Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: January 18, 2016

FILE NO.: WR 133338

Assessed Person(s): Darka Reininghaus

Appellant(s): Darka Reininghaus

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 15

Respondent(s): City of Mississauga

Property Location(s): 313 Indian Valley Trail

Municipality(ies): City of Mississauga

Roll Number(s): 2105-010-017-16000-0000

Appeal Number(s): 2130777, 2351345, 2684708 and 2914090

Taxation Year(s): 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012

Hearing Event No.: 587545

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

Heard: June 26, 2015 in Mississauga, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel+/Representative
Darka Reininghaus	Robert Baranowski and Jaroslaw Wowk
MPAC	Mark McLaren-Caux+, Christeen Mattat and Roger Leroux
City of Mississauga	No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY CRISTINA MARQUES AND VINCENT STABILE

INTRODUCTION

1The subject property’s 4,065 square foot (“sq. ft.”) residence was built in 1994 and renovated in 2005. It is described as a raised bungalow with a loft. For the taxation years 2009, 2010 and 2011, it was assessed at $1,811,000 based on an effective site area of 23,522.40 sq. ft., ¼ partial storey, a substantially finished basement, an enclosed swimming pool and 7.5 quality class. For the 2012 taxation year, it was assessed at $2,184,000 based on the following data revisions: effective site area of 25,000 sq. ft., ¾ partial storey, a variable for abutting green space and an increase in quality class to 8.5.

2The appellant rejects both assessments and submits that there is no basis for the revisions made for the 2012 taxation year. The appellant proposes an assessment for the taxation years 2009 – 2012 of $1,361,775 based on the average sale price per square foot of nearby properties. Further, the appellant requests an adjustment of 14% for equity, thereby reducing the assessment below current value to $1,171,126.50.

ISSUES

3The issues to be determined are:

(i) The current value of the subject property as of January 1, 2008, being the “valuation day.”

(ii) Whether an assessment at current value is equitable with that of similar lands in the vicinity.

DECISION

4For reasons set out below, we find:

(i) The current value for the subject property as of January 1, 2008 is $2,063,000 (rounded).

(ii) An assessment at current value is equitable with the assessment of similar lands in the vicinity.

(iii) The assessment of $1,811,000 for the taxation years 2009, 2010 and 2011 is increased to $2,063,000 (rounded).

(iv) The assessment of $2,184,000 for the taxation year 2012 is reduced to $2,063,000 (rounded).

Preliminary Motion

5At the opening of the hearing, Mr. McLaren-Caux, counsel for MPAC, brought a preliminary motion to qualify Roger Leroux as an expert witness. His Curriculum Vitae (Exhibit2) indicates that Mr. Leroux has been employed with MPAC since 1986 and has held various positions. Presently, he is a Senior Case Management Analyst. He received a Diploma in Assessment Administration in 1986 and a Real Property Assessment Certificate in 1999. Mr. Leroux had prepared and served his Valuation Report, a five (5) page narrative setting out his reasons and approach at arriving at the recommended revised assessment (Exhibit 1). Mr. Baranowski objected to Mr. Leroux being qualified as an expert witness. He did not object to the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) receiving the Valuation Report for consideration.

6After hearing submissions from counsel the motion was denied. It became clear that the general intent of the motion was to ensure that Mr. Leroux’s Valuation Report (Exhibit 1) would be received and considered by the Board. Having received that assurance, Mr. McLaren-Caux withdrew and the hearing proceeded with Christeen Mattat acting as Advocate for MPAC and Mr. Leroux as the witness for MPAC.

7The request by MPAC to qualify one of their assessor/employees as an Expert Witness at hearings is a recurring issue. Some requests are made by Motion on Notice. Other requests are made orally, without notice, at the opening of hearings.

8The Board has considered these requests in the past and indeed, since 2010, has followed the general principles set out by Members Oliveira and LaRegina in DM 81365, whereby the Board would hear opinion evidence from assessor/employees of MPAC and then determine the weight it would place on such opinion evidence.

9Given the frequency of these requests, it is perhaps time to re-visit the issue.

10The issue of expert evidence in the context of civil litigation was recently dealt with by the Ontario Court of Appeal. In Westerhof v. Gee Estate, 2015 ONCA 206 (Westerhof) and Moore v. Getahun, 2015 ONCA 443 (Moore), Justices Laskin, Sharpe and Simmons J. A.voiced their concerns about how convoluted the procedures around expert evidence had become and, in Westerhof, attempted to provide a road map to ensure that the Courts were able to hear the best evidence of experts where it would be helpful to the Court. In doing so they consider many of the issues with expert evidence in civil litigation including the increased cost and complexity of litigation, the unnecessary proliferation of experts, the risk of usurping the trier of fact’s role, and concerns about the bias or the partisan use of experts to gain a tactical advantage.

11Given the strict rules of evidence and procedure in the courts this degree of complexity – although unfortunate – is understandable. However, for proceedings before an administrative tribunal like the Board, this complexity and overly legalistic approach is not only unnecessary but runs against the very reason for establishing a tribunal to hear matters like this in the first place. The Board is meant to provide a forum for accessible and efficient administrative justice in respect of assessment issues. This is particularly true for residential appeals where homeowners are often looking for a quick and effective resolution of a discrete issue.

12In Ontario, in order to facilitate access to justice before administrative tribunals, the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, allows for the admission of evidence which would not be admissible in the Courts. Specifically s. 15 provides that “a tribunal may admit as evidence at a hearing, whether or not given or proven under oath or affirmation or admissible as evidence in a court, (a) any oral testimony; and (b) any document or other thing, relevant to the subject-matter of the proceeding and may act on such evidence…”

13In not being bound by the common law rules of evidence a tribunal may then, unlike a court, hear the opinion evidence of any witness. There is no need to determine the expert qualifications of a witness in order to admit his or her testimony. As long as the evidence is relevant it is admissible in any form the tribunal considers helpful. Considerations about the ability or experience of the witness and the validity of their opinion can be considered as questions of weight.

14This approach has a number of advantages. It is a more efficient use of resources as it avoids unnecessary time and effort in qualifying witnesses as experts. It creates a simpler approach that does not require legal argument as to the admissibility of evidence. It ensures that all relevant evidence gets before the tribunal. It does not perpetuate the issues around the use of expert witnesses that the Court in Westerhoff and Moore warn against. It avoids creating an unnecessary hierarchy between “expert” and “lay” witnesses on issues where such a distinction may not be helpful.

15It is important to note that this approach also has the benefit of not turning a blind eye to the obvious risk of conflict that an employee of MPAC would have in providing an opinion before the tribunal.

16Rule 49 of the Board’s Rules deals with the duty of expert witnesses to acknowledge, either in writing, by executing an acknowledgment form as approved, or orally at the hearing, that he or she shall:

(a) Provide opinion evidence that is fair, objective and non-partisan;

(b) Provide opinion evidence that is related only to the matters that are within the expert’s area of expertise; and

(c) Provide such additional assistance as the Board may reasonably require determining a matter in issue.

17While these duties are meant to prevail over any obligation owed by the expert to the party by whom or on whose behalf he or she is engaged, it would be disingenuous for the Board to expect that an employee of MPAC would not be put in a very real conflict were his or her opinion to differ from the argument advanced by MPAC in a particular case.

18While there may be some cases where it would be appropriate to qualify an employee of MPAC as an expert (and where the issue of the potential conflict of interest can be addressed), it is difficult to see where, in most residential appeals like this, such an approach would be necessary. In cases like this, the preferred approach would be for the Board to hear the opinion evidence of a witness without the need for qualification and to consider the weight of that opinion as required to decide the matter.

19The Board followed that approach in this case. Mr. Leroux’s report was admitted and he was permitted to give his opinion but he was not qualified as an expert witness.

20Westerhof also supports the decision not to qualify Mr. Leroux as an expert witness but permit him to give opinion evidence. His valuation report was received to assist the Board in its deliberations to determine the correct current value of the subject property.

MPAC’s Position

21Mr. Leroux confirmed that for the taxation years 2009, 2010 and 2011, the subject property was assessed at $1,811,000. Further, that due to the pending appeals he had inspected the subject property on December 6, 2010. As a result he formed the opinion that changes to the property profile were warranted which, in turn, resulted in an increased assessment to $2,184,000. Following the inspection and Mr. Leroux’s recommendation, MPAC served a Notice of Intention to Seek an Increase for the 2009, 2010 and 2011 taxation years (Exhibit 3). Further, MPAC returned the roll for the 2012 taxation year at the increased value of $2,184,000.

22The Notice of Intention to Seek a Higher Assessment was challenged by the appellant. The issue was dealt with by way of Motion heard by Member Wyger on January 22, 2013 and found the notice to be valid pursuant to the provisions of s. 32(1) of the Act (DM 118185). The matter was remitted for a hearing under s. 40 of the Act, for a determination of the correct current value for 2009 – 2012 taxation years, inclusive. This is the hearing.

23The changes proposed by Mr. Leroux to the variables in MPAC’s multiple regression model and the corresponding increases are set out below:

1. Quality Class – 7.5 increase to 8.5:

(i) First Floor - $244,246

(ii) Second floor - 44,497

2. Lot size- 23,552 s. f. increase to 25,000 s. f. - 20,058

Sub-total - $ 308,801

Add original assessment - 1,811,000

Total -$2,119,801

Variable for abutting green space -3% of the total - 63,594

Grand Total -$2,183,395

24With respect to the quality class, he states that on inspection he completed a “construction quality classes reference sheet” (Exhibit 4). Having reviewed the factors noted on the sheet he determined that the exterior walls would fall in Category 8. The windows, doors and front entry would fall in Category 9. The roof would fall in Category 8. As to the interior, considering the hardwood and marble floors, the closets and layout of the building, they would fall in Category 9. The kitchen and bathrooms would fall in Category 9. The heating system would fall in Category 8.

25Based on the list, Mr. Leroux reasons that the overall quality should be set at 8.5.

26In a prior report prepared by Mr. Leroux in respect to these appeals, he stated that the subject property “is graded as a 7.5 but was previously graded as 8.0” (Exhibit 7, p. 35 (5)).

27As to the effective lot size, Mr. Leroux states that he used a mapping system (Exhibit 1, p. 7-9) to determine the size. He states that the lot is mostly landscaped except for the rear/west side. He acknowledges that there is a creek running through the property, however argues that the existing by-law for the area provides for a 6 foot side set back. The creek encroaches a portion of the west side of the property but, in his opinion, does not affect the use of that portion of the property.

28Therefore, given the by-law and the existing actual lot coverage, MPAC has determined that the effective lot size should be increased from 23,522.40 to 25,000 sq. ft. simply by multiplying the effective frontage (125) by the effective depth (200).

29On cross-examination, Mr. Leroux acknowledged that the “actual” lot size is determined by the dimensions of the property, whereas the “effective” lot size is determined on the “accessibility of the property.” He also acknowledged that the assessment is determined on the effective lot size, according to the model used by MPAC, however there is a subjective element as the assessor makes determinations to change factors.

30As to the abutting green space variable, Mr. Leroux acknowledges that the subject property is effectively surrounded by other residential homes. To the right of the subject property is 303 Indian Valley Trail (“303”). The lot of 303 extends to the rear of the subject, in an “L” shape such that the rear of the subject abuts the extended “L” of 303. Exhibit 6 was filed as an explanation of how MPAC determines “green space variables.”

31Mr. Leroux states that the entire area, including the subject lands and 303 are regulated by the Credit Valley Conservation Authority (CVCA) which will not permit development of the lands. Accordingly, he argues that adding the 3% green space variable is justified.

32He also recommends a change from 1 ¼ storey to 1 ¾ storey based on his determination that the loft (dormer) has what are considered three (3) full height walls and one (1) less than full height. Exhibit 5 was filed as an explanation of how MPAC determines “storeys and upper floor areas.” The total area of the loft/dormer remained at 754 sq. ft. which makes up the total building area of 4,065 sq. ft.

33During the second day of hearing, after all productions were completed by MPAC, Mr. Leroux indicated that he was no longer relying on the “green space variable” added value. Rather, he would rely on the comparable sales.

34Four properties were proposed by the assessor as comparable sales. All are in the in the vicinity and same neighbourhood of the subject property (Exhibit 1, p. 28-45).

35Comparable Sale “A” is a 4,457 sq. ft. two-storey home, no pool, 8.5 quality class and no green space variable. The effective site area is 24,829.20 sq. ft.

36Comparable “B” is a 4,524 sq. ft. two-storey home; no pool, 7.5 quality class, no green space variable. It is a corner lot with an effective site area of 18,730.80 sq. ft.

37Comparable “C” is a 3,921 sq. ft. two-storey home, 8.0 quality class, no pool and no green space variable. The effective site area is 18,133 sq. ft.

38Comparable “D” is a 3,742 sq. ft. two-storey home, 7.5 quality class, with an outdoor pool and no green space variable. The effective site area is 22,215.60 sq. ft.

39Mr. Leroux submits that Comparable “D”, which sold in March 2008 for $1,809,047 is the best comparable sale. He suggests that the subject has a value of $100,000 greater than “D” subject to a further increase for the “enclosed pool”. Accordingly, the assessor proposes an assessment of $1,900,000 plus an added value for the “enclosed pool.”

40To determine a value for the “enclosed pool”, the assessor proposes to use three (3) “pairings” or sales from neighbourhood B09 (Exhibit 1, p. 46-64). He also proposes two (2) sales (same property) from neighbourhood A70 (Oakville) (Exhibit 1, p. 65-74).

41All of the “pairing” properties sold in 2010. They are all two (2) storey homes with quality classes ranging from 7.5 - 8. The effective year built ranges from 1980 – 1990. The effective lot sizes range from 10,018.80 – 15,681.60 sq. ft.

42Having analyzed the sales of the “pairing” properties the assessor submits that the enclosed pool has an added value of $300,000 to be added to the $1,900,000 noted above, for a total assessment of $2,200,000 (rounded).

43He acknowledged that of the “pairings” proposed only two had indoor pools, the Oakville property and 2286 Shawanaga Trail in neighbourhood B09.

Appellant’s Position

44Mr. Baranowski, on behalf of the appellant, submits there is no basis to justify the changes to the property profile as suggested by Mr. Leroux. He states further that the assessed value returned for the January 1, 2008 valuation date of $1,811,000 is too high. Accordingly, he argues that the proposed increases pursuant to the notice served under s. 32(1) of the Act should not be implemented.

45In respect to the “quality class”, he submits that it was already changed once from 8.0 to the present grade of 7.5 by another assessor (Exhibit 1, p. 10 and Exhibit 7, p. 5).

46The proposed changes in respect to the lot size, abutting green space variable and changing the description of the building from 1 ¼ to 1 ¾ were also matters that would have been addressed by the previous assessor. Mr. Baranowski argues that these are all factors known to MPAC at least from the inspection conducted by the previous assessor.

47Although requested, the previous assessor’s notes were not produced by MPAC.

48Mr. Baranowski describes the subject building as a bungalow with a loft. He submits that it is neither a 1 ½ nor 1 1/3 storey. Under the circumstances, Mr. Baranowski states that the comparable sales proposed by MPAC should be rejected as, among other factors, they are all two (2) storey homes.

49To respond to MPAC’s position, Mr. Baranowski also proposes six (6) sales of two storey homes in the same neighbourhood as the subject property. One sale, 76 Mineola Road West, is common to both parties (Exhibit 7, p. 7). Alternatively, he proposes six properties, four (4) of which are one stories, one is 1 ¼ and the other is 1 ½ storey. There are no sales of these properties. They are submitted for consideration based on current assessment value for the January 1, 2008 base year (Exhibit 7, p. 8).

50Mr. Baranowski proposes that the correct current value be determined based on the sale prices per square foot and assessments per square foot calculated from sales and/or the assessments of his comparable properties.

51He calculates the average sales price per square foot of the six (6) sales at $335, thereby resulting in a current value of $1,361,775 (335 X 4,065). Alternatively, he has calculate the average assessment per square foot of the six (6) properties to be $369, thereby resulting in a current value $1,499,985 (369 X 4,065).

The Legislation

52The Board’s jurisdiction to make corrections to an assessment is found in the Act. Section 19.(1) of the Act provides that the assessment of a property must be based upon its current value:

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

53Section 1 of the Act:

“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.

54Section 19.2(1) of the Act provides:

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.

55Section 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.

56Section 45 of the Act states:

45. Powers and functions of the Assessment Review Board. – Upon an appeal with respect to an assessment, the Assessment Review Board may review the assessment and, for the purposes of the review, has all the powers and functions of the assessment corporation in making an assessment, determination or decision under this Act, and any assessment, determination or decision made on review by the Assessment Review Board shall be deemed to be an assessment, determination or decision of the assessment corporation and has the same force and effect.

Analysis

57The best evidence of value is the sale of the subject property. There is no recent sale of the subject property to inform the Board. Thus the Board looks to the sales of similar properties in the vicinity to determine current value.

58The Board accepts the Direct Comparison approach to value as a valid approach. The Board also accepts a determination of current value based upon the sale values per square foot of valid sales of comparable properties.

59We shall deal first with MPAC’s proposed changes to the profile of the subject property.

60The quality class change has been determined by visual inspection and concurrently completing a reference sheet (Exhibit 4). Upon a careful review of the descriptions set out under all of the Classes, 6 – 10, it is clear that there are many overlapping terms which may lead to ambiguity. It is equally clear that although the assessment was determined by a multiple regression model, the recommended change in quality class is based on subjective readings and interpretation of the assessor. The Board will not interfere with the model used by MPAC, however it retains jurisdiction to accept or reject subjective interpretations of the assessor.

61The appellant submits that any ambiguity should be resolved in favour of the appellant based on the principle of “contra proferentum”, a legal doctrine that the construction least favourable to the person putting forward the instrument should be adopted against him. The Board accepts this as a valid submission.

62The assessor has suggested a Quality Class of 8.5. The notes relied on by him, allegedly made contemporaneous with the inspection are found at p.10 of Exhibit 1 and a similar copy found at p. 35(5) of Exhibit 7. The notes indicate that the owner was present during the inspection conducted be Mr. Leroux on December 6, 2010. The owner is identified as Mrs. Petrie. This is incorrect. Mr. Leroux explained that some of his notes were “damaged due to weather.”

63At p. 15 - 18 of Exhibit 7, there are excerpts of MPAC’s policy and consideration titled “Residential Data Collection and Sales Investigations” in respect to quality classes.

64Significantly, when dealing with half classes the assessor is expected to follow certain principles. In particular: “Great care must be exercised as half classes can require more judgement than whole classes and therefore more subjectivity. Half classes should be used judiciously. As much as possible full classes should be employed. Where half classes are warranted, the assessor must substantiate the use of half classes with comments on the field document/card. The remarks or special features section is appropriate.”

65In our respectful view, the assessor has failed to adequately explain why the change was warranted, without the benefit of the judgement exercised by the previous assessor and the ambiguity found in Exhibit 4. We are not satisfied that the assessor has met the high standard set by MPAC by requiring the assessor to act judiciously when employing half classes. Accordingly, we will leave the Quality Class at 7.5 as previously set. In any event, from the photographs filed, we find nothing abnormally superior in respect to the roof, bricks, windows, interior doors and vanities to warrant a Quality Class of 9 (Exhibit 7, p. 19-23). Respectfully, it is not enough for the assessor to say that “the overall quality and the level of craftsmanship and attention to detail are very good.” We heard no evidence to suggest that the assessor was qualified to give opinion evidence on the “level of craftsmanship.” We are not satisfied that the recommendation was “judicious” as required by MPAC’s own standards.

66We have assumed that the term “judicious” is not to be interpreted within the context of legal decisions.

67With respect to the “effective lot size”, the evidence is clear that a creek runs through a portion of the lot. Although the owner has the area landscaped, with a resulting street appeal, in our view the issue is to be determined on accessibility and/or use. On balance, we accept the appellant’s position and leave the effective lot size at 23,522.40 sq. ft., as previously set.

68The “abutting green space variable” was effectively abandoned by the assessor on the second day of the hearing. In our respectful view, that was the proper decision. The subject property is completely surrounded by privately owned residential properties. No other property in the immediate vicinity is assessed with the abutting green space variable. Further, the description of the abutting lands is not consistent with MPAC’s own requirements, as found in Exhibit 6.

69We heard a substantial amount of evidence and argument to determine if the subject property should be described as 1 ¼ or 1 ¾ storey home. There is no issue that the loft is usable for residential purposes. Further, it is clear that regardless of the description, the area has been set at 754 sq. ft., which forms part of the building total area measured at 4,065 sq. ft. The photographs produced readily leads to the description of a raised bungalow (Exhibit 1, p. 11-14 and Exhibits 7, p. 19).

70There would be a different cost to build, considering the height of the walls, however the approach to value proposed by either party is determinative on sales not construction costs. In our view, once the loft area has been factored into the overall building size, its value will also be factored.

71Accordingly, we will not allow the increases proposed by the assessor. That leaves us to determine if the assessment of $1,811,000 is correct. As already stated, the comparable sales proposed by the assessor are for two (2) storey homes. We agree that of the four sales proposed, Sale “D” may be the most comparable as the year built, the effective lot size and quality class are similar. The total building is smaller by 323 sq. ft. It has an outdoor pool, as opposed to the subject’s enclosed pool. This sale results in sale price of $483.44 per square foot.

Current Value

72Applying that sale price per square foot (483.44 x 4,065) value results in a current value for the subject property of $1,965,183.60. This value includes the land, the building as well as “outdoor pool” but does not include the “pool enclosure” on the subject property. The enclosure was built in 1994, at the same time as the house. The enclosure is 1,906 sq. ft.

73Mr. Leroux proposes an added value of 15% for the pool and enclosure, based on “pairings” described above. The enclosure consists of the walls, windows and part of the roof. There is no clear evidence as the value for those specific items, however we can glean some insight based on Mr. Leroux’s pairing analysis. On balance we find that an added value of 5% ($98,259.18) for the wall enclosure, windows and part of the roof is reasonable.

74Mr. Baranowski proposed six (6) comparable sales. All are two (2) storey homes without any pools (outdoor or enclosed). In our view Sales 1, 4 and 5 are most comparable, considering the year built, effective lot size and the year of sale. This is information supplied by MPAC but unfortunately does not have the quality class for any of the sales. In any event, assuming a class of 7.5 for all three sales, the average sales price per square foot is $374 for a total value of $1,520,310. The best evidence heard respect to the value of an enclosed pool (the pool and enclosure) is an added value of 15% ($228,046.50) which would result in a total value of $1,748,356.50. Clearly this result would be more favourable to the appellant. However the lack of evidence with respect to the quality of construction for any of the three properties, in our view must eliminates these properties as comparable.

75The current value will be determined by applying the average sales price per square foot based upon the sales evidence of the assessor and adding a value for the pool enclosure based on the evidence provided.

76We therefore find that the current value to be $1,965,186.60 + 98,259.18 = $2,063,445.70.

Equity

77Having established the current value of the subject property, the final issue for the Board to determine is whether an adjustment should be made to the assessment of the subject property in order to make it equitable with the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity.

78The Act requires the Board to lower an assessment below current value if required to make the assessment equitable with the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity.

79On the issue of equity, the onus rests with the appellant to satisfy the Board that equity has not been achieved.

80The Board received an Equity Analysis from MPAC (see p. 75 and 76 of Exhibit 1). That analysis is a study of 30 similar properties in the vicinity and results in a median Assessment to Sales Ratio (“ASR”) of 0.98. The appellant challenged that result. The assessor acknowledged that 46% of the study fell within the accepted parameter of 0.95 to 1.05. The balance of 54% fell outside, with a margin of error (0.73 to 1.18) of 41%.

81Mr. Baranowski relies on an equity study of 39 properties. (Exhibit 7 p.10) The study shows ASR’s ranging from 0.74 to 0.94. The Board does not accept the results of this study to be reliable. It is highly unlikely that not one sale of the 39 chosen was close to the acceptable parameter of 0.95 to 1.05.

82Accordingly, the Board accepts the evidence from MPAC and finds that there is no evidence before it to support a reduction in the assessment below current value.

83The assessment for the taxation years 2009, 2010 and 2011 is therefore increased from $$1,811,000 to $2,063,445.70 ($2,063,000 rounded). The assessment for the 2012 taxation year is reduced from $2,184,000 to $2,063,459.50 ($2,063,000 rounded).

84This finding covers the entire assessment cycle therefore there are no deemed appeals.

Footnotes

1. 1Subsection 5 permits the Minister to prescribe a different valuation day. A different day has not been prescribed.