Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: February 5, 2016
Assessed Person: Rick Pyke
Appellant: Rick Pyke
Respondent: Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”), Region 4
Respondent: Town of Deep River
Property Location: 18 Iberville Street
Municipality: Town of Deep River
Roll Number: 4796-000-045-14500-0000
Appeal Number: 3114627
Taxation Year(s): 2015
Hearing Event No. 607833
Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended
Heard: January 5, 2016 in Pembroke, Ontario
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Representative |
|---|---|
| Rick Pyke | Self-represented |
| MPAC | Jordan Chartrand |
| Town of Deep River | No one appeared |
DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY DONALD WHITEHURST
INTRODUCTION
1The subject property ("SP") is described by MPAC as a 1,300 square foot semi-detached family home built in 1948 and situated on a 0.13 acre lot. The current value assessment ("CVA") was originally returned at $145,000 for the 2013 taxation year based on the January 1, 2012 valuation date. The SP was sold in February 2014 by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation ("CMHC") to the appellant for $82,500. Following an inspection that same year, MPAC increased the SP's CVA to $163,000 for the 2015 taxation year.
2Jordan Chartrand appeared on behalf of MPAC. He stated that the CVA was established using the Direct Comparison Approach to value. Mr. Chartrand also stated that he examined the sale of five properties and concluded that the SP's CVA for the 2015 taxation year was correct and equitable with that of similar lands in the vicinity. He did not consider the 2014 sale of the SP because he believes a mortgage company sale does not accurately reflect current value.
3Rick Pyke, the appellant, appeared on his own behalf. He requested that the CVA be reduced to $120,000 or lower. Mr. Pyke submitted that although he purchased the SP from CMHC, the sale was valid within the definition of the Act because it was an arm's length transaction between a willing buyer and a willing seller. Mr. Pyke also referred to a number of vicinity sales which he stated supported a lower CVA.
ISSUE
4The Assessment Review Board (“Board”) has to determine the SP's current value for the 2015 taxation year and have reference to the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity 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.
DECISION
5The Board finds that the SP's current value is $132,000 and that value is not equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity. Since the Act does not permit an increase in current value to make it equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity, no further adjustments are required. Consequently, the SP's returned assessment is reduced from $163,000 to $132,000 for the 2015 taxation year.
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Legislation
6Section 1 of the Assessment Act (“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.
7Section 19.(1) of the Act states:
19.(1) Assessment based on current value. – The assessment of land shall be based on its current value.
8Section 19.2(1) of the [Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-a31/latest/rso-1990-c-a31.html