 1 his valuation report. That report did not include any sales of units on the 01 line of the building. However, it included sales of two units on the 05 line of the building containing 2,345 square feet("sq. ft.") These 05 units had very similar features as the subject properties on the 01 line as indicated by their property profiles in his report. The main differences are that the 01 suites contain an additional 45 square feet while the 05 units abut garbage chutes. The 05 and 01 units are both corner units diagonally across from each other.

18Mr. Stoeken’s report included a study of price changes over time in the neighborhood which he could apply to the comparable sales to adjust the sale prices as of January 1, 2012, being the valuation date.

19The time adjusted sale prices for the 05 units with 2,345 sq. ft. in area ranged from $888,851 for Unit 1005 to $1,010,587 for unit 2205. The recommended assessments range from $898,000 for a unit on the 3rd floor to $982,000 for a unit on the 25th floor. Therefore, the recommended assessments fall within the adjusted sale prices for comparable units.

20The actual sale prices for Units 1005 and 2205 were $858,000 and $950,000 respectively and Unit 1005 sold in July 2011 and Unit 2205 sold in March 2011. The range of these sales ranging from $858,000 to $950,000 also support the recommended assessments for the units on the 01 line.

21Gerry Brown is a real estate broker residing in the building and is an owner of Unit 2201 which is one of the properties with the assessment under appeal. He is actively involved in the sale of properties at the subject building. Mr. Brown is neither a paralegal nor an expert in assessment of residential properties and therefore is not qualified to provide opinion evidence to the Board respecting the assessment of residential properties.

22Mr. Brown’s evidence consisted of his testimony and quite a number of exhibits positing his theories on how assessments should be calculated but did not present evidence of comparable sales around the valuation date that he recommended the Board to consider. In fact, he asked the Board to disregard the sales respecting Units 1405 and 2205 (Exhibits 10 and 11). The sale of Unit 1405 was not included in MPAC’s report but its sale price of $900,000 in February 2012 tended to support MPAC’s recommendations.

23Mr. Brown also disputed the application of the price changes over time used by MPAC to adjust sales prices but was unable to demonstrate to the Board any flaws in MPAC’s methodology and offered only some anecdotal evidence respecting price fluctuations based on his own experience in the market.

24Mr. Brown also argued that a decision in a prior year’s assessment to reduce the assessments of some owners should be added to any assessment reductions that may be determined in this appeal. There is no authority in the governing legislation to justify the Board taking such an approach.

Equity Analysis

25MPAC provided an equity study as part of its valuation report. The study indicated that the sales in the vicinity had a median assessment to sales ratio of 1.0 indicating that the current values are reflective of sales prices in the vicinity. The coefficient of dispersion is 6.7% and this demonstrates good equity among individual properties

26Accordingly, the Board does not order any reduction in the returned assessments based on equity considerations pursuant to s. 44.(3) of the Act.

2015 DEEMED APPEAL

27An 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.

28Section 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.