F. Dolenz, C. Dolenz and SAR Spadina Ltd. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation ("MPAC") Region 09, 2015 CanLII 66515

Assessment Review Board / Commission de révision de l'évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: October 13, 2015

FILE NO.: WR 132787

Assessed Person(s): F. Dolenz, C. Dolenz and SAR Spadina Ltd.

Appellant(s): F. Dolenz, C. Dolenz and SAR Spadina Ltd.

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation ("MPAC") Region 09

Respondent(s): City of Toronto

Property Location(s): 97, 160 and 162 Spadina Road

Municipality(ies): City of Toronto

Roll Number(s): 1904-052-150-01700, 1904-051-410-04500 and 1904-051-410-04400

Appeal Number(s): 2971160, 3010003, (3078765 deemed 2015), 2970982, 3011398, (3075142 deemed 2015), 2970981, 3011399 and (3078766 deemed 2015).

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

Hearing Event No.: 576233

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

Heard: September 9, 2014 and June 3, 2015 in Toronto, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel+/Representative
F. Dolenz, C. Dolenz and SAR Spadina Ltd.	C. Morkill
MPAC	S. Stadelmann
City of Toronto	No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY MARILYN SHARMA

PRELIMINARY

1The hearing of June 3, 2015 is a continuation of a previously adjourned hearing held on September 9, 2014. The hearing of September 9, 2014 was adjourned to allow the Appellants time to reconcile the differences in evidence previously submitted to the Assessment Review Board ("Board") and MPAC.

2The three properties under appeal are all Licenced Rooming Houses, all within the vicinity of each other and located at 97, 160 and 162 Spadina Road in Toronto. Because of the similarity of the three properties, the Board, on the basis of its deliberations and the evidence before it will establish the current value of one of the properties (97 Spadina Road) and apply it to the other two properties under appeal.

INTRODUCTION

3The details of the three properties are as follows:

97 Spadina Road

• The property at 97 Spadina Road is classified as a multi-residential property with a "Rooming House Licence" issued by the City of Toronto.
• The property comprises twenty three (23) dwelling rooms.
• The total building area is 6,253 square feet.
• The assessment of the subject property for the taxation years 2013 and 2014 is $1,896,000.

160 and 162 Spadina Road

• The two properties are formerly semi-detached homes built in 1905 with separate Roll Numbers.
• The square footage of each building is 2,663 square feet.
• Each property was converted to Rooming Houses in 1974 both have been classified as multi-residential properties with a "Rooming House Licence" issued by the City of Toronto.
• The property at 160 Spadina Road comprises twelve (12) dwelling rooms.
• The property at 162 Spadina Road comprises twelve (12) dwelling rooms.
• The assessment of the property at 160 Spadina Road is $1,026,000 for the taxation year 2013 and $959,000 for the taxation year 2014.
• The assessment of the property at 162 Spadina Road is $1,026,000 for the taxation year 2013 and $959,000 for the taxation year 2014.

ISSUE

4The issue before the Board is to determine whether the subject properties have been incorrectly classified and assessed as "Bachelorette Apartments."

DECISION

5The Board finds that the current value of the properties under appeal for the 2013, 2014 and deemed 2015 taxation years are as follows:

i. 97 Spadina Road: $1,711,100 (rounded). ii. 160 Spadina Road: $ 728,800 (rounded). iii. 162 Spadina Road: $ 728,800 (rounded).

6The Board finds no adjustment is required for equity purposes under s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act.

7The Board therefore reduces the assessment of the properties under appeal as follows:

97 Spadina Road from $1,896,000 to $1,711,100 for the taxation years 2013, and 2014 and from $1,749,000 to $1,711,100 for the deemed 2015 taxation year.

160 Spadina Road from $1,026,000 to $728,800 for the taxation year 2013 (rounded).

160 Spadina Road from $959,000 to $728,800 for the taxation year 2014 and from $941,000 to $728,800 for the deemed 2015 taxation year.

162 Spadina Road from $1,026,000 to $728,800 for the taxation year 2013.

162 Spadina Road from $959,000 to $728,800 for the taxation year 2014 and from $912,000 to $728,800 for the deemed 2015 taxation year.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Legislation

8For the 2013 taxation year, in determining the value at which land shall be assessed, the Board must have regard to the following provisions of the Assessment Act, R.S.O 1990, c.A.31, as amended ("Act"):

9Section 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.

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)2 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.

14Section 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.

15Section 3.(1)1. xi of O. Reg 282/98 states:

3.(1) The residential property class consists of the following:

1. Land used for residential purposes that is,

xi. land that is a municipally-licensed rooming house,

Analysis

16Under the Act the Board is required to do three things:

(1) Find the current value of the 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

17The best measure of current value is an arm's length and market tested sale of the subject property on the valuation date of January 1, 2012, or close to it. If no such transaction took place, a further measure of current value is 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. The onus for establishing the correctness of the current value lies with MPAC.

MPAC's Evidence

18MPAC provided three suggested comparable properties as shown in Table1.

Table 1

MPAC's Suggested Comparable Properties

Address	Bldg. Area (sq. ft.)	Dwelling Rooms	Year Built	Sale Amt. ($)	Sale Date
97 Spadina Road (subject property)	6,253	23
160 Spadina Road (subject property)	2,663	12	1905
162 Spadina Road (subject property)	2,663	12	1905
670 Bathurst Street	nil	9	n/a	800,000	June 2011
409 Huron Street	nil	40	n/a	3,380,000	Aug. 2012
141 Admiral Road	nil	10	n/a	1,430,000	April 2012

19The Assessor is of the view that the above three suggested comparable properties in the vicinity of the subject property are the most comparable to the properties under appeal because they are self-contained, multi-residential Bachelorette Apartments. All three are assessed using the Income Approach to determine value.

20The Assessor informed the Board that in MPAC's view these properties are bought and sold for potential income and MPAC has established their current values based on income. As a result, MPAC has assessed all three of the comparable properties on the basis of the Income Approach to value.

21The Assessor stated that for the 2012 valuation, the assessment of the subject properties were derived using the actual median rents from the rent rolls and an average Gross Income Multiplier ("GIM") of 10.06. He further stated that using the GIM of 10.06 was an advantage to the Appellant because it represented the old 2007 rate. The Assessor went on to inform the Board that had the current GIM of 12.45 been applied, the assessment of all three properties would be higher.

22The Assessor indicated that, consistent with MPAC's position that the subject properties are all multi-residential self-contained Bachelorette Apartments, the subject properties are assigned a property code of 361 which designates them as "Multi-Residential Bachelorette Units."

23The Assessor advised the Board that "Bachelorette Units" are dwelling units that have kitchen and full bathroom facilities and are therefore described as being self-contained units. Rooming Houses he stated are not self-contained dwelling units because they have either a kitchen or bathroom (not full bathroom) facilities, but not both.

Appellant's Evidence

24The Appellant submitted a book of documents containing:

i. Overview of Complainant Statement of Issues; ii. Statement of Issues; iii. Rooming House Licences; iv. Letter from the City of Toronto confirming that 160 and 162 Spadina Road are Licenced Rooming Houses; v. Letter from the City of Toronto confirming Funding Agreement for 160 and 162 Spadina Road for Renovations to Licenced Rooming Houses; vi. Multiple Listing Service (MLS®) listings and Photographs of MPAC comparable properties at 141 Admiral Road and 670 Bathurst Street; vii. Toronto IBMS Reports – Licensed/Applied Rooming Houses; viii. Toronto Municipal Code definitions; ix. Case Law [2008] O.A.R.B.D. No. 57 File No. 64903; x. Case law [2003] O.A.R.B.D. No. 66 File No. 20372; xi. Case Law [2005] O.A.R.B.D. No. 28 File No. 35032; and xii. Photographs of 97, 160 and 162 Spadina Road.

25The Appellant argued that MPAC has determined that the properties under appeal should be in the" multi-residential" class of properties and accordingly, has assigned a property Code 361. However, the Appellant stated that according to O. Reg. 282/98 s. 3(1)1. xi the properties ought to be classified as "residential" and not "multi-residential" and the appropriate property code will then be 360.

26The Appellant informed the Board that the properties under appeal are all Licenced Rooming Houses in the residential class of properties. She further stated that all the properties are Rooming Houses licenced by the City of Toronto and all can be found on the "City of Toronto Inventory of Licenced Rooming Houses." She further stated that MPAC is incorrectly assessing the properties under appeal as ''Bachelorette Apartments" in the multi-residential class of properties (property Code 361) instead of being assessed as "Rooming Houses" in the residential class of properties (property Code 360). She claims that the aforementioned action by MPAC has resulted in her properties being assessed at a much higher level.

27The Appellant submitted the following four suggested comparable properties obtained from MPAC's data base of "My Neighbourhood Properties of Interest."

Table 2

Appellant's Suggested Comparable Properties

Address	Bldg. Area (sq. ft.)	Dwelling Rooms	Year Built	CVA ($)	CVA per sq. ft. ($)
97 Spadina Road (subject property)	6,253	23		1,896,000	303.20
160 Spadina Road (subject property)	2,663	12	1905	1,026,000	385.28
162 Spadina Road (subject property)	2,663	12	1905	1,026,000	385.28
101 Spadina Road	6,388	15	1893	1,934,000	302.78
111 Spadina Road	3,602	8	1906	1,110,000	308.16
123 Madison	3,206	8	1890	755,000	235.50
536 Huron Street	7,096	19	1908	1,761,000	248.17

28The Appellant states that the four suggested comparable properties are similar to the subject properties because:

i. They are all Licenced Rooming Houses, Licenced by the City; ii. All are located within close proximity to the properties under appeal; iii. All suggested comparable properties are listed in the official listing of Licenced Rooming Houses issued by the by the City of Toronto and, iv. All are within an acceptable range of age and number of dwelling units.

29The Appellant stated that MPAC failed to recognize that there is a fundamental difference between a Rooming House and a Bachelorette Apartment. She then went on to inform the Board that a Rooming House is recognized by the Municipality through licencing and stated in Exhibit 2 that the Municipality has defined a Rooming House as follows:

A House converted into dwelling units which by definition cannot be a self-contained unit with Kitchen and Full Bathroom. Furthermore, a rooming house unit does not have either a full bathroom or kitchen.

30The Appellant states that a Bachelorette Unit on the other hand is a self-contained unit with kitchen and bath facilities.

31The Appellant states that MPAC, in addition to assigning the wrong property class code, has used a method of assessment (Gross Income Multiplier - GIM) that is not a suitable approach for Rooming Houses but is a more appropriate approach in determining the value of Bachelorette Apartments. The reasons for the Appellant's claim are the following:

i. Rental income for Rooming Houses are restricted by Municipally imposed rent controls whereas rents for Bachelorette Apartments are not subject to any rent restrictions and are obtained in an open competitive market. ii. Rooming Houses are occupied mainly by low to very low income earners and this is typically not the case with Bachelorette Apartments. iii. The income stream from Rooming Houses is unstable, and unreliable and which is not accounted for in the GIM methodology. iv. Rooming House clientele are mostly transient in nature which is unlike that of the clientele of Bachelorette Apartment dwellers. v. Case Law was presented to support the argument that the GIM method was not an acceptable method to be used in the determination of value for Rooming Houses.

32The Appellant stated that in her opinion, MPAC has no basis for designating the properties under appeal as Bachelorette Units. She explained that the Assessor's main reason for so doing is because he stated that some of the units have a microwave appliance, which in his view is equivalent to having a kitchen therefore making the units (already with toilet facilities) as being equipped with both bathroom and kitchen facilities. The Appellant disagrees with the interpretation by MPAC because she cannot accept that the inclusion of a microwave in a rooming house renders it a room with a kitchen; nor could she accept that a toilet qualifies as a "bathroom." The Assessor on cross-examination stated that he had not inspected the properties under appeal.

33The Appellant submitted photographic evidence that compares the layout and furnishings of a Bachelorette Apartment versus that which pertains to a typical "Rooming House." She explained that all of the properties under appeal consist of simply a room with either kitchen facilities or bathroom facilities but none have both. The Bachelorette Apartments shown in the photographs submitted confirms that all had bathroom and kitchen facilities as well as sitting and sleeping areas.

34The Appellant stated that all the properties under appeal are legal Rooming Houses and in support of her claim she tabled the following evidence:

i. Copies of the Licence for Rooming Houses issued by the City of Toronto for each of the properties under appeal. ii. Copy of the City of Toronto Report listing all Licenced Rooming Houses in the City in which the properties under appeal can be found. iii. Copy of letter from the City of Toronto indicating the properties under appeal have obtained funding under the City of Toronto Program for the repair and maintenance of rooming houses. iv. As required by the City of Toronto, the Licence issued by the City of Toronto is posted at the front entrance of each of the premises so that the general public knows precisely that the premises are Licensed Rooming Houses.

35The Appellant also provided a copy of a letter from the Manager, Housing Improvement Programs, Affordable Housing Office, City of Toronto addressed to MPAC which further supports her argument that the properties should be classed as residential and not multi-residential, and that the properties are Rooming Houses not Bachelorette Apartments as suggested by MPAC. The letter states in part:

This is to confirm that the properties at 160 and 162 Spadina Road are both rooming houses licensed by Municipal Licensing and Standards of the City of Toronto and as such, they should fall under the Residential Property Class pursuant to section 3(1)1.xi of Ontario regulation 282/98 made under the Assessment Act.

36The Appellant raised an issue with the square footage of the property located at 97 Spadina Road stating that it should be 5,023 square feet and not 6,253 as stated by MPAC. She provided the Board with a partial report undertaken by Hudson Appraisal Replacement Cost Assessment to support her claim. She stated that while MPAC has assessed the property as being 6,253 square feet, she points to the appraisal report which states that "Basement is not to be considered above grade improvement" and as such she believes that the 1,509 square feet of basement area should be removed from the overall square footage.

Analysis of Evidence

Analysis of MPAC's Evidence

37The Board has considered the argument advanced by MPAC that its three suggested comparable properties are similar to the properties under appeal because they are all multi-residential Bachelorette Apartments. The Board notes that:

i. MPAC did not provide any evidence to demonstrate the similarity between its suggested comparable properties and the properties under appeal. ii. MPAC did not provide the Board with any reasons that warranted the property class designation 361 (multi-residential") to the properties under appeal rather than assigning the property code of 360 "residential."

38The Board finds that there is insufficient evidence and is unable to accept MPAC's argument that its suggested comparable properties are similar to the properties under appeal and therefore rejects them from consideration.

39The Board also considered the argument by MPAC that the subject properties are Bachelorette Apartments because as stated above, MPAC considers the properties as "multi-residential" and also that the units are self-contained units. In order to satisfy the qualification of a Bachelorette unit, the Assessor stated that in his view, the inclusion of a microwave oven in the units in the properties under appeal makes it compatible with the generally accepted notion of what constitutes a kitchen so that the units can be described as being self-contained. The Board is unable to accept the argument by MPAC that the three properties under appeal are self-contained Bachelorette Apartments appeal because:

i. MPAC has not established that the properties under appeal are "multi-residential" properties; and ii. MPAC has not been able to convince the Board that the dwelling units in the properties under appeal are self-contained Bachelorette apartments.

40The Board further notes that s. 3.(1)1.xi of Ontario Regulation 282/98 made under the Act specifically states that the residential property class includes the following:

"land that is a municipally-licensed rooming house."

41The Board finds that the Appellant has provided sufficient evidence to support her position that the subject properties are properties that should be in the residential class of properties and not in the multi-residential class.

42The Appellant's claim that MPAC has incorrectly classified her properties as Bachelorette Apartments instead of Rooming Houses was examined and considered by the Board against the evidence provided both by the Appellant and by MPAC.

43The Assessor did not provide the Board with evidence to support his position but stated that in his view the units in the subject properties are self-contained units and this is the requirement for them to be considered as Bachelorette Apartments. The Assessor advised the Board that MPAC had not conducted an inspection of the property therefore he could not verify whether the units were equipped with both bathroom and/or kitchen facilities.

44The Board was presented with evidence by the Appellant to support her position that the properties are Rooming Houses and such evidence included the following:

i. Copies of the Licence for each property issued by the City of Toronto indicating the purpose of the licence and which each states "Licenced Issued for: Rooming House – Regular" issued by the City of Toronto which list all but one of the 47 combined units in all three buildings as "dwellings with sanitary facilities" and only one unit as being self-contained. ii. Letter from the City of Toronto dated October 2, 2014 which states in part: "The properties are currently receiving renovation and repair funding for Rooming Houses under the Toronto Renovates Program where rents are required to be capped at affordable levels for 15 years." iii. A copy of the City of Toronto Report listing the location and Licencing status of all Licenced Rooming Houses in the City of Toronto. The Appellant established that her three properties are properly listed in the City's list. iv. A copy of a letter from the City of Toronto which states that the Appellant has applied and has been approved under the City of Toronto Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program which offers grants to licenced Rooming House Operators to maintain or improve their properties to ensure that they are safe and could meet the municipal inspection standards.

45The Board finds that the subject properties are all issued licences by the City of Toronto as Rooming Houses, have received long term funding under the City of Toronto program to maintain and improve Rooming Houses and are all listed on the City's official list of Licenced Rooming Houses. Based on the preponderance of the evidence, the Board is convinced that the properties under appeal are all Rooming Houses.

46Regarding MPAC's argument that the GIM approach to value is the appropriate methodology for establishing the assessment of the subject properties, the Board is not persuaded by the argument advanced by MPAC. The Appellant informed the Board that in her opinion the GIM is not an appropriate method that can be used to establish the assessments of Rooming Houses. She supported her position by informing the Board that Rooming Houses rents are restricted and controlled by the City whereas the rents obtained by Bachelorette Apartments are determined in the open competitive market. She further demonstrated how the rent controls are instituted by providing a copy of a letter from the City of Toronto dated October 2, 2014 in which it states that the subject properties are defined as Rooming Houses "receiving renovation and repair funding for Rooming Houses under the Toronto Renovates Program, where the rents are required to be capped at an affordable levels for 15 years."(Exhibit 2 - Letter from the City of Toronto dated October 2, 2014). The Appellant also informed the Board that Rooming House occupants can be very transient sometimes making rent collection difficult which is different from Bachelorette Apartments which generally have more stable and reliable income streams. The Appellant argued that having a reliable and consistent income stream are crucial to the determination of value using the GIM methodology. The Appellant presented case law which dismisses the GIM methodology as not being suitable for determining the value of Rooming Houses.

47The Board is persuaded by both the Appellant's arguments as well as by the case law presented which declares that the GIM is not an acceptable methodology that can be used to determine the value of Rooming Houses.

48The Appellant informed the Board that she believes that MPAC has misstated the square footage area of her property at 97 Spadina Road. She advised the Board that based on an appraisal report she commissioned, the appraiser stated that the building square footage should be 5,023 square feet and not 6,253 square feet as stated in the MPAC records. The Appraiser advised his client that the basement area of 1,509 square feet should not to be considered above grade improvement. The Board considered the argument put forward by the parties regarding the discrepancy of the square footage of the property located at 97 Spadina Road and accepts the assessor's explanation that MPAC's square footage of 6,253 square feet is based on living space and because there are dwelling units in the basement, it is correct to include the basement area in the total square footage of living space. The Board therefore accepts the square footage stated by MPAC of 6,253 square feet for the property at 97 Spadina Road.

49The Board reviewed the property details of the four suggested comparable properties submitted by the Appellant at 101 Spadina Road, 111 Spadina Road, 123 Madison Avenue and 536 Huron Street. All four properties are located within the same general neighbourhood of the properties under appeal, they are of similar age, and all are Rooming Houses listed under the City of Toronto Licenced Rooming Houses Report. The Board therefore accepts that all four suggested comparable properties submitted by the Appellant are similar to the properties under appeal and can be used in the determination of current value.

Board's Summary:

50The Board has determined that the main issues in this appeal are:

(a) The determination of suitable comparable properties which are similar to the properties under appeal. (b) The determination of whether the GIM methodology is the appropriate mechanism to establish value in this case. (c) Whether the properties under appeal have been placed in the right property class; i.e. should they be designated the property classification "multi-residential" or "residential." (d) Whether the properties are self-contained Bachelorette Apartments or Licenced Rooming Houses.

51Accordingly the Board concludes:

• That the suggested comparable properties submitted by MPAC at 670 Bathurst Street, 409 Huron Street and 141 Admiral Road are not similar to the properties under appeal and cannot be considered in its deliberations to determine value because they are all Bachelorette Apartments while the subject properties under appeal are all Rooming Houses.
• That the Income Approach used by MPAC to determine the value of the properties under appeal is not an acceptable methodology in this instance. As explained above, the potential income stream from Rooming Houses is not similar to that of Bachelorette Apartments because Rooming House rents are controlled and not derived from open market rents as that of Bachelorette Apartments. In addition, the Rooming House clientele can be transient, and does not offer a reliable and consistent income stream as Bachelorette Apartments. The Board is of the view that the potential income stream from Rooming Houses is not compatible with the GIM methodology for the determination of value. Finally, the Board agrees with the Case Law presented that the GIM method is not appropriate for appeals such as that under consideration.
• That ample evidence has been provided to show that, consistent with the requirements of "section 3(1)1.xi of Ontario regulation 282/98 made under the Assessment Act", the properties under appeal are "residential" properties and not "multi-residential" properties. The Board therefore is unable to accept MPAC's argument that the subject properties are to be classified as "multi-residential" properties.
• That based on a preponderance of the evidence submitted by the Appellant, the Board finds that the properties under appeal are all Licenced Rooming Houses in the City of Toronto and not Bachelorette Apartments. Such evidence includes the Licence issued for each property, the receipt of funding from the City under the program specific to Rooming Houses and all three properties are listed on the City's report of all Licenced Rooming Houses in the City.

Determination of Current Value

52The Board agrees that the best method to determine the current value of the subject property is based on the sales of similar properties in the neighborhood. However, neither MPAC nor the Appellant submitted any valid sales for the consideration of the Board.

53In the absence of valid sales of similar properties, the Board must consider the next best alternative for establishing the current value of the properties under appeal. The Board is of the view that the best alternative in this case is the use of the assessed values of similar properties. In this case, the Board finds that the average assessed value per square foot of the similar properties submitted by the Appellant serves as the best indicator of value.

54The Board finds that the average assessed value per square foot of the four properties located at 101 Spadina Road, 111 Spadina Road, 123 Mason and 536 Huron is $273.65.

55When the average assessed value per square foot of $273.65 is applied to the building area of the properties under appeal, the Board finds that the revised current value of the properties are as follows:

i. 97 Spadina Road - $1,711,100 (rounded). ii. 160 Spadina Road - $728,800 (rounded) iii. 162 Spadina Road - $728,800 (rounded)

Equity with Similar Lands in the Vicinity

56The Board is required under s. 44.(3) sub-paragraph (b) of the Act, to 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.

57For purposes of establishing equity, properties do not need to be comparable; they need to be of a similar nature and within a reasonable proximity to the subject properties. MPAC presented the sales of 30 properties within 0.28 - 0.33 kilometers of each of the subject property which occurred between June 2010 and December 2012. For the purpose of establishing equity the Board considers the sales between January 2011 and December 2012 as valid sales. The average Assessment to Sales Ratios ("ASR") of the similar properties with valid sales are as follows:

a. For 97 Spadina Road 1.01 b. For 160 Spadina Road 1.0 and c. For 162 Spadina Road 0.99

58A value within five percentage points is usually considered an acceptable value. In this case the ASRs of 1.01, 1.0 and 0.99 fall within an acceptable range and suggests that MPAC's methodology may be producing assessments in line with sales in the area. The Board therefore finds that no adjustment is required for equity in accordance with s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act.

CONCLUSION

59The Board finds that the current value of the properties under appeal for the 2013, 2014 and deemed 2015 taxation years are as follows:

i. 97 Spadina Road: $1,711,100 (rounded). ii. 160 Spadina Road: $ 728,800 (rounded). iii. 162 Spadina Road: $ 728,800 (rounded).

60The Board finds no adjustment is required for equity purposes under s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act.

61The Board therefore reduces the assessment of the properties under appeal as follows:

97 Spadina Road:

For the taxation years 2013 and 2014 from $1,896,000 to $1,711,100.

For the deemed taxation year 2015 from $1,749,000 to $1,711,100.

160 Spadina Road:

For the taxation year 2013 from $1,026,000 to $728,800.

For the taxation year 2014 from $959,000 to $728,800.

For the deemed taxation year 2015 from $941,000 to $728,800.

162 Spadina Road:

For the taxation year 2013 from $1,026,000 to $728,800.

For the taxation year 2014 from $959,000 to $728,800.

For the deemed taxation year 2015 from $912,000 to $728,800.

2015 DEEMED APPEAL

62An 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.

63Section 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.