Poisson v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 28, 2015 CanLII 78966

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

ISSUE DATE: November 25, 2015

FILE NO.: WR 135736

Assessed Person(s): Paul David Poisson and Suzanne Marie Reine Gervais

Appellant(s): Paul David Poisson

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”), Region 28

Respondent(s): Township of Bonfield

Property Location(s): 10 Lakeshore Road

Municipality(ies): Township of Bonfield

Roll Number(s): 4826-000-001-12306-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3046919, 3046920 and 3093191 (deemed 2015)

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

Hearing Event No. 599657

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

Heard: October 9, 2015 in Bonfield, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel⁺/Representative

Paul David Poisson

Self-represented

MPAC

Louise St-Jean

Township of Bonfield

No one appeared

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY DONALD WHITEHURST ON OCTOBER 9, 2015

INTRODUCTION

1The subject property ("SP") is described by MPAC as a "Seasonal/Recreational Dwelling - First Tier on Water located on Lake Nosbonsing" (Exhibit 1). It is situated on a 0.95 acre lot and has a 755 square foot unheated cabin that was built in 1959. MPAC returned the assessment at $146,000 for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years using the sales comparison approach to value. For the 2015 taxation year, the assessment was returned at $136,000. On October 10, 2014, the subject property sold for $85,000.

2Louise St-Jean appeared on behalf of MPAC. She stated that following an inspection of the SP, she estimated that its current value was $94,000 as of January 1, 2012 and recommended that the assessment be lowered to that amount for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years.

3Paul David Poisson appeared on his own behalf. He stated that he sold the SP in October of 2014 for $85,000 and reasoned that the assessment should be lowered to that amount.

ISSUE

4The Assessment Review Board (“Board”) has to determine the SP's current value for the 2013, 2014 and deemed 2015 taxation years and ensure that it is equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity.

DECISION

5The SP's assessment is reduced from $146,000 to $85,000 for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years and reduced from $136,000 to $85,000 for the 2015 deemed taxation year. The Board finds that the SP's $85,000 assessment is equitable with the assessment of similar lands in the vicinity.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Legislation

6Section 1 of the Assessment Act (“Act”) defines current value 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.

7Section 19.(1) of the Act states:

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

8Section 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

9Ms. St-Jean submitted a report (Exhibit 1) in support of her recommendation to set the assessment at $94,000. She compared the characteristics of six sale comparables to that of the SP; one of which she found to be inferior to the SP, the other five comparables were found to be superior. She concluded that the SP's current value falls between $177,000 (Sale A) and $78,000 (Sale C). She was also expressed the opinion that Sale B is the:

(M)ost comparable property to the subject. Located on the same street, the property has similar building size and amenities. This property is 13 years newer than the subject property and sold for an adjusted sale price of $157,761. When I account for the difference between the age and quality of the subject property and Sale A, I estimate the market value of the subject property to be $130,761.

The second Sale that I am comparing to is Sale C ... (which) has similar lot size and sold for an adjusted sale price of $78,250. When I account for the difference between being vacant land and adding the cottage of the subject property and Sale C, I estimate the market value of the Subject property to be $116,250. On the basis of this analysis, the current value assessment of the subject property of $94,000 is reasonable.

10Ms. St-Jean did not consider the October 2014 sale of the SP because that sale could not be time adjusted back to valuation date of January 1, 2012. She did however provide a study (Exhibit 1 - Price Changes over Time) that showed an overall increase in the SP's neighbourhood and adjacent neighbourhood(s) to be 20.49% from January 2008 to December 2012. Sales up to and including December 2012 could be time adjusted back to January 1, 2012. This is the valuation date for the 2013, 2014 and 2015 taxation years. Ms. St-Jean concluded her analysis by stating that her recommended current value "falls within the range defined by the sales outlined in the analysis" and that the recommended assessment was equitable with similar lands in the vicinity.

Appellant's Position

11Mr. Poisson submitted a map (Exhibit 2) and a report (Exhibit 3) for the Board's consideration asking that the assessment be reduced to $85,000. He emphasized that the SP was not a waterfront property because the municipality owns the road and the lakeside land that separates the SP from the lake. Mr. Poisson stated that although he has access to the lake, he is not permitted to build a dock on the land owned by the municipality.

12On the basis of the 2014 sale of the SP, Mr. Poisson said that he would be satisfied if the assessment would be reduced to the sale price, $85,000. Mr. Poisson did not make an equity submission.

Board's Analysis - Current Value

13The Board, after reviewing the evidence and considering the submissions, finds that the SP's current value as of January 1, 2012 is $85,000. The Board arrived at this conclusion because it finds that the 2014 sale of the SP is the best evidence of current value. It is better than Ms. St-Jean's estimation of current value because her estimation is based on poor sales comparables.

14The sales in evidence are considered to be poor comparables because each of those properties extends to the waterfront whereas the SP does not. This is clearly shown in MPAC's Exhibit 1 - Appendix A - Data Elements wherein the SP is described as "No Wfnt Onwsp". No such description is noted for the sales comparables. The Board understands this to mean that the SP is not a waterfront property, merely having access to the water with no development rights. This corroborates Mr. Poisson's testimony in that the SP, unlike the sales comparables, cannot have a legal dock.

15The Board considers waterfront ownership to be an important factor in determining current value. Since Ms. St-Jean's opinion is based on a range of values developed from the waterfront ownership sales comparables, the Board is reluctant to accept her opinion when there exists better evidence in the form of a valid sale of the SP, albeit a somewhat dated sale. The Board therefore finds that the SP's current value is $85,000 on January 1, 2012.

Board's Analysis - Equity

16The Board reviewed the evidence and agrees with MPAC that there is no evidence to support a finding that the SP's current value of $85,000 is inequitable with that of similar lands in the vicinity.

CONCLUSION

17The SP's assessment is reduced from $146,000 to $85,000 for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years and reduced from $136,000 to $85,000 for the 2015 deemed taxation year. The Board finds that the SP's $85,000 assessment is equitable with the assessment of similar lands in the vicinity.

2015 DEEMED APPEAL

18An 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.

19Section 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.