Joseph Bonfa v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2015 CanLII 69921

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l'évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: October 28, 2015

FILE NO.: WR 133786

Assessed Person(s): Vincenzo Bonfa, Dolly M. Bonfa, Giuseppe Bonfa and Angela Rosa Bonfa

Appellant(s): Joseph Bonfa

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation ("MPAC") Region 9

Respondent(s): City of Toronto

Property Location(s): 2481 Yonge Street

Municipality(ies): City of Toronto

Roll Number(s): 1904-104-250-00900-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3061255 and 3078453

Taxation Year(s): 2014 and 2015

Hearing Event No. 586839

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

Heard: July 13, 2015 in Toronto, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel/Representative
Joseph Bonfa	Self-represented
MPAC	Jennifer Barlow
City of Toronto	No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY TYRONE D. SKANES AND MARK SPRAGGETT

INTRODUCTION

1The subject property is a purpose built, single retail strip lot, with a two storey attached 3,612 square foot ("sq. ft.") brick structure built in 1920. It is described as having a frontage of 24.08 feet ("ft") with a depth of 150 ft, and a site area approximating 3,612 sq. ft. The building has 2,393 sq. ft. above grade, with an additional 1,208 sq. ft. for the basement, of which 689 sq. ft. is finished. There are no parking amenities on the property. The backyard is used as a patio during the summer season. The property is leased to two retail tenants, a restaurant on the first floor and a Yoga Studio on the second floor.

2Jennifer Barlow appeared as counsel for MPAC and called one witness who testified that the subject property's original assessment was returned at $1,711,000. Following the 2014 Request for Reconsideration the assessment was reduced to $1,586,000 then to $1,515,000 for the 2015 taxation year. The adjusted value was recommended to the Appellant but was refused. Ms. Barlow asked the Board to reduce the assessment to $1,515,000 for the 2014 taxation year and to confirm it as $1,515,000 for the 2015 taxation year, in the commercial tax class.

3Joseph Bonfa appeared on his own behalf. He said that he disagreed with the value offered by MPAC and pleaded that the property was worth between $1.3 million to $1.4 million and was asking the Board to reduce it to a value in that range.

ISSUE

4What is the subject property's current value as of January 1, 2012 and is that value equitable with the assessment of similar lands in the vicinity?

DECISION

5The Board finds that the current value of the subject property as of January 1, 2012, is $1,515,000 and is equitable with the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Relevant Legislation

6Section 19.(1) of the Act states:

19.(1) Assessment based on current value. - The assessment of land shall be based on its current value.

7Section 1 of the Act states:

"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.

8Section 19.2(1)3 of the Act states:

19.2(1) Valuation Days. – Subject to subsection (5), 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.

9Section 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.

10Section 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.

PRELIMINARY ISSUES

Removal of "Engineering Report" as Evidence

11MPAC requested that the Appellant withdraw this report, as at a prior hearing before Member Sharma an order had been issued that no new evidence would be accepted. When asked by the Board if he would be relying on this report, Mr. Bonfa replied no. Hence the report was removed from his exhibits and returned to Mr. Bonfa.

Motion Request for No Further Documentation

12As this appeal was adjourned from a previous hearing, with issues of procedural dates not being adhered to for the exchange of documentation, MPAC requested that no further documentation be presented in this hearing. The Board asked both parties if there is any evidence to be introduced that has not been previously disclosed. Both parties responded that no further evidence will be introduced.

Motion Request to Remove Opinions of Two Real Estate Agents

13A request by MPAC to remove the opinions of two realtors as evidence was put forth. The Board ruled that the Appellant could introduce any previously disclosed evidence and the Board would determine how much weight to assign to that evidence.

MPAC's Position and Evidence

14Joseph Ferrera, MPAC's assessor, testified that the direct sales comparison approach to value was used in determining the current value of the subject property, as its' small footprint does not favour any other approach. Also, with the lack of available rental income data the Income Approach is an impractical alternative.

15Mr. Ferrera testified that MPAC used seven comparable properties of which six, are found within a four block area of the subject (Exhibit 1, Tab 1, p.11 and Tab 3, p. 1 map). He noted that the subject property has the largest frontage of all comparables and is the third largest in terms of building area. He believes that Sale 4 (2577 Yonge Street), is the best comparable for lot size and frontage and Sale 2 (2443 Yonge Street), is the best comparable for building area. (Exhibit 1, Tab 1, p. 9 see chart).

16Mr. Ferrera noted that the subject property returned assessment at $1,711,000 is $715 per square foot while the average sale of the comparable properties is $760.76 per square foot. Furthermore, the average per frontage foot sale is $99,837 and the subject was assessed at $71,054 per frontage foot. Mr. Ferrera maintains that the comparables used to arrive at current value, suggest a value of $1,711,000 for the January 1st, 2012 valuation date.

17Ms. Barlow summed up MPAC's submissions by saying that MPAC's comparables are the best evidence for determining current value, as the comparables used by the Appellant were some considerable distance from the subject property and not in the same neighbourhood. She said that MPAC's comparable sales occurred close to the valuation date whereas the Appellants' are not. She said that MPAC's comparables were more similar than dissimilar in characteristics and provided a better comparison than those offered by the Appellant. She concluded by asking the Board to reduce the subject property's assessment from $1,711,000 to $1,515,000 for the 2014 taxation year and confirm the value at $1,515,000 for the 2015 taxation year.

Appellant's Position and Evidence

18Mr. Bonfa provided photos of building repairs that in his opinion would affect the value of the property. He believed the value should reflect the lack of repairs. No evidence was provided to indicate repairs were being attended to or to their estimated costs. Mr. Bonfa submitted ten comparable properties to support his argument of a lower value. However no analysis was provided to support his proposed value range, using his comparables. He noted the comparables were mainly used to show how the sale prices tended to be much less than the assessed values.

19Mr. Bonfa stated that the need for repairs affects the value of the subject property and that the lack of parking also affects the value. He believed that properties were being purchased by a developer and accumulated for redevelopment. He provided no evidence to support his belief. He defended his comparables as being out of the area where developers were accumulating land for development. Mr. Bonfa did acknowledge that in a development area, the property might get a lot more than what the property is worth.

20Mr. Bonfa ended his submission by saying that he believed his evidence should be preferred over MPAC's and asked the Board to reduce the assessment to a value between $1.3 to $1.4 million. When asked by the Board if he had a definite value to propose he replied that he would be satisfied with any value in that range.

Board's Deliberations – Current Value

21The 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.

22The 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 occurred within this time period with the exception of Sales 5, 6 and 7, which occurred in May, 2010, June and August, 2013. The Board occasionally does extend the time period for considering comparable properties when the parties have demonstrated that there was an insufficient number of relevant sales during the ideal time period. However, that is not the case in this instance. The Board will not consider Sales 5, 6 and 7, as they occurred outside of this time period, leaving the Board with three sales for consideration, namely, Sales 2, 3 and 4.

23All the sales are in the same neighbourhood as the subject property and are within close proximity. The subject property has a slightly larger lot frontage than most of the comparable sales. However, the Board does not find this a sufficient reason to exclude them from consideration, as they are more similar than dissimilar.

24Mr. Bonfa provided ten properties as comparables. Only three property sales fall within the ideal time period for consideration, namely, 2443, 2589 and *3428 Yonge Street. All the remaining properties are outside of the time period the Board considers ideal for comparison. Furthermore, the Board finds that 3428 Yonge Street is located too far away from the subject property to provide a meaningful comparison. The Appellant also presented opinions of value from two realtors, neither of whom was present. The Board places little weight on these opinions.

25Listed below in Table 1 are the properties that the Board considers acceptable:

TABLE 1

Property	Sale Price	Bldg. Area (Sq. Ft)	Lot Area (Sq. Ft.)	Frontage (Feet.)
Subject		2393	3612	24.08
Sale 2	$1,740,000	2352	1830	15.83
Sale 3	$1,340,000	1706	1463	16.58
Sale 4	$2,670,000	3960	3608	22.00
Sale C	$1,740,000	2352	1830	15.83
Sale F	$1,769,000	4069	2956	20.17

26In considering the evidence put forward by the parties the Board notes that MPAC's Sale 2 and the Appellant's Sale C are the same. Therefore, the Board has four comparable sales to consider. Listed in Table 2 below are the comparables' median building area value per square foot, median lot area per square foot and median frontage per foot value.

TABLE 2

Property	Sale Price	Building Area Value Per square foot.	Lot Area Value Per square foot.	Frontage Value Per Foot.
Sale 2 & C	$1,740,000	$740	$951	$109,917
Sale 3	$1,340,000	$785	$916	$80,820
Sale 4	$2,670,000	$674	$740	$121,363
Sale F	$1,769,000	$435	$598	$87,704
Median	$1,769,000	$740	$916	$109,859

27Table 3 below lists the subject property's estimated current value based on the sales comparables median building per square foot value, median per square foot lot value and the median per foot frontage value. The Board notes that MPAC's recommended assessment of $1,515,000 is considerably less than the current value based on the median.

TABLE 3

Column	Description	Area	Lot	Frontage
A	Comparable's Median Value	$740	$916	$109,859
B	Subject Property's Measurements	2,393 Sq. Ft.	3,612 Sq. Ft	24.08 Feet
C	Subject's Value based on Median	$1,777,082	$3,308,592	$2,645,404

28The Board therefore finds that the recommended value of $1,515,000 as proposed by MPAC at the RFR stage is fair and reasonable.

Board's Deliberations – Equity

29As neither party submitted equity evidence, the Board is unable to make a finding that the subject property's current value would need to be reduced in order to make it equitable with the assessed values of similar properties in the vicinity.

CONCLUSION

30The Board reduces the subject property's returned assessment from $1,711,000 to $1,515,000 for the 2014 taxation year and confirms it at $1,515,000 for the 2015 taxation year.