Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: January 19, 2016

FILE NO.: WR 137986

Assessed Person(s): Fabian Gerard Tobin and Hong Sen Chang (Benny)

Appellant(s): Fabian Gerard Tobin and Hong Sen Chang (Benny)

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

Respondent(s): City of Toronto

Property Location(s): 35 Balmuto Street, Unit 4202

Municipality(ies): City of Toronto

Roll Number(s): 1904-068-560-02864-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3108463

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

Counsel⁺/Representative

Fabian Gerard Tobin and Hong Sen Chang (Benny)

Self-represented

MPAC

Charlene Kumar

City of Toronto

No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY SONIA LIGHT

ISSUE

1The subject property is located in a residential condominium complex in the neighbourhood known as Yorkville. The complex is known as the Uptown Residences and is located close to designer shops, restaurants, cinemas and the subway system.

2MPAC returned the assessment for the 2015 taxation year at a value of $1,481,000 but at this hearing is recommending a reduction in the assessment to $1,393,000.

3The Appellants argue that the assessment as returned and the recommended assessment are too high. They argue that the assessment should be reduced to $1,043,000 being the consideration paid for the subject property of $1,184,955 exclusive of the applicable Harmonized Sales Tax (“HST”) with a further a time adjustment downward of 13.6%.

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 $1,315,000.

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 $1,315,000.

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)2 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

13Charlene Kumar is a property valuation analyst with MPAC. In her valuation report she relies on the sales of four units in nearby condominium buildings to the subject property. She characterizes these four units as all “relatively comparable” to the subject unit. However, she determines that the sale of Suite 2902 at 21 Balmuto Street is the most comparable to the subject property and that unit sold at a time adjusted sale price of $1,468,561. She adjusted this value downward to $1,451,000 due to an additional locker space. However, she made no downward adjustments for the additional 116 square feet of unit area contained by this unit which is a matter the Board considers to be problematic. She then further reduced her assessment of the current value to $1,393,000 which she did not explain except to say that the further reduction was consistent with reductions other owners in the complex received in the request for reconsideration process.

14Hong Sen Chang (Benny) presented the evidence on behalf of the owners. He testified that he signed an agreement to purchase the subject property in February or March 2014 and the documentary evidence presented at the hearing indicates that the sale closed on June 3, 2014. He explained that he and Fabian Gerard Tobin, the other owner, researched the neighbourhood carefully before buying the property. They were diligent purchasers and purchased the property from an agent using multiple listing services. The relevant registration information submitted to the Board indicates that they paid $1,184,955 as the total consideration and Mr. Chang testified that the total cost to purchase the property including HST was $1,315,000.

15Mr. Chang testified that the cost of purchasing the subject property in 2014 would have been 13.6% higher than on the valuation day according to real estate board information. However, page 7 of Exhibit 6, being the Appellants’ page numbered submissions contradicts this information and apparently reflects a decrease in values from July 2012 until around the beginning of 2014 when prices recover. The MPAC time adjustment factors relate only to the months from January 1, 2011 until December 31, 2012. Therefore, the Board does not consider the information presented at the hearing to be reliable or sufficient to determine time adjustment factors to apply to suggested comparable sales occurring after December 31, 2012.

16Mr. Chang also presented sales information for other “02” units in the same building sold through multiple listing services. There were five sales presented in total and agreements but only two of them, being Units 4602 and 4502, sold prior to 2014. The sales agreements for these units were signed in May and July 2013 and sold in October, 2013, for $1,285,000 and $1,295,000. Since these sales of almost identical units were completed within two years of the valuation date, the Board considers the sales price of these properties to be reliable indicators of the current value of the subject property on the valuation date. The Board considers the average price of these two sales ie. $1,290,000 supports the sale price of the subject property of $1,315,000 as being a legitimate indicator of the current value of the subject property on the valuation date. The sold price on the respective listing information appropriately includes HST since this represents the actual market price or amount of money a buyer would be willing to pay to purchase the property.

Equity Analysis

17Ms. Kumar presented an equity analysis demonstrating that the sales in the vicinity of the subject property have a median assessment to sales ratio of 1.03.

18The Board finds that there is no basis to reduce the assessment any further on the basis of equity pursuant to s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act.