Lorraine Vanzuylen and Hendricus Vanzuylen v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2016 CanLII 50740

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

ISSUE DATE: August 05, 2016 FILE NO.: WR 140092

Assessed Person(s): Lorraine Vanzuylen and Hendricus Vanzuylen Appellant(s): Lorraine Vanzuylen and Hendricus Vanzuylen Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 05 Respondent(s): Loyalist Township

Property Location(s): 4868 Bath Road Municipality(ies): Loyalist Township Roll Number(s): 1104-010-080-17610-0000 Appeal Number(s): 3134956, 3134957, 3130056 and 3145668 (deemed 2016 appeal) Taxation Year(s): 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 (deemed appeal) Hearing Event No.: 620037

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

Heard: February 10, 2016 in Kingston, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel⁺/Representative
Lorraine Vanzuylen Hendricus Vanzuylen	Peter Radley, Q.C.⁺
MPAC	Rox-Anne Poulain
Loyalist Township	Maureen Sharpe and Kate Tindal (observing)

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY TERRY DENISON

BACKGROUND

1The Appellants requested a re-hearing of a decision of the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) for their appeals for the taxation years 2013 and 2014, as provided in the Board’s Rules of Practice (“Rules”). The Associate Chair of the Board set aside the previous decision (WR 125792) and ordered this hearing to determine the matter. This hearing is not an appeal of the previous Board decision that was set aside: it is a new hearing and the resulting decision is based on the evidence and submissions presented in this new hearing. The new hearing took place in Kingston on February 10, 2016 taking a full day as there was extensive oral and written evidence presented through three expert witness and three other witnesses.

INTRODUCTION

2The subject property in this appeal is located in Loyalist Township at 4868 Bath Road, west of the village of Amherstview. It has a western exposure to Lake Ontario with shoreline on Parrot Bay. For the taxation year 2013, based on a valuation day of January 1, 2012, it was assessed with a current value of $1,912,000 in the residential class, and $1,601,000 for 2014, 2015 and 2016 taxation years. As there are unresolved appeals for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years this decision will also deal with those appeals. The owners of the property, Lorraine and Hendricus Vanzuylen, appealed these assessments, first having followed the Request for Reconsideration “(RFR”) process set out in s. 39.1 of the Assessment Act (the “Act”). The Appellants maintain that all of the values returned are too high. The residential classification of the subject property was not raised as a ground of the appeal.

ISSUES

3The Act requires the Board, on an appeal under s. 40 of the Act, to determine the correct current value of the property based on the evidence and submission made, and then to consider if the assessment is equitable with the assessment of other similar properties in the vicinity as required in s. 44(3)(b).

LEGISLATION

4Section 19.(1) of the 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.

5Section 1 of the Act defines current value as follows:

“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 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.

7Section 40.(19) of the Act states:

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

DECISION

8The current values of the subject property returned on the roll for the taxation years 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 are not correct. Based on the evidence presented to the Board in this hearing the correct current value of the subject property as of the valuation day January 1, 2012 is $1,180,000. Having regard to the assessment of similar properties in the vicinity there is no evidence that it is necessary to adjust the assessment of the subject property to make it more equitable with the assessment of similar lands in the vicinity. Therefore, the current value of the subject property for those taxation years using a valuation day of January 1, 2012 is $1,180,000 and the assessments returned on the rolls are reduced to that amount. The classification of the property as residential is confirmed.

MPAC’S EVIDENCE

Emily Corsi

9Emily Corsi is a Property Valuation Analyst with MPAC. She has a designation of Associate of the Institute of Municipal Assessors (AIMA) from the Institute of Municipal Assessors in Ontario and is an experienced assessor with MPAC. She indicated that she understood that she had a duty to the Board to be objective although she was an employee of MPAC, a party to the proceedings. Based on her education and experience as an assessor the Board qualified her to provide opinion evidence with respect to assessment and valuation of land. She presented evidence to support the returned assessments of the property. She prepared a Valuation Report for the subject property for the taxation years under appeal, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 all of which are based on a valuation day of January 1, 2012. Her Valuation Report was filed as Exhibit 1. In her report and oral evidence she opined that the correct current value of the subject property for the years under appeal was $1,601,000 based on a determination arrived at by a direct sales comparison analysis.

10Ms. Corsi provided the following information about the subject property. It is a large single-family residence with a total building area of 4,910 square feet (“sq. ft.”) built in 2011. Hydro is available and there are private services for water and sewage treatment. There are four bedrooms, two full bathrooms, and two half-bathrooms, in this two-storey residence and it has an attached garage of 656 sq. ft. There is also a detached garage. The residence is located on an irregularly shaped parcel of land on water with an area of 4.01 acres, an effective frontage of 260 feet (“ft.”) and an actual frontage of 305 ft. The parcel has a depth of 179.80 ft. Ms. Corsi noted that part of the parcel was swampy and that it was sloped. She described the shoreline as rocky and shallow with a western exposure. The overall quality of the subject property was described as high, and the comparable property sales selected by Ms. Corsi were all considered by her to be inferior to the subject property but she considered Sale F to be the most comparable because of the size of structure.

11Ms. Corsi used six comparable sales for her analysis. Her Valuation Report included photographs of the front elevation of each comparable property, but did not include any photographs of the interiors. The Valuation Report included photographs of the exterior of the subject property showing the yards and waterfront from various angles. It did not include any photographs of yards or waterfronts of the comparable properties.

12All of the comparables selected by Ms. Corsi were within the vicinity of the subject property and all had water frontage. She said that all had smaller lots and less water frontage than the subject property. She made time adjustments to the sales prices to relate them to the statutory valuation day January 1, 2012. She opined that they were all inferior to the subject property but Sale F, 4986 Bath Road, was the most comparable because of the size of the structure on it. Because all the comparables were inferior, she opined that the value of the subject property would be higher than the sale prices of the comparables.

13Ms. Corsi’s comments on her selected comparable sales are summarized in the following chart:

Comparable	Address	Time adjusted sale price	Ms. Corsi’s comment
Sale A	4458 Bath Road	$1,001,996	Much smaller lot than subject property and smaller water frontage. Structure is 10 years older and 1,767 sq. ft. smaller.
Sale B	4412 Bath Road	$878,338	Much smaller lot size and less water frontage. The dwelling is 40 years older and 2,106 sq. ft. smaller.
Sale C	4700 Bath Road	$1,055,665	Much smaller lot size and less water frontage. A new home, but 2,968 sq. ft. smaller than the subject property.
Sale D	4704 Bath Road	$933,364	Much smaller lot size and less water frontage. Similar in age to the subject but 1,824 sq. ft. smaller.
Sale E	318 Nicholson Point Road	$891,837	Much smaller lot size and less water frontage. Although it is renovated it is 2,846 sq. ft. smaller than the subject property.
Sale F	4986 Bath Road	$1,181,377	Much smaller lot size, less water frontage, 30 years older and 575 sq. ft. smaller. Inferior, but most comparable to the subject property

14Ms. Corsi also included an Equity Analysis as part of her analysis and evidence. Based on a review of the sales price and assessments of 30 properties in the vicinity of the subject property she found that there was a median assessment to sales ratio (“ASR”) of 1.02. From this she concluded that properties in the vicinity had been assessed at their current values and were equitable. Consequently she opined that there was no requirement for the Board to make any adjustment of the assessment to achieve equity as required by s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act.

Cross-Examination of Emily Corsi by Peter Radley

15Peter Radley, counsel for the Appellants, cross-examined Emily Corsi. When asked why she had not included any photographs of waterfronts for the comparable properties, as she had done for the subject property, Ms. Corsi responded that she was unable to get access to take such pictures.

16On further questioning by Mr. Radley, Ms. Corsi conceded that she had seen the waterfronts of the comparable properties and that they differed from the subject property’s waterfront that has a shallow rocky shore. She admitted that some of the comparable properties had waterfronts that were better suited for swimming or boating, and that some had extensive docks and other improvements.

17Ms. Corsi said that Sale A was on municipal water and sewer while the subject property was on a well and septic tank. She said her analysis made no adjustment in value for this difference although she conceded that municipal services could increase the value of a property.

18Mr. Radley took Ms. Corsi through the history of creation of the parcel of land that is the subject property. The Board permitted Mr. Radley to state facts about the history of the property in his questions because he undertook to call evidence of the facts as part of his case. He stated that the Appellants had owned a larger parcel approximately twice as large as the subject property that consisted of the subject property and the one to the east. They built a house on the original larger parcel to the east of the location of the house on the subject parcel, which is 4860 Bath Road. They created two parcels by obtaining a consent to severance from the Committee of Adjustment and built a second residence, basically a replica of the first, on what is now the subject property in 2011. The newly created parcel is irregularly shaped and wraps around the parcel with the first house at 4860 Bath Road. It was configured that way so that the new parcel (the subject parcel) would have sufficient area and setbacks to satisfy the requirements of the municipal zoning by-law and setbacks required by the Conservation Authority as the parcel has water frontage and much of it is a wetland. Mr. Radley noted that prior to the severance, MPAC had treated the site as 50% “swamp” and that all of the “swamp” area was now part of the subject property, not part of 4860 Bath Road that has no water frontage. He asked why MPAC had not taken this into account. Ms. Corsi’s answer was that she thought the assessor had assumed that the “swampy” area was part of the 4860 Bath Road, not part of the subject property. Such assumption was not correct.

19Mr. Radley asked Ms. Corsi to confirm that in the sales data that MPAC used to determine a time adjustment factor (“TAF”) in the Valuation Report that there were few sales where the property sold for more than $1 million. Ms. Corsi admitted that in Appendix B to her Valuation Report of the 481 sales used only nine sales were for more than $1 million. He asked Ms. Corsi to identify any sales that were for $1.6 million, the value she had opined was the value of the subject property, and she said she was not aware of any. He asked if she knew that the subject property was the only property in Loyalist Township that had been assessed at $1.9 million to which she answered affirmatively. She then went on to say that MPAC reviewed the matter as part of the RFR process and decided that it had been over-assessing waterfront properties. That was why MPAC recommended changing the assessment of the subject property from $1.9 million to $1.6 million. She said: “we were overvaluing the waterfronts so MPAC scaled back the assessments in the model.” “We knew that there were problems.”

20Ms. Corsi was re-examined by Ms. Poulain who asked her to explain whether or not the sales in the time adjustment analysis of her report were intended to be comparables to the subject property. She explained that they were not intended to be comparables but simply to provide a statistical basis for establishing the TAFs for all residential sales during the time period.

21At the end of her evidence the Board asked Ms. Corsi if she could provide the current values of the six sales used in her market analysis and she did so as summarized in the chart below.

Comparable	Sale price (Appendix A/Valuation Report)	Assessment (January 1, 2012 valuation day)
Sale A, 4458 Bath Road.	$1,012,426	$973,000
Sale B, 4412 Bath Road.	$871,726	$888,000
Sale C, 4700 Bath Road.	$1,090,000	$778,000
Sale D, 4704 Bath Road.	$916,485	$892,000
Sale E, 318 Nicholson Point Road.	$918,000	$881,000
Sale F, 4986 Bath Road.	$1,163,617	$1,391,000

APPELLANTS’ EVIDENCE

Lorraine Vanzuylen

22Mr. Radley called Lorraine Vanzuylen, one of the Appellants. She described the steps she and her husband had followed to obtain a severance of their land that created the parcels that are now 4860 and 4868 Bath Road. She explained that because of soil conditions, differences in elevation, and the swampy portion of the land that it was necessary to create a parcel with an unusual shape so as to be able to satisfy the zoning, Conservation Authority, and other requirements that would be needed to obtain approvals for a well and septic tank and for siting the new building. She explained, using a copy of a survey reference plan 29R-9745 that the ownership of the property included less waterfront than appeared from a viewing of the property. The survey plan also showed the flood line, which was a limitation on the use of the property for structures. She advised that Loyalist Township provided an occupancy permit for the new house at 4868 Bath Road on September 15, 2011.

23Ms. Vanzuylen related her interaction with MPAC concerning the assessment of the subject property between November of 2010 and November of 2013. She also felt that MAPC had failed to implement the Board’s decision of February 2013 with respect to the subject property.

24Ms. Vanzuylen provided documentation to show that the construction cost of the subject property was approximately $900,000 in 2011. While this information had some relevance as context the Board gave more weight to evidence of sales in arriving at its decision.

Cross-Examination of Lorraine Vanzuylen by MPAC

25Ms. Poulain asked Ms. Vanzuylen to confirm that there had been a lot of work to improve the subject property after the severance in 2011, and Ms. Vanzuylen agreed. Asked about the extent to which the waterfront of the property could be used, Ms. Vanzuylen stated that it was very shallow and unsuitable for boat launching, even for a canoe.

Hillary McKenna

26Hillary McKenna is a real estate broker for Hometown Realty Kingston Corp. She sells property in Loyalist Township. She said that she had sold the house to the east of the subject property that was the first residence that the Vanzuylens had built on the original parcel. The sale was after the severance that created the parcel that is now the subject property. It has an identical floor plan to the residence that the Vanzuylens constructed on the subject property but the parcel does not have water frontage. She said it had sold for $655,000.

27Ms. McKenna provided a “letter of opinion” to the Appellants dated February 26, 2014 and filed as Exhibit 14. She said that if she were to list the subject property the asking price should be $1.2 million but that “if you received an offer in the high $900,000 area, I would strongly consider this option.” She doubted that she could get a price of $1.6 million. She considered MPAC’s Sale F as the closest comparable to the subject property, although she was not familiar with its interior.

Hendricus Vanzuylen

28Hendricus Vanzuylen is one of the Appellants. He provided a copy of an insurance certificate for the subject property that showed the insured value of the dwelling on the subject property as $805,200 and a dwelling extension of $80,520. He introduced a series of photographs of the subject property, which he had taken. He used the photographs to relate the views to the survey plan. In response to a question from MPAC he indicated that the insurance values were based on replacement.

Derrick Dupuis

29Derrick Dupuis was called by the Appellants. Mr. Radley asked that Mr. Dupuis be qualified to give opinion evidence on property valuation. He is an Associate Appraiser with S. Rayner & Associates Ltd., has the designation Canadian Residential Appraiser (“CRA”) of the Appraisal Institute of Canada, and has B.A. and a M.Sc. degree from Queen’s University. He is a member of the Appraisal Institute of Canada and has worked in the valuation of real estate from 1993 to the present, as set out in his curriculum vitae filed as Exhibit 17. Mr. Dupuis acknowledged that as an expert witness he had a duty to be impartial in providing his opinion to the Board and that his first duty is to the Board not to a client. Based on his education and experience the Board recognized Mr. Dupuis as qualified to provide opinion evidence on the valuation of real estate.

30Mr. Dupuis said he had visited the subject site and prepared an appraisal report for the Appellants, which was filed as Exhibit 18. Based on his analysis of sales of similar properties it is his opinion that the value of the subject property at January 1, 2012 was $1,100,000.

31Mr. Dupuis relied on six comparable property sales to arrive at his conclusion of value of the subject property. His report provided detailed information on the subject property and each of the comparables he referenced, including photographs of the interior and exterior of each property.

32These are the sales he relied on in his analysis:

Comparables	Address	Sale Price	Date of Sale
Comparable 1	4458 Bath Road	$1,010,000	09/15/2011
Comparable 2	4860 Bath Road	$655,000	04/13/2013
Comparable 3	4986 Bath Road	$1,175,000	07/25/2013
Comparable 4	4704 Bath Road	$930,000	09/04/2012
Comparable 5	4004 Bath Road	$925,000	06/06/2013
Comparable 6	318 Nicholson Point Road	$918,000	07/02/2013

The sales prices were not time-adjusted

33Commenting on the subject property in his report Mr. Dupuis noted that: “A thin section of the site (0.37 acres) is situated behind the adjacent property to the east (4860 Bath Road) and has very limited utility. The shoreline is shallow and rocky improved with a concrete dock. Given the depth and nature of the subject shoreline and bay it is only possible to moor a small boat.”

Michael Cotman

34Michael Cotman was called by the Appellants and Mr. Radley requested that he be qualified to give opinion evidence on the valuation of real estate. His curriculum vitae was filed as Exhibit 19. He is a member of the Appraisal Institute of Canada with the designation AACI (since 2003, and CRA since 1989) and is a graduate of St. Lawrence College and Queen’s University. He is the current Chairman of the Kingston Chapter of the Appraisal Institute of Canada. He has had extensive appraisal experience since 1989 and has provided appraisals for public bodies such as Public Works Canada, Correctional Services Canada, Ontario Hydro, the City of Kingston, and Loyalist Township. As the principal of M.W. Cotman & Associates Inc. he has personally completed appraisals on over 500 properties since 2011, and since commencing appraisal work in 1989 says he has worked on appraisal assignments for approximately 5000 properties. Mr. Cotman acknowledged that in giving expert opinion evidence before the Board his duty was to provide impartial objective evidence and that his duty was first to the Board, not to a client. The Board recognized Mr. Cotman was qualified to provide opinion evidence on the valuation of real estate based on his education and experience.

Mr. Cotman’s Appraisal Report

35Mr. Cotman prepared an Appraisal Report of the subject property, filed as Exhibit 20. Based on his analysis of relevant sales data his conclusion was that as at January 1, 2012 the estimated Market Value of the subject property was $1,180,000.

36Mr. Cotman’s Appraisal Report was 91 pages and included extensive photographs of the interiors and exteriors of the subject property as well as the comparables that he used. His report had an introductory section with an aerial photograph of the subject property. The aerial photograph proved helpful in showing the unusual shape of the subject property and its waterfront.

37Part I of his report included data on the subject property and the assumptions and limiting conditions for his appraisal. He provided a “Regional Analysis” as background to his appraisal of the subject property as well as detailed descriptions of the site of the subject property noting its dimensions and topography, relying on surveys, several sketches, an excerpt from marine navigational charts and photos of the subject property, all of which were attached as Schedule “A” in the Addenda of his report. He noted that the site had irregular topography sloping gently from the road near the water’s edge. Although the total area of the subject site was 4.01 acres he noted that 2.7 acres were in the flood plain and concluded that the effective site area was 1.31 acres. He concluded from the aerial photography and his site visit that the water frontage of the property was “shallow, rocky and as a result has only limited utility to support water related activities, compared to typical neighbourhood waterfront sites.”

38Part I continued with a detailed description of the house on the subject property, which he summarized as “overall the subject house provides good utility and general aesthetic appeal although portions of interior finishes are considered to be of lessor quality than typical newer custom built waterfront homes.”

39Mr. Cotman included excerpts of the Loyalist Township Official Plan which designates the subject property and surrounding shoreline as “Shoreline Residential”, and the related zoning by-law zones the subject property as “SR” (Shoreline Residential). The structures and uses of the subject property conform to the official plan and zoning by-law.

40Part II of the report contained Mr. Cotman’s analysis. He considered the present use of the property to be its highest and best use and outlined different approaches to value the property. He used the direct comparison approach to value for his analysis. He felt that the most appropriate unit of comparison for buildings such as the subject property was the price per square foot of gross building area. Using this approach he referred to sales of six comparable properties and summarized them in charts on page 36 and 38 of his report. In the first chart on Page 36 he examined the data on the six comparables and made adjustments based on location, lot size, house quality, house condition, house size, basement characteristics, and the quality of the waterfront and improvements, and the nature of water/sewer services. The second chart provided the sales price and house size and resulting price per square foot of the comparables was $151 while the other five comparables ranged from $221 to $341. He concluded from his analysis the subject property would sell in the range of $235 to $245 per sq. ft. and utilizing its area of 4,910 sq. ft. that the range in value for the subject property would be between $1,153,850 and $1,202,950. He considered that a value of $1,180,000 near the middle of the range to be an appropriate value.

41Part III of Mr. Cotman’s report included the supporting documentation that Mr. Cotman relied on in his analysis and consisted of the sketches, surveys and photographs, excerpts from the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and comparable market data. It was extensive and detailed. Although sales prices in his report were not time adjusted to a January 1, 2012 valuation day, Mr. Cotman’s opinion of value was a value as of that valuation day.

ANALYSIS

42In this hearing the Board reviewed three written reports by persons qualified to give opinions on the valuation of property. MPAC’s Valuation Report included information about the subject property and the six comparable property sales that it relied upon to support a current value of $1,600,000 for the subject property. The Appellants called two valuators who provided written reports that arrived at a lower value for the subject property based on inspections and their analysis of the sales data and information about the subject property and the comparables. The reports provided by Mr. Dupuis and Mr. Cotman included significantly more detailed information about all of the properties than did the MPAC report and arrived at conclusions that the market value of the subject property was $1,100,000 and $1,180,000 respectively.

43The three valuators who gave evidence in this hearing each selected sales of six comparable properties on which to carry out a direct comparison approach to valuing the subject property. There were three common properties that all the valuators included in their analysis. These were 4458 Bath Road, 4704 Bath Road, and 4986 Bath Road. The Board prefers the evidence given by Mr. Dupuis and Mr. Cotman regarding these comparables.

44Ms. Corsi, for MPAC considered 4458 Bath Road to be an inferior property compared to the subject property. She noted its smaller lot, smaller waterfront, and it being 10 years older than the subject property. But both Mr. Dupuis and Mr. Cotman noted details that were either missing from the subject property or that were superior to elements of the subject property. Mr. Dupuis commented on “its superior basement development, more bathrooms, and superior exterior features including a marine railway, boat lift, steel marine wall and concrete docking”. Mr. Cotman commented that it was a “superior quality house on a smaller lot” with “much superior waterfront improvements, deeper, superior quality waterfront and landscaping” with “the significant benefit of municipal water and sewer services.”

45With respect to 4704 Bath Road Ms. Corsi judged it to be inferior to the subject property because of its smaller lot, less water frontage and smaller building. But Mr. Dupuis found it to be similar with adjustment for its superior basement development, superior water views, and smaller lot size. Mr. Cotman said 4704 Bath Road was a smaller, superior quality house, which although having a smaller lot and water frontage, had superior water frontage and a basement finished to a good degree of quality.

46In Ms. Corsi’s view the third common comparable, 4986 Bath Road, was the most comparable but she considered it inferior to the subject property because of its smaller lot, smaller water frontage, and older structure. Mr. Dupuis and Mr. Cotman agreed that this was the most comparable property to the subject property. Mr. Dupuis felt that although it was smaller than the subject property it was better sited than the subject property because it was well setback from the road and had security gates and fencing, had more high quality finished living area and superior extra finishes. He considered it to be at least equal, if not superior to the subject property. Mr. Cotman considered this property and the subject property to be equivalent. With respect to lot size he considered the subject property and this property to be equivalent when the “effective” lot size of the properties was considered. He concurred in the points made by Mr. Dupuis about the siting and setback of this property.

47The analyses provided by Mr. Dupuis and Mr. Cotman were based on inspections of the interior and exterior of the comparables as well as the subject property. Ms. Corsi had less information about the comparables than did Mr. Dupuis and Cotman. Ms. Corsi indicated that she did not have access to the comparable properties for inspection and that the information she had was from real estate listings. The narrative provided by Mr. Dupuis and Mr. Cotman suggested that these three common comparables were all closer to the value of the subject property whereas Ms. Corsi described them as lesser properties. On this point the Board relies on the evidence of Mr. Dupuis and Mr. Cotman as their analysis was based on more information than was available to Ms. Corsi.

48The Appellants provided detailed evidence through aerial maps and surveys to demonstrate that although the subject lot had a larger area than the comparables that the effective area of the lot was much smaller because of its irregular shape, grade changes, and because much of it was below the flood line. MPAC’s evidence did not address these issues.

49As well as providing a direct sales analysis to arrive at the value of the subject property, Mr. Radley asked Mr. Cotman to find properties in the vicinity of the subject property that sold for $1,600,000, the current value that MPAC had determined for the subject property. The purpose was to show that for that price a property that was superior to the subject property could be purchased. Mr. Cotman had difficulty finding a residential property in Loyalist Township that sold for $1,600,000 but found a property in Stone Mills Township on the Nappanee River that sold for $1,700,000 and another in Kingston on the Rideau River that sold for $1,505,000 on March 5, 2012. Although not in Loyalist Township these properties could be viewed as in the greater vicinity of the subject property. It was apparent from a review of the information about these properties that it was possible to acquire a property with significantly more amenities for $1,600,000 than are provided in the subject property. This supports the position that the current value of the subject property is less than $1,600,000. This analysis is not determinative of the current value of the subject property and the Board does not give it as much weight as the other evidence, but is helpful to illustrate that MPAC’s value must be too high.

50The Board prefers the analysis of the Appellants valuators as they provided a much more detailed analysis. Therefore the Board accepts both their positions in finding that the current value of the subject property suggested by Mr. Cotman, that is $1,180,000 is the most reasonable as it best takes into account the value of the land and structures of the subject property.

EQUITY

51The Board accepts the evidence presented by MPAC in its Property Valuation Report that sales in the vicinity of the subject property had a median assessment to sales ratio of 1.02, and that it was therefore not warranted for the Board to make an adjustment to the current value of the property to achieve equity in assessment as mandated in s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act. The Appellants did not challenge this evidence nor did they advance an equity argument.

CONCLUSION

52The assessment returned on the rolls for the subject property is not correct and should be reduced to $1,180,000 for all taxation years based on the valuation day January 1, 2012. There is no evidence to support a further reduction to achieve equity with the assessment of similar properties in the vicinity.

2016 DEEMED APPEAL

53An appeal for the 2015 taxation year is 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 2015 appeal before March 31, 2016. For that reason, this decision also applies to the 2016 taxation year.

54Section 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.