Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: January 6, 2016

FILE NO.: WR 137036

Assessed Person(s): Katherine Elizabeth Hennessy and Robert Roy Hennessy

Appellant(s): Katherine Elizabeth Hennessy and Robert Roy Hennessy

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 02

Respondent(s): Township of Edwardsburgh Cardinal

Property Location(s): 00411 King’s Highway 2

Municipality(ies): Township of Edwardsburgh Cardinal

Roll Number(s): 0701-702-005-37001-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3132628 and 3132629

Taxation Year(s): 2014 and 2015

Hearing Event No.: 603742

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

Heard: November 23, 2015 in Edwardsburgh Cardinal, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Katherine Elizabeth Hennessy and Robert Roy Hennessy	Katherine Elizabeth Hennessy
MPAC	Chrissie Smith
Township of Edwardsburgh Cardinal	No one appeared

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY SCOTT McANSH ON November 23, 2015

1This is an appeal of a house on the Galop Canal (“the Canal”) with a view of St. Lawrence Seaway. MPAC notes that the property is separated from the Canal by a strip of municipal land, but argues that the lot is effectively a waterfront lot as the owners have unrestricted access to the Canal. Katherine Elizabeth Hennessy argues that the assessment of her property is unfair, pointing to lower assessments of properties nearby. I must determine the appropriate assessment for the property.

2The appeal before me was for the 2012 taxation year, however both MPAC and Ms. Hennessy indicated that was in error and that the taxation year at issue was 2014. I indicated that I would exercise my discretion, pursuant to Rule 3 of the Assessment Review Board’s (“Board’s”) Rules of Practice and Procedure, “to ensure that the real questions in issue are determined in a just manner.” As this hearing took place after March 31, 2015, there is a deemed appeal pursuant to s. 26 of the Assessment Act (“Act”) for the 2015 taxation year.

3MPAC returned an assessed value of $315,000 for the 2014 taxation year and $306,000 for the 2015 taxation year. At the hearing of this appeal, MPAC indicated that after a recent inspection its opinion of current value was slightly higher, but it was defending the appeals as returned. Ms. Hennessy submitted that the assessment should be significantly lower, though she did not give a specific amount.

Legislation

4Section 44.(3)(a) of the Act requires me to “determine the current value of the land.” Current value is defined in s. 1 as “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.” That is, I must determine what the subject property would have sold for in an arm’s-length transaction on the relevant valuation day, set pursuant to s. 19.2 of the Act, as January 1, 2012 for the 2014 and 2015 taxation years.

5Once I have determined the current value, s. 44.(3)(b) requires that I “have reference to the value at which similar lands in the vicinity are assessed and adjust the assessment of the land” if that adjustment would lower the assessment.

Decision

6For the reasons set out below, I find that the current value of the property is $321,000, and that no adjustment is required to make that value equitable with other properties in the vicinity. As such, I confirm the returned assessments of $315,000 for the 2014 taxation year and $306,000 for the 2015 taxation year.

Current Value

7The house was built in 1985 on a 60 foot by 190 foot lot. An addition was added to the house in 1991. It is now a 2,342 square foot one and a half storey house with no basement. There is a dock on the Canal that is shared with a neighbouring parcel. The access to the Canal is steep and the house has a view of the St. Lawrence Seaway beyond the Canal.

8In determining what the house would have sold for on January 1, 2012 the best evidence is a sale of the house on or near that date. When that evidence is unavailable, I will look to the sales of similar properties on or near January 1, 2012.

9MPAC presented five sales of similar properties for comparison. Ms. Hennessy did not present any sales of waterfront property on or near January 1, 2012. Rather, Ms. Hennessy relied on current listings of properties in the area, which I find to be too far removed in time from the valuation day to be of use in determining current value. I therefore only have the sales presented by MPAC in determining current value. I find that those sales amply support MPAC’s opinion of value of $321,000.

10213 County Road 2 sold in December 2010 for $315,000. That house is on a significantly larger lot and has a partially finished basement. It is nearly identical in age and is slightly smaller than the house before me.

11219 County Road 2 sold in December 2011 for $335,000. That house is also on a much larger lot and has an unfinished basement. It is of a similar age and half the size of the house before me.

1214 Flett Street sold in August 2010 for $386,000. That house is on a very similarly sized lot and has an unfinished basement. It is much newer than the house before me and slightly smaller.

13801 County Road 2 sold in July 2011 for $315,000. That house is on a slightly larger lot and has a partially finished basement. It is of a similar age to the house before me and is significantly smaller.

14Finally, 103 Moore Road sold in December 2011 for $380,000. That house is on a slightly larger lot and has a finished basement. It is slightly newer than the house before me and is less than half the size.

15These sales demonstrated that similar effective waterfront properties in the area were selling for at least $315,000 and as much as $380,000. That evidence amply supports MPAC’s opinion that the current value of the property before me is $321,000 and I accept that as the current value of the property.

Equity

16Ms. Hennessy argued that the assessment was inequitable and provided four properties nearby to show that her assessment is higher than others. 409 County Road 2, her direct neighbour, has a similar property and an assessment of $256,000. 413 County Road 2, her other direct neighbour, is on a larger lot and has been renovated and is assessed at $263,000. 2261 Dundas Street, a property across the Canal, is assessed at $103,000. Finally, 305 Waller Street, also across the Canal, is assessed at $166,000.

17I accept that those are similar properties in the vicinity, but without sales or detailed comparisons between the properties it is impossible to say if those assessments are accurate. It may be that those properties are inferior in some way. I do not feel that I can draw any meaningful conclusions from the assessments of those four properties.

18MPAC provided an equity analysis showing an assessment to sales ratio for 30 properties along the St. Lawrence Seaway. That analysis shows a range of ratios from 0.86 to 1.34, with a median of 1.00. This indicates that assessments of waterfront property in the vicinity correspond well to the market value of those properties. While it shows some properties that are under assessed, it shows an equal number that are over assessed.

19The lager data set in the MPAC equity report show the importance of a robust sample size in determining equity. In requiring this Board to reduce assessments to make them equitable with similar properties in the vicinity, the legislature did not intend that all assessments be lowered to match those at the low end of MPAC’s imperfect system. Rather, the intention was to promote fairness by lowering assessments when it is clear that MPAC is consistently under assessing similar land. The evidence before me is that there is no consistent under assessment of similar property in the vicinity. As such, I do not find that any adjustment is necessary to make the assessment here equitable with that of similar properties in the vicinity.

CONCLUSION

20I convert this appeal from a 2012 taxation year appeal to a 2014 taxation year appeal and a 2015 taxation year deemed appeal. I find that the current value of the property is $321,000 for each taxation year and that no adjustment is necessary to make that value equitable with similar properties in the vicinity. As MPAC did not seek an increase, I confirm the returned assessment of $315,000 for the 2014 taxation year and $306,000 for the 2015 taxation year.