Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: January 25, 2016 FILE NO.: WR 133087

Assessed Person(s): Frederick John Joyce and Sally Jean Joyce Appellant(s): Fred Joyce and Sally Joyce Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 2 Respondent(s): City of Brockville

Property Location(s): 9 Country Club Place, Unit 43 Municipality(ies): City of Brockville Roll Number(s): 0802-030-055-20643-0000 Appeal Number(s): 2981611, 3002839 and 3070430 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
Fred Joyce and Sally Joyce	Fred Joyce
MPAC	Amy Raycroft
City of Brockville	No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY LES J. NALEZINSKI

INTRODUCTION

1The subject property is a residential condominium, 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. They are a mix of waterfront view and non-waterfront view properties. 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

2The assessor for MPAC, Amy Raycroft determines that the current value of the subject property is $237,000.

3Fred Joyce recommends an assessment of $220,000 to be fair and would reflect the past and current sales of matching units in Area “C” at Country Club Place.

Description of Property

Unit 43 – 9 Country Club Place

4The residence is a two-storey structure, built in 1987 and considered to be a quality class 6.0 construction in average condition. The unit is considered to be an inside unit with no view of any water body. The dwelling has three bedrooms, two 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.”).

ISSUES

5What is a correct and equitable assessment for the subject property for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years?

DECISION

6The Board finds that the current value of Unit 43 at 9 Country Club Place is $233,000.

7Further, 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

8In adjudicating for the 2013 taxation year the Board must consider the following sections of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended (“Act”).

9Section 19.(1) of the Act states:

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

10Section 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.

11Section 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.

12Section 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.

13Section 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.

14Section 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.

15While 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

16Ms. Raycroft representing MPAC, submitted as Exhibits 1a and 1b Valuation Report and Equity Analysis Report

17She has examined five properties in the same condominium complex as the subject property. Two of the properties have a “water view” while the remaining three do not. The three properties are considered to be inside non-waterfront units similar to the subject property. The properties are of the same construction, are of the same vintage, and have similar amenities.

18Ms. 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.

19The 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.

20Although 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 Board is taking into consideration the Equity Analysis submitted by MPAC in its decision. It is also noted that the five comparable properties used in the Valuation Analysis Report are included in the Equity Analysis Report.

(b) Appellants’ Case

21The Appellant, Mr. Joyce, submitted Exhibits 2a, 2b and 2c. They are an introduction/summary, sales/assessment graph and a condominium site plan.

22The Board has reviewed the documentation but unfortunately the information lacks the details that would enable the Board to determine whether the properties discerned by the charts were similar to the subject property. For the Board’s purpose, “similar” relates to such things as the size of the building, the number of bedrooms, amenities, design, age, construction, etc. Although the mathematical calculations give food for thought, the missing information leaves the Board with too many questions and the Board rejects the information in its analysis.

CONCLUSION

23Ms. Raycroft submitted five properties she wished the Board to consider in its analysis. She has indicated that two of the properties have water views of the St. Lawrence River and Sherwood Bay. The other three properties are relatively comparable to the subject property as they are considered to be “inside non-waterfront units”. They are considered to be the best evidence and will be used in its analysis. They are:

a. Unit 42 – 8 Country Club Place b. Unit 52 –18 Country Club Place c. Unit 53 –19 Country Club Place

24The report included sales. The sales are outside of the usual parameters used by the Board, that is, the year before or after January 1, 2012. Ms. Raycroft made adjustments for time to come up with an adjusted sale amount. These adjustments are based on statistical information supported by 483 sales from the subject property’s neighbourhood and centred on the valuation day of January 1, 2012. In this case it will use the Time Adjusted Sale (“TAS”) amounts in its analysis.

25The Board has analysed the properties on the basis of their square foot value. The Board has taken the TAS price of each and divided the price by its building area to derive a square foot value. Details are as follows:

Address	TAS	Total Building Area	Sq. Ft. Value
Unit 42 – 8 Country Club Place	$230,918	1,800 sq. ft.	$128.29
Unit 52 – 18 Country Club Place	$234,488	1,800 sq. ft.	$130.27
Unit 53 – 19 Country Club Place	$232,984	1,800 sq. ft.	$129.44
Average			$129.33

26Applying the average square foot value to the subject property equals a value of (1,800 sq. ft. x $129.33) $233,000 rounded.

27Section 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”.

28Mr. Joyce did not provide any evidence as to equity pursuant to the Act.

29Ms. 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. An adjustment for equity is not warranted.

30In conclusion, the Board reduces the assessment of Unit 43 at 9 Country Club Place from $237,000 to $233,000

2015 DEEMED APPEAL

31An 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.

32Section 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.