Wilkin v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 2, 2016 CanLII 4411

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: January 25, 2016

FILE NO.: WR 133086

Assessed Person(s)/ Appellant(s): James Wilkin, Stuart MacDonald, Judith MacDonald, Jane Monro and Roy Gemmell

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 2

Respondent(s): City of Brockville

Property Location(s): See Schedule “A” attached

Municipality(ies): City of Brockville

Roll Number(s): See Schedule “A” attached

Appeal Number(s): See Schedule “A” attached

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

Hearing Event No.: 571543

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

Heard: November 24, 2014 in Brockville, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
James Wilkin	Stuart MacDonald
Stuart MacDonald and Judith MacDonald	Stuart MacDonald
Jane Monro and Roy Gemmell	Stuart MacDonald
MPAC	Amy Raycroft
City of Brockville	No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY LES J. NALEZINSKI

INTRODUCTION

1Mr. Stuart MacDonald acted as representative for three properties in the condominium complex. They are:

Unit 45 – 11 Country Club Place – Stuart and Judith MacDonald

Unit 50 – 16 Country Club Place – Jane Monro and Roy Gemmell

Unit 34 – 27 Country Club Place – James Wilkin

2The evidence presented by the assessor and Mr. MacDonald are the same for each property. The amenities of the subject properties are slightly different and the returned rolls reflect those differences.

3The subject properties are residential condominiums, part of a complex located off of Highway 2 in the City of Brockville. The complex is comprised of 54 units under fee simple ownership. The units have access to a pool and tennis courts. The location is deemed to be a premium location given its private location, entrance and amenities.

Background

4The assessor for MPAC determines the current values of the subject properties to be:

Unit 45 – 11 Country Club Place – $272,000

Unit 50 – 16 Country Club Place – $265,000

Unit 34 – 27 Country Club Place – $272,000

5Mr. MacDonald is of the opinion based on recent sales for homes in Zone “C” of the complex, as well as in the higher value Zone “B” and previous Board decisions, giving consideration to a higher value for end units, the assessed value of his residence and that of the other two properties should be in the $237,000 range.

Description of Property

Unit 45 – 11 Country Club Place

6The residence is a two-storey structure, built in 1987 and considered to be a quality class 6.0 construction in average condition. The dwelling has three bedrooms, three full bathrooms and one half bathroom. It has two fireplaces and is heated by a forced air furnace and includes central air conditioning. It has a total building area of 1,800 square feet (“sq. ft.”).

Unit 50 – 16 Country Club Place

7The residence is a two-storey structure, built in 1987 and considered to be a quality class 6.0 construction in average condition. The dwelling has three bedrooms, two full bathrooms and two half bathrooms. It has one fireplace and is heated by a forced air furnace and includes central air conditioning. It has a total building area of 1,800 sq. ft.

Unit 34 – 27 Country Club Place

8The residence is a two-storey structure, built in 1987 and considered to be a quality class 6.0 construction in average condition. The dwelling has three bedrooms, three full bathrooms and one half bathroom. It has two fireplaces and is heated by a forced air furnace and includes central air conditioning. It has a total building area of 1,800 sq. ft.

ISSUES

9What is a correct and equitable assessment for the three properties for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years?

DECISION

1The Board is of the opinion that the three units under appeal, except for minor variations such as the size of bathrooms and number of fireplaces, are identical and should be assessed equally.

Unit 45 – 11 Country Club Place – $250,000

Unit 50 – 16 Country Club Place – $250,000

Unit 34 – 27 Country Club Place – $250,000

10Further, the Board finds that the current value is equitable with other assessments of similar properties in the vicinity and an adjustment is not warranted.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Legislation

11In adjudicating for the 2012 taxation year the Board must consider the following sections of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended (“Act”).

12Section 19.(1) of the Act states:

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

13Section 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.

14Section 19.2 of the Act states:

19.2 (1) Valuation days – 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.

(5) Exception – 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.

15Section 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.

16Section 40.(17) provides that:

40.(17) Burden of proof. – For 2009 and subsequent taxation years, where value is a ground of appeal, the burden of proof as to the correctness of the current value of the land rests with the assessment corporation.

17Section 40.(19) provides that:

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

18While the legislature has directed in s. 19.(1) and 44.(3)(a) that assessments be based on current value, its final direction in s. 44.(3)(b) is that the assessment be equitable when compared with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity. Therefore, even if the Board finds sufficient evidence supporting s. 19.(1), that the assessment as returned is reflective of market value, the Board must then ensure that its determination is equitable with the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity. If the Board determines that the current value is high, it must adjust the current value to make it equitable with the assessments of similar land in the vicinity.

Evidence and Analysis

(a) MPAC’s Case

19Ms. Raycroft, representing MPAC, submitted as Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 Valuation Reports and Equity Analysis Reports for the individual properties.

20The Valuation Reports use the identical comparables for all three properties. There was no explicit explanation in the reports to indicate why the current values as returned by MPAC differed. The properties are of the same construction, are of the same vintage, and have similar amenities.

21Ms. Raycroft, having reference to s. 44.(3) of the Act, has submitted an Equity Analysis using a median Assessment to Time Adjusted Sale Ratio. The sales period within the subject properties vicinity and adjacent vicinity ranges from January 2009 to December 2012 for 45 sales of different types and sizes of properties showing a median Assessment to Sales Ratio (“ASR”) of 0.96. An ASR is a test by which MPAC’s assessment methodology may be tested after an open market sale of a property. The value of the property expressed in the marketplace, is compared to the current value of the property as returned by MPAC. An ASR of 1.00 indicates that the methodology is accurate. An ASR less than 1.00 indicates that the values returned by MPAC may be lower than the current value and an adjustment may be warranted pursuant to s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act.

22The Board has historically relied on assessment comparisons with properties closest to the subject property when possible as it has previously determined that common elements within the “vicinity” may impact market value.

23Although the Board is not entirely convinced that the data on the Equity Analysis Report satisfies the test of equity referenced in the Act as it includes properties that are not similar and not of the same general nature, character or function, in this instance the best evidence for equity is the Equity Analysis submitted by MPAC.

(b) Appellants’ Case

24The Appellants’ representative, Mr. MacDonald, submitted Exhibits 4a, 4b, 5 and 6. They are summary letters, correspondence from MPAC concerning the Request for Reconsideration (RFR) discussions, charts of market trends and previous Board decisions.

25The Board has reviewed the charts vigorously but unfortunately the information lacks the details that would enable it to determine whether the properties discerned by the charts were similar or comparable to the subject properties, and the Board rejects the information in its analysis.

CONCLUSION

26Ms. Raycroft submitted 14 properties she wished the Board to consider in its analysis. Of the 14 properties only seven have included sales within a reasonable period of the valuation day, January 1, 2012. For all intents and purposes, the Board considers these properties to be comparable and to be the best evidence. The properties are:

a. Unit 5 – 27 Aldershot Avenue

b. Unit 6 – 27 Aldershot Avenue

c. Unit 78 – 1199 Millwood Avenue

d. Unit 90 – 1201 Millwood Avenue

e. Unit 12 – 1265 Millwood Avenue

f. Unit 1 – 21 Country Club Place

g. Unit 11 – 50 Country Club Place

27The Board has analysed the properties on the basis of their square foot value. The Board has used the actual sale price and divided the sale price by the total building area to derive a square foot value. Details are as follows:

Address	Actual Sale Price	Total Building Area	Sq. Ft. Value
Unit 5 – 27 Aldershot Avenue	$153,500	1,098 sq. ft.	$139.80
Unit 6 – 27 Aldershot Avenue	$152,500	1,098 sq. ft.	$138.89
Unit 78 – 1199 Millwood Avenue	$132,000	1,067 sq. ft.	$123.71
Unit 90 – 1201 Millwood Avenue	$136,000	1,080 sq. ft.	$125.93
Unit 12 – 1265 Millwood Avenue	$136,000	1,032 sq. ft.	$131.78
Unit 1 – 21 Country Club Place	$345,000	2,040 sq. ft.	$169.12
Unit 11 – 50 Country Club Place	$260,000	1,800 sq. ft.	$144.44
Average			$139.10

28Using the average square foot value for the subject properties equals a value of (1,800 sq. ft. x $139.10) $250,000 rounded.

29The Board finds that the current value of the subject properties to be:

Unit 45 – 11 Country Club Place – $250,000

Unit 50 – 16 Country Club Place – $250,000

Unit 34 – 27 Country Club Place – $250,000

30Section 44.(3)(b) requires the Board to “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”.

31Mr. MacDonald did not provide any evidence as to equity pursuant to the Act.

32Ms. Raycroft, in her submission, did determine that 45 properties in the vicinity resulted in a median ASR of 0.96. This indicates that MPAC’s valuation methodology is producing assessed values comparable to sales values established in the market place. The Board finds that an ASR of 0.96 is within a reasonable range, and that an adjustment for equity is not warranted.

33In conclusion, the Board reduces the assessment of the properties for the 2013, and 2014 taxation years as follows:

Address	Returned Assessment	Current Value	Equitable Assessment
Unit 45 – 11 Country Club Place	$272,000	$250,000	$250,000
Unit 50 – 16 Country Club Place	$265,000	$250,000	$250,000
Unit 34 – 27 Country Club Place	$272,000	$250,000	$250,000

2015 DEEMED APPEAL

34An appeal for the 2014 taxation years is presently before the Board. Section 40.(26) 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 2014 appeal before March 31, 2015. For that reason, this decision also applies to the 2015 taxation year.

35Section 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.