Ray v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2015 CanLII 69917

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

October 28, 2015

FILE NO.:

WR 135236

Assessed Person(s):

Nada Ray and Kenneth Warren Ray

Appellant(s):

Ken Ray

Respondent(s):

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”)

Region 23

Respondent(s):

City of London

Property Location(s):

596 Elmdale Avenue

Municipality(ies):

City of London

Roll Number(s):

3936-020-410-03600-0000

Appeal Number(s):

3102328

Taxation Year(s):

2015

Hearing Event No.

596631

Legislative Authority:

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

Heard:

September 15, 2015, in London, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel+/Representative

Ken Ray

Self-represented

MPAC

Toban Edmunds

City of London

No one appeared

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY ROBERT STEINBERG AND DAN WEAGANT

INTRODUCTION

1The property under appeal is a 1,141 square foot (“sq. ft.”) home built in 1953 located on a 7500 sq. ft. lot. The house has one and one half storeys with an attached single car garage.

2For the 2015 taxation year MPAC has returned an assessment of the property at $204,000.

3Ken Ray the Appellant, appealed his assessment for the 2015 taxation year.

4The issues the Board must determine are:

1. The current value of the property as of January 1, 2012.

2. Whether an assessment at current value is equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity.

5The Appellant argued that in assessing his property MPAC had not considered the condition of his property and the cost to rehabilitate the property to bring it up to current standards.

6In addition he submitted that the sales relied on by MPAC are of superior properties. MPAC relied on three sales of properties with similar size lots and/or homes and in the same neighborhood to support the value of $204,000.

7The Appellant contended that his assessment does not recognize the quality of construction, condition of the property, and the considerable deferred maintenance to bring it up to today’s standard.

8In Exhibit 3 the Appellant presented sales of three homes that sold in 2011 and 2014 that in his opinion are superior to the subject property. He submitted photographs of his property that indicate that the house has not undergone any major renovations, adding that a willing purchaser would take into consideration the amount of money that the deferred maintenance would require to bring the house up to today’s standard.

9Mr. Ray also submitted real estate listings of homes throughout the City of London that he feels are better comparables but are listed by real estate brokers at prices below what his home is assessed for.

DECISION

10The Board finds the current value of the property as of January 1, 2012 to be $180,000.

11The Board finds that it has no evidence before it to suggest that a reduction in the assessment is required to make it equitable with that of similar properties in the vicinity.

12Accordingly, the assessment of the subject property at 596 Elmdale Avenue is reduced from $204,000 to $180,000 for the 2015 taxation year.

Determination of Current Value

13MPAC supported the current value of the subject property by relying on three comparables that sold for adjusted sale amounts as follows: A- $204,423, B-$214,055 and C-$223,027. MPAC’s comparables A and B are both on Elmdale Ave. but are one storey homes and only comparable C is a one and half storey home like the subject property.

14MPAC’s comparables A and B, being one storey homes cannot be relied on by the Board as one storey dwellings are not suitably comparable to the subject property which has 1 ½ storeys. The Board is therefore left with Sale C at 584 Willlowdale Avenue. The Board asked the Appellant and MPAC during the hearing if this property was on a similar street as the subject. MPAC replied that they felt the street was very similar in nature. The Appellant replied that he also felt the street was similar, except for the homes on the other side of the street of 584 Willowdale Ave, which in his opinion are superior in value when compared to the subject property.

15The Board therefore relies on the only good comparable being sale C as presented by MPAC as the only evidence of a true comparable. 594 Willowdale Avenue has an adjusted selling price of $223,027. It has a lot frontage of 75 feet, similar to the subject property, but the dwelling is approximately 20% larger. The adjusted selling price $223,027 divided by the sq. footage of 1410 sq. ft. gives a rate of $158.19 per sq. ft. Applying this rate to the subjects 1141 sq. ft. gives a value of $180,471.

16The Board did consider the evidence of the Appellant. However, his comparables did not allow the Board to make any meaningful comparisons to the subject property with respect to size, location, age, character or condition. The properties listed by real estate brokers were in different neighborhoods and therefore could not be relied on as being comparable to the subject property.

17The letter of opinion, from a real estate broker provided by the Appellant also has no bearing on the Board’s decision as there is no supporting evidence for its findings. In addition, the author was not present to give evidence to the Board and be cross-examined by MPAC on its contents. In particular, the opinion letter refers to ‘market value’ and no correlation with the definition of current value, as provided for the Act was offered.

18The Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended (“the Act”) requires MPAC to return the assessment of a property at its current value. The term current value is defined in s. 1 of the Act as follows:

“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.

19In most instances the current values of residential properties are determined using the sales comparison approach.

20The challenge in this appeal is finding properties that are truly comparable to the subject property. The best evidence that the Board can rely on is MPAC’s comparable C. The Appellant did not refute the evidence of MPAC on their comparables, nor did he make any adjustments to them to account for his perceived differences in the general condition and necessary renovations to bring the subject up to the same standard as the comparables.

Equity

21The Board is satisfied that there is no evidence before it requiring a reduction in the assessment below current value to make it equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity.

CONCLUSION

22For the reasons given above the Board finds the current value of the subject property for the 2015 taxation year to be $180,000, and the assessment is reduced from $204,000 to $180,000 accordingly.