Alexander v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2016 CanLII 69899

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: October 12, 2016

FILE NO.: WR 142593

Assessed Person(s): Robert Edwin Alexander and Linda Daphne Alexander

Appellant(s): Robert Alexander and Linda Alexander

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC) Region 07

Respondent(s): Township of Selwyn

Property Location(s): 2709 Channel View Lane

Municipality(ies): Township of Selwyn

Roll Number(s): 1516-020-502-33100-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3166055

Taxation Year(s): 2016

Hearing Event No.: 637074

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

Heard: September 12, 2016 in Selwyn, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Representative

Robert Alexander

Self-represented

Linda Alexander

No one appeared

MPAC

B. Nolan

Township of Selwyn

No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY MEMBER S. LIGHT

ISSUE

1The subject property is a seasonal/recreational dwelling located in a small bay of Stoney Lake which is a large lake in the Kawartha’s chain. It is located approximately two kilometers from Highway 28. The cottage on the property was constructed in 2013 and is of modern design and construction and the quality of the construction is rated as 6.5. It has an effective frontage of 104 feet, an effective depth of 205 feet and an effective site area of 27,120 square feet. The building total area is 1,426 square feet.

2MPAC returned the assessment for the 2016 taxation year at $529,000 and after reviewing the sale prices of comparable properties is recommending that the returned value be confirmed.

3The Appellant, Robert Alexander, argued that the assessment as returned is too high. He argues that the comparable sale most relied on by MPAC to support the returned assessment is located too far from the subject property and is in a location that commands greater values. He argues that the subject property should be assessed at $445,000 based on his own sales research.

4The Assessment Review Board (“Board”) must determine whether the 2016 assessments are correct and equitable.

DECISION

5For the reasons stated below and as directed by s. 44.(3)(a) of the Assessment Act (“Act”) the Board finds that the current value of the subject property is $529,000.

6The Board finds that the current value should not be adjusted for equity pursuant to s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act.

7Accordingly, the assessment of the subject property for the 2016 taxation year is confirmed at $529,000.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Legislation

8Section 19.(1) of the Act states:

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

9Section 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.

10Section 19.2(1)2 states:

Valuation days

19.2 (1) 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.

Exception

(5) 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.

11Section 44.(3) 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.

12Section 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.

Current Value Analysis

13Bill Nolan is a Property Valuation Analyst with MPAC. He prepared a valuation report which he submitted as Exhibit 1 at the hearing. Mr. Nolan’s report included as Appendix A: a market analysis of three properties in proximity to the subject property. He considered two of the properties in his report as being inferior to the subject property, primarily due to the building structures on those properties being approximately fifty years older than the building on the subject property and due to the relative inferiority of the construction quality of these buildings. These properties sold for time adjusted sale prices of $399,584 and $463,767.

14Mr. Nolan’s third suggested comparable sale at 1132 Little Duck Pond Road, he considered as being most comparable to the subject property of the suggested comparables in his report. It sold for a time adjusted sale price of $663,543. This property is like the subject property located in a small bay of Stoney Lake but he judged the bay to be shallower and weedier than the bay on which the subject property is located. The structure is of modern construction, built in 2011 (as opposed to 2013 for the subject property) with a quality of construction rated at 7.0 or slightly higher than the 6.5 construction quality of the subject property,. The main difference between this property and the subject property is that the structure on this property is about 650 square feet larger and it contains a garage of 536 square feet. However, the subject property has an additional bunkie cabin of 359 square feet. Mr. Nolan considers this property to be relatively comparable to the subject property, but in his opinion, all things considered, this property would have sold for a little more than the subject property on the valuation date. Therefore, he concludes the assessed value of the subject property at $529,000 is reasonable and correct as it falls within the range of values of the sales he considers inferior and the sale value of the property he considers to be the most comparable in value to the subject property.

15Mr. Alexander testified that the suggested comparable sale of 1132 Little Duck Pond Road is located too far from the subject property in a higher value area than the subject property. However, he did not provide the Board with any data that would support this view. He indicated only that a local real estate agent provided him with this information and the Board considers this alleged out of court statement as unreliable since it could not be subjected to cross-examination by the representative for MPAC.

16Mr. Alexander also presented his own residential appraisal report as Exhibit 2 to the Board. Mr. Alexander however agrees that while he is an accredited appraiser, he does not have local expertise. In his report, he presented six suggested comparable sales and made adjustments to these sale prices to account for the difference in value between a newer and older structure which he acknowledged “is always difficult and is a very subjective call”. His suggested comparable sales all involved inferior structures approximately 45-57 years old as opposed to the approximately three year old structure with a quality of construction rating of 6.5 on the subject property. Mr. Alexander made substantial adjustments to the sale prices but he provided no data to support these adjustments. Therefore the Board is not persuaded that the adjustments he made are either appropriate or accurate. The Board therefore finds that the most reliable and best indicator of the value of the subject property would be Sale A provided by MPAC.

Equity Analysis

17Neither party submitted evidence demonstrating a trend that similar properties in the vicinity are being under assessed.

18Accordingly, the Board finds that the current value should not be adjusted for equity pursuant to s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act.

CONCLUSION

19The assessment of the subject property for the 2016 taxation year is confirmed at $529,000.