Prospero Pierre v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2016 CanLII 2589

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

ISSUE DATE: January 19, 2016

FILE NO.: WR 137939

Assessed Person(s): Prospero Pierre

Appellant(s): Prospero Pierre

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”), Region 9

Respondent(s): City of Toronto

Property Location(s): 81 Yorkleigh Avenue

Municipality(ies): City of Toronto

Roll Number(s): 1919-024-240-03200-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3099927

Taxation Year(s): 2015

Hearing Event No. 594829

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

Heard: December 9, 2015, in Toronto, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Representative

Prospero Pierre

Don Bennett

MPAC

James Twist

City of Toronto

No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY MEMBER SONIA LIGHT

ISSUE

1The subject property 81 Yorkleigh Avenue is a single family, two-storey detached home built in 2013. The lot has an effective site area of 16,016.64 square feet (“sq. ft.”) based on an effective frontage of 62.08 feet (“ft.”) and an effective depth of 258 ft. The home has a total building area of 4,354 sq. ft. and an unfinished basement of 2,387 sq. ft., MPAC originally classified the home construction as a quality code 8.5 but revised this classification to 8.0 based on an inspection in December, 2015, prior to this hearing.

2MPAC returned the assessment for the 2015 taxation year at a value of $1,866,000. The representative for MPAC argues that its market analysis indicates that the subject property has a higher value than its assessed value and therefore the assessed value as returned should be confirmed.

3The representative for the Appellant argues that evidence of the most comparable sales supports a reduction in the assessment and that the assessment for the 2015 taxation year should be reduced to $1,300,000.

4The Assessment Review Board (“Board”) must determine whether the 2015 assessment is correct and equitable.

DECISION

5For the reasons stated below and as directed by s. 44.(3)(a) of the Assessment Act (“Act”) the Board finds that the current value of the subject property is $1,300,000.

6The Board finds that a further reduction in assessment in the current value pursuant to s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act based on equity considerations would not be appropriate in the circumstances.

7Accordingly, the assessment of the subject property for the 2015 taxation year is reduced to $1,300,000.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Legislation

8Section 19.(1) of the Act states:

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

9Section 1 of the Act defines “current value” as:

“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.

10Section 19.2(1) states:

Valuation days

19.2 (1) Subject to subsection (5), the day as of which land is valued for a taxation year is determined as follows:

1. For the 2006, 2007 and 2008 taxation years, land is valued as of January 1, 2005.

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.

Exception

(5) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of the valuation of land for a taxation year after 2004 if the Minister prescribes a different day as of which land is valued for that year.

11Section 44.(3) 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.

12Section 40.(26) of the Act directs:

40.(26) 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.

Current Value Analysis

13James Twist is a property valuation analyst with MPAC. He did not prepare or provide to the Board at the hearing the usual form of written valuation report prepared by MPAC representatives appearing before the Board containing a valuation analysis of the subject property. Rather he submitted two separate market analyses i.e. “Appendix A’s”, containing possible comparable properties which the Board labeled as Appendix A and Appendix A1 respectively, of Exhibit 1. He subsequently indicated during his testimony that MPAC was actually relying on A1 for its suggested comparable properties.

14Despite having recently downgraded the quality of construction of the subject property from an 8.5 to an 8.0, Mr. Twist still preferred to rely on the properties in Appendix A1 with an 8.5 quality of construction and located a considerable distance from the subject property as his preferred comparables rather than the properties in Appendix A with an 8.0 quality of construction and located in close proximity to the subject property.

15The Board notes that Roxaline and Westona Streets shown on Appendix A and located close to the subject property are not even visible on the Market Analysis Map for A1 since this map has been magnified considerably to include the subject property on the same map with the preferred comparables suggested by MPAC. This demonstrates how far the comparables preferred by MPAC are from the subject property.

16Mr. Twist explained to the Board that he calculated an average price per square foot of $559 based on his preferred comparable properties on Appendix and Map A1 being 58 and 60 Hartfield Street. He selected these properties because he said they were “the closest he could find” and based on the construction date of the homes which were 2012 and 2009 respectively. He applied the $559 per sq. ft., to 4,354 sq. ft., being the total building area of the subject property and determined the assessed value of the subject property should be $2,434,000 less $257,000 which he believed would be a suitable reduction based on his recent inspection where he determined that the property should be classified as 8.0 rather than 8.5. He provided no further explanation as to how he arrived at this $257,000 adjustment.

17After subtracting the $257,000 from the $2,434,000 value calculated above he found that the resulting value of $2,177,000 was higher than the assessed value of $1,866,000. Therefore he concluded that the assessed value should be confirmed as returned.

18The representative for the Appellant, Don Bennett, is an accredited appraiser with a designation AACI. The Board considers him to be an expert in the valuation of properties. He prepared an appraisal report to support his conclusion that as of January 1, 2012 the current value of the subject property was $1,300,000. In his report he relied on the comparable properties in Exhibit 1, Appendix A, submitted to the Board by MPAC but which were not relied on or preferred by MPAC. The properties in this Appendix A, being 71 Roxaline Street, 62 and 35 Yorkleigh Avenue are in the same Humber Heights Community as the subject property and located in close proximity to it. They are also classified as 8.0 in quality of construction.

19In his report, Mr. Bennett methodically documents and compares in pictures and charted data the preferred comparables with the subject property. He further refines the time adjusted sale prices presented by MPAC in Appendix A to take into account the differences in lot and building sizes and determines that the adjusted sale prices for the Appendix 1 properties are $1,133,251, $1,295,060 and $1,346,382. He concludes that the current value as of 2012 for the subject property would be $1,300,000.

20Based on the evidence presented the Board finds that the current value of the subject property as of January 1, 2012 would be $1,300,000 and the assessment should be reduced accordingly.

Equity Analysis

21Mr. Twist presented an equity analysis demonstrating that the sales in the vicinity of the subject property have a median assessment to sales ratio of 0.97. Mr. Bennett also presented further evidence to demonstrate that the property next door to the subject property built in 1998 with a quality of construction of 7.5 has been assessed at $1,279,000. He argues that the assessment of the subject property should be further reduced by 3% based on equity considerations to $1,260,000.

22As the Board has determined that the assessment of the subject property should be reduced substantially based on its current value, the Board considers that a further reduction on the basis of equity would not be warranted in the circumstances.