Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: September 30, 2015 FILE NO.: WR 132836 Assessed Person(s): See Schedule A Appellant(s): Evlar Property Management Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation ("MPAC") Region 17 Respondent(s): Town of Huntsville Property Location(s): See Schedule A Municipality(ies): Town of Huntsville Roll Number(s): See Schedule A Appeal Number(s): See Schedule A Taxation Year(s): 2014 and 2015 Hearing Event No. 570623 and 581431

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

Heard: November 25, 2014 and May 11, 2015 in Huntsville, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties Counsel+/Representative

Evlar Property Management Sheryl Coulson

MPAC Terri McLean

Town of Huntsville No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY LESLIE FLEMMING

INTRODUCTION

1These appeals were heard in Huntsville on November 25, 2014 and May 11, 2015. The decision was reserved.

2The appeals concern 27 residential condominium units located on the Deerhurst Resort property in Huntsville, in six different buildings, with 25 separate owners. The condominium units have been grouped by interior size into three categories:

a. 700 square feet ("sq. ft.") (Category A) b. 1,075 and 1,320 sq. ft. (Category B) c. 1,518 and 1,636 sq. ft. (Category C)

3Deerhurst Resort is a large year-round resort property in the Town of Huntsville abutting Peninsula Lake and comprising a large lodge, restaurants, sports facilities, a golf course, and a number of condominium units of various ages and sizes. The subject properties are condominium units located in six separate buildings on site. Despite minor differences in design between the six buildings, the 27 units were all built in 1988 and share many characteristics which are detailed below. While all six buildings are located at Deerhurst Resort in Huntsville, none of the subject properties is categorized as "waterfront" property. Some of the condominiums are occupied by the owners year-round; others form part of the Deerhurst Resort rental pool. MPAC has classified all units that are participating in the resort's rental pool as belonging to the commercial property class ("CT"). The units that are not participating in the rental program are classified by MPAC as belonging to the residential property class ("RT"). Some units participated in one year but not the other.

4The common characteristics shared by all the subject properties are as follows:

(a) All units have central air conditioning and electric heat. (b) They are all single-storey units. (c) Each has a fireplace and, with two exceptions, at least one whirlpool tub. (d) There are no elevators; all units are "walk-ups." (e) All units on the rental plan contain the same appliances, furnishing, artwork, window dressings, televisions, telephones, floor coverings, cupboards and closets, and dishes. The parties did not agree as to the value to be given to the chattels. (f) All units have porches or balconies, although the nature of these amenities is disputed and some units have had balconies added after the valuation day, January 1, 2012. (g) Use of the Deerhurst Resort amenities by the unit owners is not included in the common expenses and is an extra cost to those owners wishing to use them.

5The 700-sq. ft. units were assessed at values of ranging from $172,000 to $181,000. For some of these, the assessment was a reduction from the 2008 assessed value and for others, the 2012 assessment was an increase.

6The units contained in the 1075 to 1320 sq. ft. category were assessed at values ranging from $213,000 to $294,000. Of these, nine assessments were decreased from the 2008 assessed values and the remaining seven were increased.

7Two units contained in the last category, one of which is 1,518 sq. ft. and the second of which measures 1,636 sq. ft., both experienced a reduction in assessed values in the current cycle. These assessments were returned in the amounts of $275,000 for the smaller unit and $277,000 for the larger.

ISSUES

8First, the Assessment Review Board ("Board") is required to determine the correct property classification for these units. All units are characterized as having MPAC property code 370: "Residential Condominium Unit." However, MPAC has broken them down still further into commercial and residential property classes based on their enrolment or lack of enrolment in Deerhurst Resort's rental program. Under Ontario Regulation 282/98, s. 17(1)(b)(ii), land that contains one or more furnished, self-contained units operated in such a manner as to provide transient living accommodation for a fee for minimum periods of less than 30 days is included in the definition of "hotel" and is therefore in the commercial property class. The Appellant did not challenge the classifications of the subject properties. The Board confirms the property classifications as contained in the materials provided and as set out below.

9The Appellant asserts that the assessed values of the subject properties are too high for the 2014 and 2015 taxation years. The Board is tasked with determining the current values of the subject properties on the valuation day, January 1, 2012.

10The Board is further required by the Assessment Act to determine whether the assessed value of each of the subject properties is equitable with the assessed values of similar lands in the vicinity, and to 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.

DECISION

11The Board finds that the current values of the subject properties are as set out in the individual decisions below. The current values are applicable to the assessments for the 2014 and 2015 taxation years.

12The Board confirms the property classifications as either commercial or residential as set out in the individual decisions below.

13The Board finds that there is no evidence before it that the value of any of the subject properties requires an adjustment in accordance with s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act in order to make it equitable with the assessed values of similar properties in the vicinity.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

Current Values of the Subject Properties

14Section 44.(3)(a) of the Act requires the Board to first "determine the current value of the land." The definition of "current value" is contained in s. 1 of the Act:

"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.

15Section 19.(1) states that:

Assessment based on current value. – The assessment of land shall be based on its current value.

16The best measure of current value is an arm's length and market-tested sale of the subject property on or close to the valuation day - January 1, 2012. If no such transaction took place, a further measure of current value can be derived from the arm's length and market-tested sales of comparable properties in the same vicinity and market. This measure acts as a benchmark and gauge of the correctness of the assessed value of the subject property.

17To enable an estimate of value for the subject property to be derived from an analysis of comparable property sales, there must be sufficient elements of similarity in terms of physical factors. In the case of residential condominiums, factors for comparison will usually include unit size and building amenities plus amenities inherent in the location such as views, proximity to water, recreational areas and open spaces. All comparable sales provided by the parties were taken from the Deerhurst Resort condominiums in which the subject properties are also located.

18Evidence for MPAC was presented by Terri McLean. Ms. McLean filed information packages containing property profiles for each unit. Package A (Exhibit 1) included information respecting the 700 sq. ft. condominiums; Package B (Exhibit 2) included information pertaining to the mid-size condominiums ranging from 1,075 to 1,320 sq. ft., and Package C (Exhibit 3) dealt with the two larger units measuring 1,518 sq. ft. and 1,636 sq. ft. Included in each package was the market analysis using four to seven property sales within the Deerhurst condominium complex, MPAC's data respecting price changes over time, an equity analysis, and exterior photographs of the subject properties taken from the air. Package A also contained exterior photographs of the condominium buildings from the ground.

19Because the evidence was presented in a format that distinguished the units by their size, the Board accepts the logic of this approach and will look at each of the three groups separately. In the following pages, Category A refers to the nine 700-sq. ft. units; Category B refers to the 16 units measuring 1,075 to 1,320 sq. ft., and Category C includes the two units in the largest category.

Current Value – Category A (700 Sq. Ft. Units)

20All units involved in this appeal have identical roll numbers except for the last four digits (omitting the four zeros at the end of all roll numbers). All roll numbers include: 4442-020-006 followed by five digits – 07XXX. In order to simplify reference to individual units, they will be identified by the last five digits, such as "07901."

21Ms. McLean testified that, while most of the units have the same features in respect of fireplaces and whirlpool tubs, some units received additional value for the reason that they were abutting the sports field or golf course, were located on the top floor, or had panoramic views. Other units were given less value for obstructed views (23 Unit U4L2 – 07901).

22Ms. McLean offered four comparable sales, one from Tennis Building 28 and three from Mapleridge Building 23, all units within the Deerhurst condominium complex. Three of these sales took place in July and August, 2010. The fourth took place closer to the valuation day – January 1, 2012 – in September, 2011. The time-adjusted sales prices ranged from $166,955 for a Level 1 unit to $215,535 for a Level 3 unit. All the comparable units were built in 1988, were 700 sq. ft. in size and had the same interior features as the subject properties. Ms. McLean testified that the median assessed value for the four comparable sales units was $172,000. In cross-examination, Ms. McLean added that the premium for third-floor units is 2%; that air-conditioning is not factored into the value; and that abutting an amenity such as the sports field adds value whether or not the condominium owners make use of the amenity.

23The hearing was adjourned prior to its conclusion and resumed on May 11, 2015. At that time Ms. McLean also added the information that panoramic views added 3% to the value of the units, while water views, had any of the subject properties benefited from them, would have increased the value by 15%. In the case of all 27 units involved in this appeal, water views were not a factor.

24Ms. Coulson testified on behalf of the Appellant. During the initial day of hearing, November 25, 2014, Ms. Coulson filed Exhibit 4, which included her analysis of the evidence provided by MPAC and her recommendations respecting the current values of the subject properties. When the hearing resumed in May 2015, Ms. Coulson filed Exhibit 5, which was a more comprehensive analysis of MPAC's evidence and, in particular, an analysis of why, in her opinion, the time adjustment factors ("TAF") provided by MPAC were incorrect. She wished to rely on Exhibit 5 more than its predecessor, Exhibit 4, because it was more comprehensive. Ms. McLean did not object.

25Chief among Ms. Coulson's arguments respecting the accuracy of the MPAC's TAF is the fact that the 117 of the 237 sales used for this calculation by MPAC included "new, first time offering of units, heavily advertised and marketed subsequent to a major world event…" She argues that only 25 of the 237 properties used to gauge changes in value over time are directly comparable to the subject properties. She also pointed out that the Deerhurst condominium units, two-thirds of which are participating in Deerhurst Resort's rental program, are all bought and sold complete with the resort's furnishings, appliances, window dressings, dishes and amenities such as artwork. These values add up to $15,000 to the overall value of the 700 sq. ft. units in Ms. Coulson's opinion. To back this up, she provided in Exhibit 5 a "Sample Budget" provided to condominium owners by the resort setting out the cost to the unit owner for replacement chattels such as furniture, light fixtures, artwork, window coverings, televisions and appliances. The "Sample Budget" was used as an example only; it was effective in 2014, well after the valuation day, and is not a direct indicator of the value of the chattels included in the purchase prices of units at or near the valuation day.

26Ms. McLean objected to the use of evidence concerning the value of chattels in some of the subject properties. She argued that no affidavits of land transfer tax had been provided by the Appellant. Where the chattel value is not included in the sales evidence registered on title, MPAC is not required to consider it. Ms. McLean referred the Board to a decision of Member N. Plumstead dated September 3, 2014, identified as Zyl v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp., Region 28 [2014] O.A.R.B.D. No. 434, in which the Board relied on the affidavit evidence of value which, in that case, specified that the value of chattels was $0.00.

27In this case, no affidavits of land transfer tax were provided by either party and the evidence is not specific as to which of the subject properties included chattels such as furnishings and housewares and which were furnished by the owners independent of the resort. Particulars on a per-unit basis, as declared in any title documents, would be required in order to give the level of information necessary to affect the valuation of the property, as noted in the Zyl decision. The Board finds here that, where there are a variety of units, some of which may have included assets as part of the sales price and some of which did not, the individual owners would have the onus of proving the apportionment between realty and chattels, if any, once MPAC had established the overall value for assessment purposes. As no evidence was provided respecting the separate value of chattels, the Board cannot consider this argument.

28Ms. Coulson also provided her own calculation of Sale to Assessment Ratios over Time, and argued that her evidence of sales taking place between February 2009, through March 2015, showed a clear reduction in values of 12.9%. Unfortunately, the Board prefers evidence as close as possible to the valuation day. Sales trends in 2013, 2014 and 2015 will be reflected in the next assessment cycle. In Ms. Coulson's evidence the downward trend in values contained at her chart on Page 5 of Exhibit 5 is influenced to a great extent by her evidence of declining values starting in February 2013 and continuing through October 2014. The trend after December 2012, does not assist the Board in gauging the current value of the subject properties in January 2012.

29Ms. Coulson also raised valid questions about the age of the subject properties, the deterioration of aspects of these buildings which have required ongoing renovation and upgrading. However, the specific details of upgrading carried out by the Appellant, and the costs of such upgrading were not provided. No evidence was led by Ms. Coulson as to the value of the deterioration of these units, all 24 years of age at the valuation day. While she provided evidence that there were interior problems with the whirlpool tubs, parts for which are no longer available, her evidence on this point lacked specificity and, more particularly, valuation. The Board is therefore unable to calculate an appropriate value for deterioration based on the age of the units.

30Ms. Coulson also testified that some of the subject properties did not have balconies until after 2012. The parties debated the definition of "covered porches." Ms. McLean offered the opinion that the covered porches may include the interior entryway for some units but she could not be specific. Ms. Coulson highlighted photographic evidence contained in Exhibit 1 that showed that many upper-level units had balconies but no coverings over them.

31Ms. McLean addressed the value of porches in her evidence; assessing them a value of $6,000. Unfortunately, there was a great deal of conflicting evidence about what constituted a "porch", leading to no clear evidence from either party permitting the Board to distinguish between porches and balconies. While it was however uncontroverted that five units did not have balconies as of the valuation day and acquired them subsequently; these five units had received balconies by December, 2014, the date of the closing of the roll for 2014, and were therefore not entitled to a reduction in current value for 2014 or 2015.

32The Board finds that the evidence presented by both parties supported the current values of the nine units in the 700-sq. ft. category as being fairly assessed in the range of $172,000 to $181,000.

33The Board considered Ms. Coulson's submissions that the following factors should be used to reduce the current value of this group of condominiums: (a) age and deterioration; (b) the fact that the units on the rental program have a built-in asset value which is not properly deducted from the value of the property; (c) the time-adjustment factors used by MPAC to determine values current to January 1, 2012, include many other types of residential condominiums which are not directly comparable to the subject properties. However, the Board rejects these arguments for these reasons:

(a) The value of the age and deterioration on the individual units was not quantified by the Appellant and was therefore not useful in calculating an appropriate reduction in current value;

(b) The asset value was not quantified by means of affidavits for land transfer tax purposes. Therefore, individualized evidence respecting the value of chattels in respect of some of the units was neither substantiated nor quantified and was therefore not able to be used;

(c) Ms. Coulson's own time-adjustment factors did not meaningfully deviate from from those provided by MPAC for the period of importance in this matter: January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2012. Her evidence of market changes since 2012 was not of use in determining values far removed from the valuation day.

34The Board therefore makes the following findings in respect of the current values of the units in the 700-sq.ft. category.

35Roll No. 4442-020-006-07701-0000 is a 700-sq. ft. unit on the second level of the Tennis Building 28. It was assessed at $172,000. The Board confirms the current value in the amount of $172,000 and further confirms the property classification of this unit as residential in 2014 and commercial in 2015.

36Roll No. 4442-020-006-07709-0000 is a 700-sq. ft. unit on the first level of the Tennis Building 29. It was assessed at $172,000. The Board confirms the current value in the amount of $172,000 and confirms the property classification as commercial in 2014 and residential in 2015.

37Roll No. 4442-020-006-07710-0000 is a 700-sq. ft. unit on the third level of the Tennis Building 29. It was assessed at $175,000. The Board confirms the current value at $175,000 and confirms the property classification as residential for both 2014 and 2015.

38Roll No. 4442-020-006-07711-0000 is a 700-sq. ft. unit on the second level of the Tennis Building 29. It was assessed at $172,000. The Board confirms the current value in the amount of $172,000, and confirms the property classification as commercial in both 2014 and 2015.

39Roll No. 4442-020-006-07809-0000 is a 700-sq. ft. unit on the first level of the Golfview Building 27. It was assessed at $172,000. The Board confirms the current value in the amount of $172,000 and confirms the property classification as commercial for both 2014 and 2015.

40Roll No. 4442-020-006-07810-0000 is a 700-sq. ft. unit on the second level of the Golfview Building 27. It was assessed at $172,000. The Board hereby confirms the current value as of January 1, 2012 at $172,000 and further confirms the property classification as residential in 2014 and 2015.

41Roll No. 4442-020-006-07901-0000 is a 700-sq. ft. unit on the second level of the Mapleridge Building 23. The assessment was returned at $177,000. The Board hereby confirms the current value as of January 1, 2012 at $177,000, and further confirms the property classification as commercial for 2014 and 2015.

42Roll No. 4442-020-006-07915-0000 is a 700-sq. ft. unit on the first level of the Mapleridge Building 24. The assessment was returned at $177,000. The Board confirms the current value as of January 1, 2012 at $177,000, and further confirms the property classification as residential for 2014 and 2015.

43Roll No. 4442-020-006-07917-0000 is a 700-sq. ft. unit on the third level of the Mapleridge Building 24. It was assessed at $181,000. The Board confirms the current value as of January 1, 2012 at $181,000, and confirms the property classification as commercial for 2014 and 2015.

Current Value – Category B (1,075 and 1,320 Sq. Ft. Units)

44This group includes 16 units, of which 12 are 1,075 sq. ft. units and the remaining four are 1,320 sq. ft. in area. Ms. McLean indicated at the outset that MPAC has recommended a 10 per cent reduction of the assessments of all 16 units on the ground of equity.

45The larger units in this grouping include three bedrooms and three bathrooms. All but two units include at least one whirlpool tub. Unit 07708 (28 Golfview U6L3) and Unit 07814 (27 Golfview U2L3) lack whirlpool tubs. All received 10 "porch points" indicating the presence of a porch or balcony, although there was disagreement among the parties on the quality and character of the porches. Most of the units in the category were evaluated as abutting the golf course or the sports field, which was deemed by MPAC to add a small percentage to the overall value.

46Ms. McLean presented six comparable property sales. All six were located within the Deerhurst Resort condominium complex. Only one of the six sales took place within a reasonable proximity to the valuation day to be a reliable indicator of value, and this was 29 Unit U3L1 in the Golfview Building. This unit of 1,075 sq. ft. sold in August 2011, for the time-adjusted price of $180,601. The other sale which is closest in time to the valuation day was the sale of 23 Unit 305 Oakridge Building, occurring in November 2010. This 1,320 sq. ft. unit sold for the time-adjusted price of $273,735.

47The remaining four sales included in MPAC's market analysis took place in 2013. Without the benefit of time-adjustment, the values of the four comparable sales in 2013 were:

• Sale A: 28 Unit U5L3 (Golfview) - $210,000 – 1,320 sq. ft.
• Sale C: 27 Unit U2L3 (Golfview) - $176,991 - 1,075 sq. ft.
• Sale D: 27 Unit U3L2 (Golfview) - $185,000 - 1,075 sq. ft.
• Sale F: 24 Unit 101 (Oakridge) - $198,000 - 1,075 sq. ft.

48If one averages the comparable sales prices based on unit size, given the absence of sufficient evidence of sales around the valuation day, the average value for the 1,075 sq. ft. units is $185,000 (rounded) for units without particular attributes such as panoramic views. For the 1,320 sq. ft. units, an average sales price was $251,000 (rounded).

49Ms. Coulson's evidence with respect to these mid-sized units concentrated on the evidence of MPAC's inconsistent application of "porch points" to units with and without balconies in 2012 and to units that have wooden stairs and a landing by means of access to their units while being assessed as having porches. Ms. McLean was unable to answer some of the specific questions about the assessment of porches in respect of these condominium units. However, Ms. McLean had stated at an earlier point in the proceedings that a balcony is assessed at a value of $6,000.

50Ms. Coulson also provided some sales data respecting the Deerhurst complex. She testified that, as a property manager, she is required to provide status certificates in connection with prospective unit sales. She keeps track of sales prices as a result. Her data spanned six years from 2009 to 2015; however, only five total sales included in her information took place in the period of time within one year of the valuation day. Of those, two dealt with 700-sq. ft. units. Due to the small sample of available sales data, the Board is prepared to consider sales occurring late in 2010 up to those occurring in the first four months of 2013. In the mid-sized group of condominium units, three of the Appellant's comparable sales took place within that period, although the same three were included in MPAC's market analysis and have already been reviewed above.

51Ms. Coulson also included some listing agreements for Deerhurst condominium units and for condominium units located in other complexes in Huntsville. Unfortunately, because these were not representative of sale prices, they were unhelpful.

52As noted with respect to the 700 sq. ft. units, the Board did not receive adequate evidence to conclude that chattel values were not included in sales and assessment values. All values below refer to real property values in which the values of chattels may or may not be included. The values of the chattels do not form part of the consideration of current value without specific affidavit evidence confirming the separate value of chattels.

53Evidence of comparative property sales leads the Board to conclude that the current values of the units contained in this mid-size range require reduction in order to make their valuation day values comparable with similar (even identical) units sold within 16 months of January 1, 2012.

54The Board had insufficient evidence to allow much distinction between the different units of identical sizes. While the evidence disclosed that MPAC accords a higher value to upper-level units for the better views most of them enjoy, no particulars were given in respect of this group of units respecting comparison of views. The Board was unable to draw distinctions between the 16 units except that Unit 07708 (28 Tennis Building U6L3) and Unit 07814 (27 Golfview U2L3) lack whirlpool tubs.

55Using the evidence presented by both parties in respect of comparative sales, the Board finds that the current values of the 1,075 sq. ft. units are reduced to $185,000, except in the case of Unit 27 Golfview U2L3, which lacks a whirlpool tub and is reduced a further $3,000 to $182,000.

56Using evidence presented by both parties in respect of comparative sales, in combination with the recommended values suggested by MPAC, the Board finds that the current values of the 1,320 sq. ft. units, based on comparable sales, was close to $250,000. However, MPAC has recommended a reduction in these values for most of the subject properties of this size. The Board accepts MPAC's recommendations except in the case of Unit 07708 (28 Golfview U6L3) which is further reduced to $227,000 in respect of the lack of a whirlpool tub.

57The following paragraphs set out the findings in respect of each individual unit. As in respect of the smaller units, any changes to property classification are noted as well.

58Roll No. 4442-020-006-07703-0000 is a 1,320-sq. ft. unit on the first level of the Tennis Building 28. The property classification is confirmed as commercial in 2014 and residential in 2015. The assessment was returned at $256,000. The Board finds that the current value is $230,000 and reduces the assessment accordingly.

59Roll No. 4442-020-006-07704-0000 is a 1,320-sq. ft. unit on the second level of the Tennis Building 28. This property classification is confirmed as residential for both 2014 and 2015. The assessment was returned at $256,000. The Board finds that the current value is $230,000 and reduces the assessment accordingly.

60Roll No. 4442-020-006-07706-0000 is a 1,320-sq. ft. unit on the first level of the Tennis Building 28. This property classification is confirmed as residential for both 2014 and 2015. The assessment was returned at $256,000. The Board finds that the current value is $230,000 and reduces the assessment accordingly.

61Roll No. 4442-020-006-07707-0000 is a 1,320-sq. ft. unit on the second level of the Tennis Building 28. The assessment was returned at $256,000. The Board finds that the current value is $230,000 and reduces the assessment accordingly. The property classification is confirmed as commercial for both 2014 and 2015.

62Roll No. 4442-020-006-07708-0000 is a 1,320-sq. ft. unit on the third level of the Tennis Building 28. This property classification is confirmed as commercial for both 2014 and 2015. The assessment was returned at $247,000. The Board finds that this property does not have a whirlpool. The current value is reduced to $227,000.

63Roll No. 4442-020-006-07812-0000 is a 1,075-sq. ft. unit on the first level of the Golfview Building 27. The assessment was returned at $222,000. The current value is reduced to $185,000. The property classification is confirmed as commercial for 2014 and 2015.

64Roll No. 4442-020-006-07813-0000 is a 1,075-sq. ft. unit on the second level of the Golfview Building 27. The property classification is confirmed as commercial in 2014 and residential in 2015. The assessment was returned at $222,000. The current value is reduced to $185,000.

65Roll No. 4442-020-006-07814-0000 is a 1,075-sq. ft. unit on the third level of the Golfview Building 27. The assessment was returned at $223,000 for the 2014 taxation year and at $213,000 for the 2015 taxation year. This unit does not have a whirlpool. The current value is reduced to $182,000 for the 2014 and 2015 taxation years and the Board confirms the property classification as residential in 2014 and commercial in 2015.

66Roll No. 4442-020-006-07815-0000 is a 1,075-sq. ft. unit on the first level of the Golfview Building 27. The assessment was returned at $222,000. The current value is reduced to $185,000 and the Board confirms the property classification as commercial in 2014 and 2015.

67Roll No. 4442-020-006-07817-0000 is a 1,075-sq. ft. unit on the third level of the Golfview Building 27. The assessment was returned at $226,000. The current value is reduced to $189,000 and the Board confirms the property classification as commercial in 2014 and 2015.

68Roll No. 4442-020-006-07906-0000 is a 1,320-sq. ft. unit on the second level of the Mapleridge Building 23. The assessment was returned at $294,000. The current value is reduced to $265,000 and the Board confirms the property classification as commercial for 2014 and 2015.

69Roll No. 4442-020-006-07909-0000 is a 1,075-sq. ft. unit on the first level of the Mapleridge Building 24. The property classification is confirmed as residential for 2014 and 2015. The assessment was returned at $244,000. The current value is reduced to $220,000.

70Roll No. 4442-020-006-07910-0000 is a 1,075-sq. ft. unit on the first level of the Mapleridge Building 24. The property classification is confirmed as residential for both 2014 and 2015. The assessment was returned at $244,000. The current value is reduced to $220,000.

71Roll No. 4442-020-006-07911-0000 is a 1,075-sq. ft. unit on the second level of the Mapleridge Building 24. The property classification is confirmed as commercial in both 2014 and 2015. The assessment was returned at $244,000. The current value is reduced to $220,000.

72Roll No. 4442-020-006-07913-0000 is a 1,075-sq. ft. unit on the third level of the Mapleridge Building 24. The assessment was returned at $249,000. The current value is reduced to $224,000, and the Board confirms the property classification as commercial in 2014 and 2015.

73Roll No. 4442-020-006-07914-0000 is a 1,075-sq. ft. unit on the third level of the Mapleridge Building 24. The assessment was returned at $236,000. The current value is reduced to $213,000. The Board confirms the property classification as commercial in 2014 and residential in 2015.

Current Value - Category C (1,518 and 1,636 Sq. Ft. Units)

74Category C comprises two single-storey units built in 1988 with two bathrooms each. The larger has three bedrooms; the smaller has two bedrooms. Both are located on the ground floor of the Golfview Building 26. The larger unit does not have a whirlpool tub.

75In her presentation, Ms. McLean referred the Board to seven comparable property sales involving similar-sized condominium units at Deerhurst Resort, some of which were located in the Golfview Building as are the two subject properties in this size category. Some of the other comparable sales are taken from the Oakridge Building which is two years older than the subject properties. All but one of Ms. McLean's comparable sales took place within 13 months of the valuation day. The sixth, Sale C, is rejected because it took place a full two years prior to January 1, 2012.

76Ms. McLean's comparable sales properties are all valued higher than the two subject properties in this category. Ms. McLean suggested that this was because they were on the top levels of their respective buildings, giving clearer views. Ms. Coulson suggested that the Oakridge Building comparable sales weren't really comparable because this building is closer to the water.

77In these two appeals, the evidence of comparable sales of similarly-sized condominium units at Deerhurst over 13-months of the valuation day demonstrates that the values as returned are supportable. All of the sales used for the market analysis by MPAC were for higher amounts, with the subject properties having a lesser values due to having lesser views.

78Ms. Coulson argued that these two units are located in a less-desirable building than a number of the comparable properties situated in the Oakridge building. However, the values in the Oakridge properties were all a minimum of $25,000 more than the two subject properties, even though the three Oakridge comparable sales involved units equivalent in size to the smaller of the two units forming Category C. The other three comparable sales, all occurring in the upper levels of the Golfview Building, are all more valuable than these two subject properties, confirming that the current values of these properties are supportable. Ms. Coulson's most compelling submission was that these two properties had standard entrances, lacking balconies or anything that might constitute "porches." However, the Board finds that these properties are valued at least $7,000 less than the closest comparable sale (Sale E, sold for a time-adjusted price of $284,294), which incorporates a reduction for the absence of a porch at the rate of $6,000, the value assigned to porches in this complex by the assessor.

79Once again, the Board was unable to consider whether or not the value of chattels that may or may not have been sold with the properties should affect the current values in the absence of clear evidence of separate chattel sales.

80The Board's findings respecting the Category C properties is as follows:

• Roll No. 4442-020-006-07800 is a 1,518-sq. ft. unit on the first level of the Golfview Building 26. The assessment was returned at $275,000. The Board confirms the current value and the assessment in the amount of $275,000 for 2014 and 2015. The Board confirms the property classification as commercial for both 2014 and 2015.

• Roll No. 4442-020-006-07803-0000 is a 1,636-sq. ft. unit on the first level of the Golfview Building 26. The assessment was returned at $277,000. The Board confirms the current value and the assessment for 2014 and 2015 in the amount of $277,000, and confirms the property classification as residential for both 2014 and 2015.

Equity

81Once the Board has determined the current value of the land, it is required by s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act to:

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.

82Both parties introduced evidence touching on the issue of equity. Ms. McLean included her Equity Analysis for all properties in Exhibit A, basing it on 45 sales within the Deerhurst condominium complex between January 2010, and September 2012. She indicates that the median Assessment to Sale Ratio ("ASR") is 1.01, which is acceptable accuracy using industry and Board standards.

83Ms. Coulson included very little evidence of equity for the period of time between January 2010 through December 2012. Much of her evidence focused on sales taking place in 2013, 2014 and 2015, which contributed little to the discussion of MPAC's accuracy of assessment in the period of time around the valuation day.

84Consequently, the Board finds that, in the absence of evidence indicating that the assessments of the subject properties require reductions in order to make them equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity, the Board will make no such adjustments.

CONCLUSION

85The Board finds that the current values of the subject properties are as set out in the individual decisions above. The current values are applicable to the assessments for the 2014 and 2015 taxation years.

86The Board confirms the property classifications as either commercial or residential as set out above.

87The Board finds that there is no evidence before it that the value of any of the subject properties requires an adjustment in accordance with s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act in order to make it equitable with the assessed values of similar properties in the vicinity.