Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: April 6, 2016
Assessed Person: Luis A. Caceres
Appellant: Luis Caceres
Respondent: Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 3
Respondent: City of Ottawa
Property Location: 470 Laurier Avenue West, Suite 1103
Municipality: City of Ottawa
Roll Number: 0614-063-001-03090-0000
Appeal Number: 3127027 and 3143888 (deemed 2016 appeal)
Taxation Year: 2015 and 2016 (deemed appeal)
Hearing Event No. 612732
Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended
Heard: February 22, 2016 in Ottawa, Ontario
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Representative |
|---|---|
| Luis Caceres | Luis Caceres |
| MPAC | Jamie Knightington |
| City of Ottawa | No one appeared |
DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY SCOTT McANSH
INTRODUCTION
1This appeal concerns an apartment in an older building in central Ottawa (the “Property”). The Property is assessed at $310,000. Luis Caceres argues that the value is too high, for three reasons: (1) the market has changed; (2) the Property has not been upgraded since 2009; and (3) water damage to the Property. MPAC supports the assessment as returned.
2For the reasons that follow, I confirm the assessment of the Property at $310,000.
Law
3Section 44(3)(a) of the Assessment Act (“Act”) requires that I “determine the current value of the land.” Current value is defined in s. 1 as “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.” That is, I must determine what the Property would have sold for in an arms-length transaction on the relevant valuation day, set pursuant to s. 19.3 of the Act as January 1, 2012 for the 2015 taxation year.
4Once I have determined the current value, s. 44(3)(b) requires that I “have reference to the value at which similar lands in the vicinity are assessed and adjust the assessment of the land” if that adjustment would lower the assessment.
Current Value
5MPAC supported the returned assessment for the Property with the sales of seven apartments in the same building. These other units have exactly the same square footage, but are on different floors of the building. Those units are:
a. Suite 303 sold for $290,000 in December 2010.
b. Suite 307 sold for $276,800 in November 2012.
c. Suite 407 sold for $263,000 in March 2010.
d. Suite 603 sold for $305,000 in June 2011.
e. Suite 907 sold for $319,000 in March 2012.
f. Suite 1203 sold for $314,500 in January 2010.
g. Suite 1703 sold for $308,500 in November 2010.
6The sales that took place in 2010 provide some context, but are not the best evidence of value on the January 1, 2012 valuation day. The median of the three sales that took place in 2011 and 2012 is $305,000, and the mean of those sales is $300,000. These sales adequately support MPAC’s returned value of $310,000.
7Mr. Caceres offers three reasons why the assessment should be significantly less: (1) the market has changed; (2) the Property has not been upgraded since 2009; and (3) water damage to the Property. I find no merit in any of those arguments.
Market Changes
8Much of Mr. Caceres’ evidence and argument focused on the declining trend in the condominium market. That evidence tends to show a fairly flat market over the past few years and a market peak in and around 2012. I accept that evidence, but it does not assist Mr. Caceres. The Act requires that the current value for the 2015 taxation year be based on the January 1, 2012 valuation day. How the market has changed from that day is not relevant to determining current value. The only