Paliotti v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2016 CanLII 69896

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: October 12, 2016

FILE NO.: WR 142692

Assessed Person(s): Rosa Paliotti and Christopher Sandes

Appellant(s): Rosa Paliotti and Christopher Sandes

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 03

Respondent(s): City of Ottawa

Property Location(s): 255 Compton Avenue

Municipality(ies): City of Ottawa

Roll Number(s): 0614-095-002-18800-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3172855

Taxation Year(s): 2016

Hearing Event No.: 636182

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

Heard: September 22, 2016 in Ottawa, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Rosa Paliotti and Christopher Sandes	Rosa Paliotti
MPAC	Liane Arcand
City of Ottawa	No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY SCOTT McANSH

INTRODUCTION

1The property before me is detached house in a mature neighbourood of Ottawa (the “Property”). Rosa Paliotti brings this appeal on the basis that the assessment of the Property is too high. She complains that MPAC has not compared the Property to similar property in the area, and that similar properties in the area have been assessed at a lower level of assessment.

2The Property is a residential lot with 50 feet of frontage and 100 feet of depth. The house on the Property was constructed in 1952 and had an extensive renovation in 2007. It is 1,677 square feet (“sq. ft.”) with a 734 sq. ft. finished basement.

3For the 2016 taxation year the Property was assessed at $468,000 in the residential property class. For the reasons set out below I confirm the assessment for the 2016 taxation year at $468,000.

Legislation

4Section 44.(3)(a) of the Assessment Act RSO 1990, c. A.31 (“Act”), requires that I “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 Property would have sold for in an arm’s length transaction on the relevant valuation day, set pursuant to s. 19.2(1)3 of the Act, as January 1, 2012 for the 2016 taxation year.

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 to make it equitable with that of similar lands in the vicinity” but only if that adjustment would result in a reduction of the assessment.

Current Value

6MPAC argued at the hearing that the assessment should be $490,000, based on a recent inspection of the Property. They supported this determination of the current value with the sales of six comparable properties that sold near the valuation day of January 1, 2012. I have set out the relevant characteristics of those properties in the chart below.

Property	Sale Price	Lot Size (sq. ft.)	House Size (sq. ft.)	Year Built	Renovation (Year)
Subject		5,000	1,677	1952	2007
257 Compton	$510,000	5,000	1,612	1955	2011
227 Harcourt	$355,000	4,500	968	1948	No
214 Harcourt	$399,900	3,793	1,264	1916	2010
462 Wentworth	$423,000	5,000	1,620	1966	No
506 Wentworth	$341,250	5,000	1,520	1912	No
426 Edgeworth	$421,000	5,000	1,792	1917	2010

7MPAC argues that 257 Compton Avenue is the best comparable property, as it is directly adjacent to the Property. They do not rely on it, however, as it sold in August 2014, so is too far removed in time from the valuation day. In the alternative, MPAC relies most heavily on 462 Wentworth Avenue. It is very similar in size to the Property, though it has not been renovated. They suggest that the $423,000 sale price supports their suggested value of $490,000 as the renovations to the Property have a value of at least $67,000.

8Ms. Paliotti did not present any sales evidence. She argues that the most comparable of MPAC’s sales are 462 Wentworth Avenue, 506 Wentworth Avenue, and 426 Edgeworth as they have the same lot size. She argues that these properties do not require adjustments to be comparable and have a median sale value of $421,000 and a mean sale value of $395,000. She says that these sales support a current value of $415,000.

9I agree with Ms. Paliotti that the final three properties in the table are among the most comparable to the Property. The Harcourt Avenue properties are both smaller than the Property and not as useful in determining current value. None of those, however, have had as extensive a renovation as the Property. The median of those sales is $421,000, but it seems clear that the major renovation to the Property in 2007 adds some value.

10The sale of 257 Compton Avenue for $510,000 supports a higher value for the Property than $421,000. That property is nearly identical to the Property, though it is slightly newer and has had a more recent renovation. I agree with MPAC that caution must be applied to that sale, due to the date on which it sold. But I note that it sold less than 20 months from the valuation day, and is by far the most similar property. The sale of 257 Compton Avenue indicates that the Property would have sold for something less than $510,000 on the valuation day.

11The evidence therefore indicates that the Property would have sold for more than $421,000 and less than $510,000 on January 1, 2012. The returned assessment of $468,000 is nearly in the middle of that range. I find, however, that the current value is likely closer to the high end of that range because the only home with extensive renovations is at the high end of the range. I find that the evidence as a whole supports MPAC’s opinion of $490,000.

12I find the current value of the Property to be $490,000.

Equity

13Once I have determined the current value of the land I must determine if that value is equitable with the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity.

14MPAC provided a list of 30 properties in the area and provided the Assessment to Sale Ratios. That is, how the assessment compares to the sale price of each property. The median of those ratios is 1.00, which means that, on average, properties in the area are being assessed at their sale prices.

15Ms. Paliotti provided the assessments of eight properties in the vicinity, most of which had not sold. She argues that the features of those properties are very similar or superior to the Property and that the majority of them have assessments lower than the assessment of the Property. The comparison of assessed values is only compelling evidence of an inequitable assessment if the properties are very similar in all respects. Only then can it be shown that those properties are at a different level of assessment. Ms. Paliotti did not present properties with sufficient similarity to say whether the variation in the assessments is an unfair application of values, or a variation of values in line with the characteristics of those properties. There is insufficient evidence to support a finding of inequity.

16I am not persuaded on the evidence that the current value of $490,000 is inequitable with the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity.

CONCLUSION

17I find that the current value of the Property for the 2016 taxation year is $490,000 and that no adjustment is required to make that value equitable with the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity. However, MPAC did not file a notice seeking a higher assessment, as required by the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. I therefore confirm the assessment of $468,000 for the 2016 taxation year.