Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: October 30, 2015

FILE NO.: WR 130288

Assessed Person(s): Sohrab Ghaffari-Haghi and Zaniani Poupak

Appellant(s): Sohrab Ghaffari-Highi

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

Respondent(s): City of Toronto

Property Location(s): 18 Bamboo Grove

Municipality(ies): City of Toronto

Roll Number(s): 1908-083-150-02600-0000

Appeal Number(s): 2981224, 3009612 and 3076352 (deemed 2015)

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

Hearing Event No. 571931

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

Heard: January 29, 2015, in Toronto, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel+/Representative
Shorab Ghaffari-Haghi and Zaniani Poupak	Self-represented
MPAC	Greg Tom
City of Toronto	No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY CRISTINA MARQUES AND MARK COLLIN SPRAGGETT

ISSUE

1The subject property, 18 Bamboo Grove, has a 3,676 square foot (“sq. ft.”), single family, two-storey detached house, built in 1973 and subsequently renovated in 2000, with an outdoor pool constructed in 2004. The lot is of irregular shape, with an effective area of 8,906 sq. ft. Because of the irregular shape of the lot, the Effective Area was used.

2The property is assessed in the amount of $1,633,000 for both, the 2013 and 2014 taxation years. The Assessor, Mr. Tom of MPAC, maintains that this is the correct and equitable assessment.

3The Appellant, Mr. Ghaffari-Haghi, the owner of the subject property, asserts that the property’s current value should be $1,450,000 as of January 1, 2013.

4At the outset of the hearing, the issue was raised that no Property Assessment Detail (“PAD”) was exchanged between parties prior to this hearing. The Assessment Review Board (“Board”) stated that it should have been exchanged, (Rule 45). The Board did not think the dispute on lot size was sufficient reason to not proceed with the Hearing.

5The issue for the Board is to determine the current value of the subject property and whether an assessment at current value is equitable relative to the assessed values of similar properties in the vicinity.

DECISION

6The Board is required by s. 44(3)(a) of the Assessment Act (“Act”) to determine the current value of the land and 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.

7The Board finds the current value of the subject property as of January 1, 2012, is $1,520,456 and that an assessment at current value is equitable with the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity.

8The Board finds that the assessment should be reduced to $1,520,456 for both 2013 and 2014 taxation years.

THE LEGISLATION

9For the 2013 and 2014 taxation years in question, the Board must determine the current value at which land shall be assessed, based on the following provisions of the Act:

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 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.

13Section 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.

MPAC'S Position and Evidence

14Mr. Tom of MPAC, entered into evidence a valuation report (Exhibit 1) containing seven comparable properties in relative proximity to the subject property. Table 1 below, is a summary of the reports' details for each property:

Table 1

Address	Assessment ($)	Sale Date	Sale/ Adjusted Sale ($)	Building Size (sq.ft.)	Lot Size (sq. ft) Effective	Year Built/ Effective Year Built
Subject Property 18 Bamboo Grove	1,633,000	N/A	N/A	3676	8906	1973
Sale A 17 Caravan Drive	1,495,000	June 2011	1,388,800/ 1,470,718	3127	7700	1970
Sale B 29 Tanbark Crescent	1,542,000	February 2012	1,540,000/ 1,520,456	4218	7700	1972
Sale C 34 Tanbark Crescent	1,234,000	April 2011	1,405,000/ 1,515,377	2867	6050	1969
Sale D 5 Kimloch Crescent		March 2012	1,275,000/ 1,248,259	2366	7350	1971
Sale E 6 Bramble Drive	1,428,000	August 2012	1,380,000/ 1,296,665	3112	6830	1973
Sale F 152 Abbeywood Trail	1,262,000	January 2012	1,300,000/ 1,294,454	3130	9324	1973
Sale G 181 Banbury Road	1,363,000	July 2011	1,380,000/ 1,448,257	3194	8883	1973

15Mr. Tom testified that the comparables considered by MPAC, have similar characteristics to that of the subject property in location, building and lot size, degree of renovations and overall quality. MPAC’s Valuation Report indicates a Time Adjusted Sales (“TAS”) range between $1,248,259 and $1,520,456 for the selected properties.

16Mr. Tom testified that out of the seven sales comparables relied upon by MPAC, 17 Caravan Drive is the best comparable to the subject property. Making adjustments for the lack of a pool (+$37,000), Mr. Tom maintains that the sizeable irregular lot must be taken into account and adjusting current value upwards accordingly. It is Mr. Tom’s position that the larger effective lot size justifies MPAC's position on current value. He concludes that the evidence as presented supports an assessment of $1,633,000 as reflective of current value as required by s.19.(1) of the Act and is asking the Board to accept this value.

Appellant's Position and Evidence

17Mr. Ghaffari-Haghi, the property owner, relied on his witness, Gordon Sommerville, an appraiser, to speak on his behalf. The Board notes that Mr. Sommerville is not a paralegal nor a real estate agent and no objection was raised in affirming him as a witness.

18Mr. Sommerville testified that the correct current value of the subject property should be $1,450,000. To support his argument of a lower value, a Residential Appraisal Report (Exhibit 2), prepared by Mr. Sommerville was submitted as evidence. Table 2 below, summarizes the comparables used in the Appraisal Report:

Table 2

Address	Assessment ($)	Sale Date	Sale/ Adjusted Sale ($)	Liveable Area (sq. ft.)	Site Area (sq. ft.)	Building Age (yrs)
Subject Property 18 Bamboo Grove	1,633,000	N/A	N/A	3676	9,270	42 1973 (Year)
Sale 1 75 Denlow Boulevard	1,224,000	May 2011	1,180,000/N/A	3176	6,745	43
Sale 2 5 Kimloch Crescent	1,110,000	November 2011	1,275,000/N/A	2366	7,350	41
Sale 3 29 Tanbark Crescent	1,725,000	October 2011	1,540,000/N/A	4218	7,700	40
Sale 4 152 Abbeywood Trail	1,262,000	October 2011	1,300,000/N/A	3130	10,819	39
Sale 5 19 Ames Circle	1,363,000	April 2011	1,380,000/N/A	2654	6,600	39
Sale 6 181 Banbury Road	1,363,000	April 2011	1,380,000/N/A	3193	8,755	39
Sale 7 28 Firthway Court	1,095,000	April 2011	1,080,000/N/A	2821	6,835	52
Sale 8 17 Caravan Drive	1,495000	March 2011	1,388,800/N/A	3127	7,700	42

19Mr. Sommerville testified that MPAC used incorrect time adjustments to the sale price of their comparables, as well as making adjustments using the month of January, considered to be a seasonally slow month for an otherwise high demand area. However no evidence or analysis was provided to support Mr. Sommerville's assertions.

20During cross-examination by Mr. Sommerville, Mr. Tom of MPAC was asked if any of his properties used in MPAC’s analysis had sold over $1,600,000. Mr. Tom answered “No”. Mr. Sommerville also made the point that some of the properties used in MPAC's analysis had assessed values higher than their final sold prices.

21During cross-examination of Mr. Sommerville, Mr. Tom brought attention to the fact that the Appellant did not perform any time adjustments on his comparable sales, nor did he attribute any value to the existence of swimming pools on properties used in the Report. Mr. Sommerville testified that he made qualitative adjustments, not quantitative. Mr. Tom also pointed out that Mr. Sommerville gave very little weight to the basement areas of any of his comparables.

22Mr. Sommerville testified that his Report is not based solely on quantitative analysis, but on qualitative value determination as well. He indicated that he personally inspected the subject property, and believes his comparables better reflect the value of the subject property.

Board's Analysis

Current Value

23The Board has carefully considered the testimony of the parties and the documentary evidence. When considering comparable properties, the Board does not expect exactness or sameness nor does the legislation require it. Therefore, the Board looks at similarity of characteristics, amenities and location to determine comparability.

24The Board usually considers sales of comparable properties that have occurred within one year on either side of the valuation date as the ideal time period for consideration. All the sales provided by MPAC and the Appellant occurred within this time period. The Board occasionally does extend the time period for considering comparable properties when the parties have demonstrated that there were an insufficient number of relevant sales during the ideal time period. However, that is not the case in this instance.

25Of the ten (10) unique properties presented to the Board, only two properties are used by the Board for comparison (17 Caravan Drive and 29 Tanbark Crescent). See Table 3 below. The Board determines these two properties as the best evidence for determining current value. The Board notes that both parties used these properties as part of their evidence. All the remaining properties are more dissimilar than similar to the subject property in terms of lot sizes, building areas, age, quality of renovation or lack of renovation.

Table 3 Comparable Properties Considered by the Board

Property	CVA	Sale Price (Not Adjusted)	Sale Price (Adjusted)	Lot Area sq. ft.	Frontage Effective ft.	Bldg Area sq. ft.
Subject	1,633,000	na	na	8906 (9270)	73 (42.35)	3676
Sale A (Sale 8)	1,495,000	1,388,800 (1,388,800)	1,470,218	7700 (7700)	70 (70)	3127 (3127)
Sale B (Sale 3)	1,725,000	1,540,000 (1,540,000)	1,520,456	7700 (7700)	70 (70)	4218 (4218)

26The Appellant is asking the Board to reduce his assessment to a value of $1,450,000. However the Board finds there is no analysis submitted from Mr. Sommerville demonstrating how he arrived at this value. The Board finds that Mr. Sommerville provided no evidence to demonstrate any consideration has been given to other factors such as pools, variation in lot size and value associated to basements, whereas MPAC has included these factors in their analysis. Mr. Sommerville has provided comparables that have no time adjustments to offset the timelines around the valuation date of January 1, 2012, unlike MPAC, which has adjusted the sale prices for time variations. Whereas the Appellant alleges that MPAC used incorrect time adjustments for the sale prices of comparables, alternative time adjustments were not offered from the Appellant to suggest the “correct” adjustment values. The Board finds no evidence in support of the Appellant's allegation that MPAC used incorrect time adjustments.

27If an upward adjustment is made for the lack of a pool (+$37,000) to the comparables of Table 3, and taking time adjustments into consideration, the Board finds the range of value for the subject is between $1,507,218 to $$1,557,456, a range that is much higher than the value proposed by the Appellant, of $1,450,000.

28Whereas the Appellant only refers to the irregular lot size, MPAC maintains that value must be given to the subject’s exceptional lot size and argues that their assessed value reflects this consideration. The Board finds no evidence from MPAC to support this position, nor any analysis demonstrating this assertion being reflected in the assessed value of $1,633,000.

29Mr. Sommerville’s Report uses “Liveable Floor Area” to adjust value, and attributes no quantitative value to many of the property attributes such as differences in lot size, bathrooms, basements and site improvements such as pools in the final adjusted value for each comparable. Except for quantitative adjustments in liveable floor area, the Board is left with qualitative measures of ‘plus’ or ‘minus’ for the above property attributes. The Board cannot speculate on value determination and therefore gives no weight to such qualitative units of measures.

30The burden of proof is on MPAC to show that the assessed value is the correct current value. The Board can only make its determination based on the evidence before it. Based on the evidence presented, the Board finds that MPAC has not met its burden of proof under s. 40.(17) of the Act. The Board finds no evidence from MPAC to support the assessed value of $1,633,000.

31The Board must look at the best available evidence from both parties, to arrive a current value. The Board finds it not unreasonable that, with the exception of 29 Tanbark Crescent., and the subject property having the largest total building area and lot size of all properties submitted as evidence, the subject property is likely to have a current value at least equal to, if not more than, the time adjusted sale price for 29 Tanbark Crescent, of $1,520,456. See Table 3.

32The Board, after carefully reviewing the evidence materials and oral testimony, finds that there is insufficient evidence to support the positions of either party and finds the best evidence suggests a current value of $1,520,456 for the subject property. The Board therefore confirms the January 1, 2013 current value for the subject property as $1,520,456.

Equity

33Section 44.(3)(b) mandates and directs that after determining current value, the Board shall have reference to the value at which similar lands in the vicinity are assessed. The Assessment to Sales Ratio (“ASR”) is a tool often used to help determine if an assessment at current value is equitable. An ASR is determined by dividing the assessment as returned with the time-adjusted sale price. An ASR falling below 1.0 is an indication that MPAC’s valuation methodology may be resulting in assessments below values determined in the market place. Conversely, an ASR above 1.0 is an indication that MPAC’s valuation methodology may be resulting in assessments above values determined in the market place.

34MPAC relied on the sales of 30 properties within the vicinity of the subject property, to determine whether properties are assessed at or close to their current values, as listed in the Equity analysis of Exhibit 1. The median ASR for the sold properties is 0.98, which is within MPAC’s acceptable range of ASRs between 0.95-1.05.

35MPAC in its analysis failed to include three of the sales comparable properties in the list of 30 used for their equity analysis, namely 152 Abbeywood Trail; 19 Ames Circle; and 28 Firthway Court. If they are used in the analysis the median ASR becomes 0.99, which is also within an acceptable range.

36The Board finds that the revised assessed value of the subject property of $1,520,456 is equitable and in line with similar properties in the viciinity.

2015 DEEMED APPEAL

37An 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.

38Section 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.