Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: June 13, 2016

FILE NO.: WR 128788

Assessed Person(s): Gracia Tchaglassian

Appellant(s): Gracia Tchaglassian

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 09

Respondent(s): City of Toronto

Property Location(s): 58 Bayview Ridge

Municipality(ies): City of Toronto

Roll Number(s): 1908-081-600-01000-0000

Appeal Number(s): 2983003, 3015051, 3074376 and 3149128 (deemed 2015 and 2016 appeals)

Taxation Year(s): 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 (deemed appeals)

Hearing Event No. 563971

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

Heard: November 5, 2014 in Toronto, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel+/Representative
Gracia Tchaglassian	Mark Blidner+
MPAC	Carlo Bassi
City of Toronto	No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY TERRY DENISON

INTRODUCTION

1The subject property, known municipally as 58 Bayview Ridge, is an irregularly shaped parcel with an effective frontage of 100 feet (“ft.”), an effective depth of 228 ft., and an effective site area of 22,800 square feet (“sq. ft.”). A high quality two-storey residence was constructed on it in 2008. The residence has five bedrooms, a large attached garage and an outdoor pool. It is located in the southwest quadrant of the York Mills neighbourhood of the City of Toronto. For the taxation years with a valuation day of January 1, 2012 the assessment of this property was returned as $7,364,000. The assessed owner appealed for the 2013 taxation year, having first followed the process for a Request for Reconsideration, and there are deemed appeals for the subsequent year.

ISSUES

2The issues in this appeal are:

(a) Is $7,364,000 the correct current value of the subject property for the taxation years based on a January 1, 2012 valuation day?

(b) Must the assessment of the subject property be adjusted to make it equitable with the assessment of similar lands in the vicinity?

DECISION

3Based on the evidence and submissions heard by the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) the correct current value of the subject property for a January 1, 2012 valuation day is $6,142,000. There is evidence the subject property is not assessed equitably with similar properties in the vicinity and it is necessary to adjust the assessment to achieve equity, therefore the assessment is adjusted to $5,835,000.

Legislation

4The Assessment Act (“Act”) states that assessment shall be based on current value:

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

5Current value is defined in s. 1 to mean:

“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.

6Section 40 of the Assessment Act sets out when an appeal of an assessment can be made, by whom it may be made, and the procedures to be followed by parties and the Board on an appeal. The following excerpts from the Act are relevant to the appeal in this hearing.

40.(1) Appeal to Assessment Review Board. – Any person, including a municipality, a school board or, in the case of land in non-municipal territory, the Minister, may appeal in writing to the Assessment Review Board,

(a) on the basis that,

(i) the current value of the person’s land or another person’s land is incorrect,

40.(3) Precondition of appeal. – If a property is in the residential, farm or managed forests property class, or in such other circumstances as the Minister may prescribe, no appeal may be brought to the Assessment Review Board under subsection (1) by a person who is entitled to make a request for reconsideration under section 39.1 in respect of the property, if the person has not made the request within the time required under that section.

40.(19) Board to make determination. – After hearing the evidence and the submissions of the parties, the Board shall determine the matter.

7Once the Board has determined the correct current value, s. 44.(3) of the Act requires the Board to consider if an adjustment is necessary to make the assessment equitable with similar lands in the vicinity.

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.

Evidence of MPAC

8Carlo Bassi gave evidence for MPAC. He is an experienced valuation analyst with MPAC and is the assessor for the neighbourhood in which the subject property is located.

9Mr. Bassi described the subject property as a high quality residence in a highly desirable neighbourhood. He briefly set out the history of the property saying that it had sold in 2004 for $1,975,000 and that the then existing house was demolished and replaced by the present structure in 2008.

10Mr. Bassi used a direct sales comparison approach to arrive at a value for the subject property. He prepared a profile of the subject property that was filed as Exhibit 1. He said that for the base year with a valuation day of January 1, 2012 the current value of the subject property was $7,364,000. In the property profile he characterized the quality of the property as 10, which is the highest quality level in MPAC’s system. The total building area is 9,294 sq. ft. of which 4,359 sq. ft. is on the first floor and the second floor is 4,935 sq. ft. The basement area is 5,119 sq. ft. of which 4,800 sq. ft. is finished. It was also noted that the basement height was 9.5 ft. The property also includes secondary structures, an attached garage of 726 sq. ft. and an outdoor pool of 875 sq. ft.

11Mr. Bassi found four sales of properties in the vicinity that he felt were comparable to the subject property. He time adjusted the sales to the statutory valuation day of January 1, 2012 using the factors MPAC generated from 350 residential sales in Toronto. His market analysis was filed as Exhibit 2.

12Sale A, 45 Bayview Ridge, sold for $12,825,000 in February 2010. It has a time adjusted sale price of $14,065,838 for a January 1, 2012 sale date according to Mr. Bassi. This property he viewed to be superior to the subject property because it abuts a ravine. He indicated that in MPAC’s system an adjustment of 6% was used for properties backing on a ravine. It also has a much larger lot being 121,096 sq. ft. compared to the subject property’s 22,800 sq. ft.

13Sale B, 9 Bayview Ridge Crescent, sold for $8,390,160 in November of 2013. Its time adjusted sale price is $7,752,508. Mr. Bassi felt that this property was relatively comparable to the subject property as it had an effective site area of 25,000 sq. ft., which was close to the subject property’s 22,800 sq. ft. The building areas compared at 8,834 sq. ft. and the subject property’s at 9,294. Both had similarly sized attached garages and outdoor pools. Neither backed on a ravine.

14Sale C, 65 Highland Crescent, sold for $6,288,889 in November of 2011. Its time adjusted sale price is $6,326,093. It had a basement garage (compared to an attached garage) and no outdoor swimming pool. At 15,865 sq. ft., this property had a smaller lot than the subject property. The building area of 6,656 sq. ft. is also smaller than that of the subject property. This property does abut a ravine, but because of its smaller areas and lack of a pool Mr. Bassi treated it as inferior to the subject property in his analysis.

15Sale D, 7 Tudor Gate, sold for $6,400,000 in June of 2011. Mr. Bassi calculated the time adjusted the sale price as $6,567,368 using the time adjustment factors developed by MPAC. The site area is 14,000 sq. ft. and the building area is 7,066 sq. ft. Both areas are significantly smaller than the subject property. It has a basement garage and on outdoor pool, but abuts a commercial property, which is a negative factor for value. It was also graded at 9.5 for quality, compared to the grade of 10 for the subject property and the other properties. Mr. Bassi felt that these factors made this property inferior to the subject property.

16In the comparables he used for his market analysis, Mr. Bassi noted that the range of time-adjusted sales was between $6,300,000 and $14,000,000 and that he felt Sale B was the most similar to the subject property. He felt that a current value of $7,364,000 was appropriate for the subject property.

17Mr. Bassi provided charts in which he provided detailed adjustment calculations to find the market value of the subject property by adjusting for differences between it and the comparables, such as a 6% premium for abutting a ravine, and differences in lot dimensions and area. He used these calculations to hypothesize values per square foot of land and structures. This was filed as Exhibits 3 and 4. He felt that these calculations supported a current value of $7,364,000 for the subject property.

18Mr. Bassi also provided an equity analysis, Exhibit 5, based on a comparison of the assessed value and sale prices of 30 residential properties in the vicinity. From this he determined the median Assessment to Sales Ratio (“ASR”). He found that “sales in my vicinity for the subject property have median ASR of 1.” From this he concluded that there was no reason to provide any further adjustment to the assessed value to achieve equity with the assessments of other properties in the vicinity.

19Mr. Bassi was cross-examined by Mark Blidner, first as to his qualifications as an appraiser and whether he had a designation such as an AACI, and then on the process he had followed to arrive at the assessment of the subject property. The Board found that Mr. Bassi was qualified to give evidence on how MPAC values properties for assessment purposes, based on his experience as an assessor.

20Mr. Blidner asked Mr. Bassi about particulars of the subject lot, in that it was unusually shaped, was located at the intersection of three streets, about the amount of street traffic that impacted it, and whether these issues impacted on the value of the property. Mr. Bassi conceded that the lot configuration of the subject property was irregular when compared to the comparables.

21Mr. Blidner also questioned how MPAC determined that the adjustment for abutting a ravine was 6%, to which Mr. Bassi responded that it was the factor used by MPAC in its multiple regression analysis.

22Mr. Blidner also questioned Mr. Bassi on why the 30 properties used in the equity analysis did not include the four comparables he had used in his market analysis. Mr. Bassi suggested it was because of the “time frame”. He said one property was included, 7 Tudor Gate, which had an ASR of 0.73. In setting up this question Mr. Blidner suggested that the ASR for MPAC’s four comparable properties was 0.83 and that if this ASR was applied, then the equity adjustment for the subject property would result in an assessment of $6,112,000. Mr. Bassi responded that this was not a large enough sample to make an equity analysis although he did not dispute Mr. Blinder’s calculation of the ASR of the four properties as 0.83.

Evidence of the Appellant

Barry Cohen

23Mr. Blidner called Barry Cohen and proposed that he be qualified to give opinion evidence on real estate values based on his 33 years of experience as a real estate broker concentrating on sales of properties in the Bayview and York Mills areas. Mr. Bassi questioned Mr. Cohen’s objectivity on the basis that he had been a witness before the Board previously with respect to seeking a reduction of the returned value of 68 Bridle Path, in which the Board was urged by him to find a value of $10 to 10.5 million, yet he is currently listing the property for $25 Million. Mr. Cohen answered that this was an asking price sought by the owner, not a valuation, and that it included many valuable chattels and works of art.

24The Board found that Mr. Cohen possessed considerable experience in this “high-end” segment of the residential market and that his evidence could assist the Board in making a decision, although it was noted that Mr. Cohen had not filed an acknowledgement of expert’s duty prior to giving evidence. The Board reminded Mr. Cohen that his duty was to assist the Board and not to be an advocate for a party. On this basis the Board qualified Mr. Cohen to give evidence about real estate values, particularly in the Bayview/York Mills neighbourhoods.

25The Board found that Mr. Cohen gave his evidence in a fair and balanced manner, answered questions from MPAC and the Board directly.

26In his evidence-in-chief Mr. Cohen noted that the subject property was an irregularly shaped lot with curving frontage on Bayview Ridge, whereas the MPAC’s comparables were not irregularly shaped properties.

27He commented that MPAC’s Sale A, 45 Bayview Ridge, had a beautiful vista of the ravine and the golf course beyond. He based this on a visit to this property. He would have assigned a much greater premium than MPAC’s 6% for this ravine factor, more in the range of 20% to 30%.

28Mr. Cohen also commented on the different impacts of traffic on the subject property and 45 Bayview Ridge. He illustrated this by showing a Google map of the area on his iPhone (which was not entered as an exhibit). He said that the subject property was essentially a quarter circle along the street of approximately 250 ft. and two straight lines roughly creating a triangle at the rear of the subject property. Because 45 Bayview Ridge was regularly shaped with a smaller frontage on the street and greater possible setbacks, it was less impacted by traffic. He also commented that because of the intersection of the three streets near the subject property and a stop sign in front of it traffic noise and intruding headlights impacted the subject property more than other properties nearby. He said this would negatively impact on the value of the subject property, although he did not quantify the impact.

29With respect to MPAC’s Sale B, 9 Bayview Ridge Crescent, Mr. Cohen said he was very familiar with the property as he had acted as selling agent on the property in November of 2013. He noted that the property was superior to the subject property, not relatively comparable as stated by MPAC. It is less impacted by traffic than the subject property, has a larger and more regularly shaped lot, and has two auxiliary buildings, and outdoor family room, a large four-car garage.

30Mr. Cohen said he wasn’t the selling agent for MPAC’s Sale C, 65 Highland Crescent, but had been in the residence when it was marketed. It backs on a ravine, is a steel and concrete construction and has an eight-car garage. It is extensively landscaped and includes a waterfall. The construction is superior to the subject property. Despite a smaller total built area he would rate it as a superior property to the subject property. It sold in November 2011, for $6,288,889, and he suggested that the value of the subject property would be less.

31Having commented on MPAC’s comparables, Mr. Cohen went on to provide his comparables and analysis. He said he selected 40 properties from Multiple Listing Service (“MLS^®”) listings for consideration and then narrowed his analysis to five properties that he felt were comparable to the subject property, although he could not find one which felt was exactly identical. He introduced MLS^® summary sheets for each of the properties as Exhibits 9 to 13. Based on these comparables he concluded that the value of the subject property on January 1, 2012 would be $5,300,000.

32The particulars of Mr. Cohen’s comparables are summarized in the following paragraphs.

3351 Fifeshire Road is located north of the subject several blocks north of York Mills Road and west of Bayview Avenue. It’s lot dimensions are 107.21 ft. of frontage and a depth of 182.8 ft. It has many features including 10 washrooms and five bedrooms, a marble foyer, library with cherry paneling and beamed ceiling. It does not back on a ravine, although properties on the other side of Fifeshire Road do. It was listed for $4,398,000 and sold for $4,200,000 in October of 2013. Mr. Cohen considered this property to be a comparable to the subject property, although he would rate the subject property as more valuable.

34102 Forest Boulevard is in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Bayview Avenue and Yorkmill Roads north and east of the subject property. It is on a rectangular lot of 100 ft. frontage and a depth of 288 ft. It has five bedrooms and eight washrooms. It is gated, has a cedar roof and circular drive at the front. It is extensively landscaped and has a salt-water pool with a cabana and gourmet kitchen. It was listed for $5,499,000 and sold for $5,350,00 in July of 2013. Mr. Cohen considered this property to be of a similar age to the subject property, and with a superior lot. He would rank it to have a comparable value to the subject property.

35189 Valley Road is on the next street north of the subject property. It has a lot with 108.2 ft. frontage and a depth of 120 ft. The residence includes seven bedrooms and 10 washrooms. With 8,800 sq. ft. of finished space it is a similar size to the subject property and has high-end finishes inside and out. It does not have a pool nor does it abut a ravine. It listed for $5,518,000 and sold for $5,200,000 in December of 2013.

36Mr. Cohen introduced the MLS^® summary for 23 Bayview Ridge. It was listed for $5,788,00 in 2014 but no sales information was provided. It is an irregularly shaped lot with 110.38 ft. frontage and a depth of 506.04 ft. abutting a ravine. Mr. Cohen introduced it because he felt it was a similar house to the subject property on a much larger lot abutting a ravine with views of the Rosedale Golf Course. He thought the asking price of $5,788,000 for this property demonstrated that the assessed value of $7,364,000 was too high.

3758 Old Colony Road is located several blocks north of York Mills Road and the subject property and is on the east of Bayview Avenue. It is not a ravine lot. It has a frontage of 102.65 ft. and a depth of 319.5 feet. The grounds are lushly landscaped and private, with a pool and tennis court. It was listed for $5,995,000 and sold in August of 2011 for $5,900,000. Mr. Cohen was very familiar with this property as he was the co-broker on the transaction. He viewed this property as relatively comparable to the subject property although it had a rectangular lot and was less impacted by traffic. He felt that these differences made it slightly superior to the subject property.

38Mr. Bassi cross-examined Mr. Cohen. He tested Mr. Cohen’s knowledge of the specifics of the various comparables and questioned his use of 23 Bayview Ridge since it was a listing, not a sale.

Hovan Tchaglassian

39Mr. Blidner called Hovan Tchaglassian as a witness. He is the spouse of the Appellant and Assessed Person, Gracia Tchaglassian. Mr. Tchaglassian said he was a custom homebuilder and has lived and worked in the Bayview area for approximately 30 years. He looked for in-fill housing sites to build on and sell for a profit. He explained that he and his wife decided to downsize from their previous house and bought 58 Bayview Ridge in 2008. They demolished the existing house and constructed the one that exists now. They would have preferred to have a lot abutting a ravine for the views, but chose 58 Bayview Ridge because it did not have the premium pricing that a ravine lot would have. He described the lot as challenging to develop because of its shape, essentially without a back yard, and setbacks in the back of 8 ft. to 12 ft.

40Mr. Tchaglassian commented on MPAC’s four comparables, which he said he was familiar with from his work and from living in the area. His comments are summarized as follows:

(a) Sale A, 45 Bayview Ridge, was not comparable to the subject property because it was a double lot with six times the area of the subject property.

(b) Sale B, 9 Bayview Ridge Crescent, is a square lot. It’s square configuration makes it more usable and valuable than the subject lot.

(c) Sale C, 65 Highland, was a ravine lot with spectacular vistas and the residence used a concrete construction technique that was approximately 30% more expensive than conventional construction. These factors made it difficult to compare with the subject property.

(d) Sale D, 7 Tudor Crescent, is on the east side of Bayview Avenue. Although he doesn’t know the interior, he observed that Tudor Crescent would have significantly less traffic than Bayview Ridge. He noted that MPAC said the property abutted commercial property, however he felt that the campus of the Canadian Film Centre was a “park-like setting” and would have a positive, not a negative, influence on its value.

Submissions by MPAC

41In his submissions for MPAC, Mr. Bassi stressed that the subject property was a high standard executive home. He urged the Board to find that the best comparable was Sale B, 9 Bayview Ridge. He pointed to his equity analysis which had used 30 sales and found a median ASR of 1.0. He said that three of the MPAC’s comparables were in the same homogeneous neighbourhood and that Mr. Cohen’s were located too far from the subject property. He also questioned Mr. Cohen’s impartiality. He sought confirmation of the assessment as returned at $7,364,000 with no adjustment for equity.

Submissions by the Appellant

42Mr. Blidner urged the Board to consider Mr. Cohen’s comparables because they came from all four quadrants of the Bayview and York Mills neighbourhood. He was critical of MPAC’s reliance on comparables abutting ravines and the level of adjustment used by it for ravine lots. He also criticized the omission from its equity analysis of three of the four sales used by MPAC in its market analysis, and the fact that the ASR of MPAC’s sale comparables was 0.83. He urged the Board to find that MPAC had not met the onus on it in an appeal, and that based on Mr. Cohen’s comparables, the current value of the subject property should be reduced to $5,300,000 with a further adjustment for equity.

Analysis and Findings by the Board

43From the evidence and submissions of the parties there appear to be three factors that account for a difference in how they see the assessment value of the subject property: comparable sales, adjustments between properties and equity.

What Comparables Are Helpful?

44The first question is which comparables are relevant to use in arriving at a value? In this hearing the parties presented a total of nine comparables.

45MPAC relied on four comparables to support its conclusion that the correct current value of the subject property was $7,340,000.

46The Board finds that Sale A, 45 Bayview Ridge, is not a very useful comparable to the subject property. Its differences in lot size and its backing on a ravine require too much subjective adjustment to make it useful. MPAC relies on a 6% adjustment in its methodology for abutting a ravine and Mr. Cohen, based on his experience suggested a 20% to 30% adjustment. Also, it is difficult for a valuator to make an adjustment to account for a difference in lot area between 121,096 sq. ft. and 22,800 sq. ft. Certainly there was not enough evidence in this hearing to do so.

47Sale B, 9 Bayview Ridge Crescent, is a better comparable to the subject property. It shares a number of features that are similar although not identical to the subject property, including lot size, building size and quality, and that neither are ravine properties. However, it is less impacted by traffic than the subject property and has two auxiliary buildings, an outdoor family room, and a large four-car garage. It is also a newer house, built in 2012 compared to 2008 for the subject property. The Board finds that the subject property would attract a lesser price on the market that this property.

48Sale C, 65 Highland Crescent, was seen by MPAC as being inferior to the subject property because of its smaller lot. But MPAC”s methodology undervalues the premium of a ravine lot for this property in this neighbourhood, and the Board finds for that reason it should be viewed as equal or slightly superior to the subject property in value.

49Sale D, 7 Tudor Gate, was viewed by MPAC as inferior to the subject property because of smaller lot and building areas than the subject property. It was also given a negative adjustment because it abuts a commercial property. However the Appellant led evidence to show that the “commercial” property it abutted was the Canadian Film Centre and that it was a park-like setting with a grassy field, which could be considered as a positive influence. The Appellant also viewed it as being less negatively impacted by traffic than the subject property. That Board finds that this property is not inferior to the subject property when all its factors and influences are compared. The Board considers this property to be somewhat comparable and superior to the subject property.

50The Appellant, through Mr. Cohen, suggested five comparables. His sales information was taken from MLS^® records and the sale prices were not time adjusted. The Board finds that all of Mr. Cohen’s comparables are relevant in valuing the subject property, although they are further from the subject property than MPAC’s comparables.

5151 Fifeshire Road is somewhat comparable to the subject property, but lower in value compared to the subject property primarily due to its location and smaller lot. It is not a strong comparable for valuing the subject property.

52102 Forest Boulevard appears to be relatively comparable to the subject property although its value would be somewhat lower due to location.

53189 Valley Road is also somewhat comparable but has a smaller lot size so it would have a lower value than the subject property.

54The Board notes that 23 Bayview Ridge appears to be a superior property compared to the subject property and was listed for $5,788,000, however the Board gives little weight to it as a comparable because there was no evidence of what value it sold for in an actual transaction. The statutory definition of current value contemplates that there be an agreement on the price between a willing seller and a willing buyer, so a listing only represents the position of a willing seller.

55The Board finds that 58 Old Colony Road is relatively comparable to the subject property.

56The following chart summarizes the Board’s findings on the comparable properties:

Property	Sale Price *Only MPAC’s prices are time adjusted	Comparability	Ravine	Use or Reject
45 Bayview Ridge (MPAC)	$14,065,838*	Not comparable without significant adjustments for ravine and lot size	Yes	Reject as comparable
9 Bayview Ridge (MPAC)	$7,752,508*	Somewhat comparable but superior because of lot and features	No	Use as comparable
65 Highland Crescent (MPAC)	$6,326,093*	Relatively comparable, but requires ravine adjustment, slightly superior	Yes	Use as comparable
7 Tudor Gate (MPAC)	$6,326,093*	Relatively comparable, but superior because of lot and location	No	Use as comparable
51 Fifeshire Road	$4,200,000	Inferior because of lot size and location	No	Reject as comparable
102 Forest Boulevard	$5,350,000	Relatively comparable	No	Use as comparable
189 Valley Road	$5,200,000	Relatively comparable	No	Use as comparable
23 Bayview Ridge	$5,788,000	Superior, but not a sale	Yes	Reject as comparable
53 Old Colony Road	$5,900,000	Relatively comparable	No	Use as comparable

57The average sale price of MPAC’s three accepted comparables and the Appellant’s accepted comparables is $6,142,000. This is a reasonable estimate of the correct current value of the subject property.

How To Make Adjustments in Comparing Properties?

58The second question is what is an appropriate adjustment for a comparable abutting a ravine. Two of the four properties used by MPAC were properties abutting a ravine which required that there be an adjustment to compare them to the subject property. MPAC uses 6% and the Appellant suggests the difference is greater, in the range of 20% to 30%.

59The Board finds that there is evidence that the adjustment used by MPAC, which may be statistically appropriate for use in its model generally, may not be appropriate when analyzing the value of the subject property in comparison to the comparables that were used by MPAC. Mr. Cohen is an experienced real estate broker with specific market knowledge of the subject property neighbourhood. He had personal knowledge of all of the comparables and gave evidence that the premium for ravine lots in this area is much more, in the range of 20% to 30%, because they are superior lots. The Board gives considerable weight to his opinion on this. The Board finds that the premium for these two properties most likely falls between the range suggested by Mr. Cohen and that used by MPAC, and that an adjustment significantly greater than 6% for the ravine lots could be reasonable for the comparables selected by MPAC for its analysis. However, the Board concludes that because it has rejected 45 Bayview Ridge, the largest lot and the one most influenced by abutting a ravine, as a comparable, it is an appropriate approach is to rely on remaining comparables which do not require such drastic and subjective adjustments.

What about Equity?

60The third question is whether equity has been properly addressed, and whether the comparables were included in MPAC’s ASR calculations for equity.

61MPAC’s equity analysis, which is based on sales and assessment data for 30 properties in the vicinity, suggests that there is no need to adjust the assessment of the subject property to achieve equity because the median ASR of the sample was 1. This indicates that the assessments being returned are very close to the values found in sales. The Board notes that of the 30 properties considered in MPAC’s equity analysis only 14 fell within the acceptable ASR range of 0.95 to 1.05. Sixteen of the properties fell either or above the range that would obviate an adjustment to achieve equity. The Board notes as well, that the majority of the properties included in the samples ranged in sales price from $1,400,000 to $3,000,000 whereas the subject property was assessed at $7,364,000 and the market analysis comparables used by MPAC had time adjusted sales prices that ranged from $6,326,093 to $14,065,838 suggesting that these properties may be in a different category than the samples used in the equity analysis.

627 Tudor Gate, the only property used by MPAC as part of the equity and market analyses had a time adjusted sale price of $6,567,000, the highest in the range for the equity analysis sample and the second lowest in the range for the market analysis comparables. It had an ASR of 0.73.

63The Board questions why all of the comparables from the market analysis would not be considered in this equity analysis, especially when the ASR of the four comparables together averages approximately 0.8, which would suggest that an equity adjustment would be necessary to comply with the requirements of the Act. MPAC’s sample of 30 properties for its equity analysis is not based on sales of properties that are comparables to the subject property, except that they are residential ones. The price range suggests they may not be that similar to the subject property. Is it enough to say a property is similar for the purposes of the Act’s equity provisions because it is residential, or does being similar require more factors such as close location, similar lot sizes, similar building quality, and similar neighbourhood features? It is a question of whether or not the purpose of the equity adjustment provisions of the Act are to determine the reasonableness of MPAC’s general methodology or the equity of the assessment of a particular property. In the Board’s view they are not the same thing, although they often overlap. Whether or not they are in the vicinity, as contemplated in s. 44.(3) of the Act, depends on what is meant by “vicinity”.

64Section 44.(3) of the Act includes two key words: “similar” and “vicinity”. The Act could have been drafted to use the words “class” and “municipality” if that was what the Legislature intended. But it did not. There may be many properties within the same class that are not “similar”. There may be many properties within the same municipality that are similar, but not in the same “vicinity”. To achieve the intent and purpose of the Act in s. 44.(3), the Board is directed to consider the assessment of properties that are similar and in the same vicinity. This is a narrower and more specific test, in the view of the Board, than is achieved in the equity analysis MPAC put forward in this appeal.

65The Board finds that on the evidence before it, there is some evidence that similar lands in the vicinity are assessed at lower values than they transact for in the market place. In order to follow the provisions of the Act an adjustment of the assessment of the subject property to make it equitable with the assessment of similar lands in the vicinity is required. In this instance, the Board gives more weight to the ASRs of the properties closest to the subject property in distance and which were used in MPAC’s market analysis. This does not mean that the ASR of only the market analysis comparables are used, but if they are included and given more weight it seems to the Board that equity would require that the assessment of the subject property should be adjusted so as to reduce it by 5% from its current value, and the Board so finds.

CONCLUSIONS

66The correct current value of the subject property for a January 1, 2012 valuation day is $6,142,000. There is evidence the subject property is not assessed equitably with similar properties in the vicinity and it is necessary to adjust the assessment to achieve equity, therefore the assessment is adjusted to $5,835,000.

2015 AND 2016 DEEMED APPEAL

67Appeals for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years are presently before the Board. Section 40.(26) of the Assessment Act 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 2013 and 2014 appeals before March 31, 2016. For that reason, this decision also applies to the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

68Section 40.(26) of the Act directs:

Deemed appeals, 2009 and subsequent years

(26) 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.