Pang v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2017 CanLII 2292

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: January 20, 2017

FILE NO.: WR 144094

Assessed Person(s): Hellen Pang

Appellant(s): Hellen Pang

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 09

Respondent(s): City of Toronto

Property Location(s): 95 Grantbrook Street

Municipality(ies): City of Toronto

Roll Number(s): 1908-073-260-00100-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3107251 and 3148710

Taxation Year(s): 2015 and 2016

Hearing Event No.: 643965

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

Heard: November 17, 2016 in Toronto, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel+/Representative

Hellen Pang

Alan Pang

MPAC

Steven Goldglas

City of Toronto

No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY MARGARITA OKHOVATI

INTRODUCTION

1The appeals before the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) are filed by the Assessed Person in respect of the returned assessment of $681,000 for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years for the subject property at 95 Grantbrook Street, in the City of Toronto.

ISSUES

2Steven Goldglas, representative for MPAC, is of the view that a fair and equitable assessed value for the subject property is $681,000 for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years. He testified that the current value assessment (“CVA”) of the subject property is based on the direct sales comparison approach to value supported by the time adjusted sale of six comparable properties presented by MPAC.

3Alan Pang, the Assessed Person/Appellant, contests that the current value of the subject property is too high. He requests that the Board reduce the value of his property to $542,000 for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

4The City of Toronto was not in attendance in the hearing.

5The Board has to decide:

• Whether the returned assessment of $681,000 for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years for the subject property is at current value as of the January 1, 2012 valuation day; and

• Whether the value is equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity.

DECISION

6The Board determined that the current value of the subject property is $646,950 and that no further adjustment is required to make this value equitable with that of similar lands in the vicinity.

7Therefore, the Board reduces the assessment of the subject property for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years from $681,000 to $646,950.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Property Description

8The subject property is a single family detached two storey residential building which was built in 1960 and renovated in 1990. It is located at 95 Grantbrook Street in the City of Toronto. The subject property is described as having a total building area of 1,630 square feet (“sq. ft.”), a frontage of 74 feet (“ft.”) and a depth of 99 ft. for a total site area of 7,326 sq. ft. and a quality 6 rating, (Exhibit 1). The description of the subject property was agreed to by Mr. Pang.

Current Value

MPAC’s Evidence

9Mr. Goldglas testified that he requested to inspect the subject property but received no response from the Appellant.

10In support of his argument, Mr. Goldglas presented Exhibit 1, which contains the Property Profile of the subject property, Market Analysis for Comparable Sales, Time Adjustment Factors, Price Change over Time Analysis and Maps.

11In support of current value, Mr. Goldglas presented a market analysis of six comparable property sales identified as Sales A, B, C, D, E and F, all of which are situated in B49 homogenous neighbourhood except Sale A, which is situated in B50 homogenous neighbourhood. The analysis also contained both actual and time adjusted sales information.

12Mr. Goldglas testified that he has examined the sales of the six properties in the proximity of the subject property and finds that Sales C, D and E are inferior to the subject property and Sales A, B and F are relatively comparable to the subject property. He submitted further that he has reviewed the sale to assessment study based on 240 sales in the subject property’s neighbourhood and adjacent neighbourhoods from January 2011 to December 2012 and notes that the house prices increased approximately 23.08% over this timeframe.

13Mr. Goldglas stated that he has adjusted the value of the subject property by granting a 1% negative adjustment for light traffic and a 2% negative adjustment for being a corner lot.

14Mr. Goldglas testified that he has established the CVA of the subject property by using the following different approaches to value:

1. The time adjusted sale “TAS” of Sales A and B comparables. He notes Sale A to be identical to the subject property and Sale B, relatively comparable. The range of these comparables is from $723,413 to $625,879. He submits that the value of the subject property of $681,000 falls in between this range.

2. The average of the TAS of Sales A and B per sq. ft. (The TAS of Sale A is $723,413 divided by 1,649 sq. ft. of total building area equaling $438.69 per sq. ft. and Sale B is $625,879 divided by 1,592 sq. ft. of total building area equaling $393.14. ($438.69 + $393.14 = $831.83, divided by 2 equals $415.90 per sq. ft. or $416 (rounded). Applying this average to the subject property’s total building area of 1,630 sq. ft., results in $678,000 (rounded).

3. The sale of the subject property in September 2014 for $715,000. As stated above, according to MPAC’s evidence, the market indicates that between January 2011 and December 2012 there is a value increase of 23.08% in the neighbourhood of the subject property.

4. The sale dates of all the suggested comparables, which occurred between 2011 and 2012.

5. Based on the equity analysis showing a 1.03 median assessment to sales ratio (“ASR”).

15Mr. Goldglas submitted further that he has made negative adjustments to all his suggested comparable properties for abutting an educational institute or a place of worship, having light traffic, being a corner lot and not having a side walk on the street.

16Mr. Goldglas concluded his evidence by stating that his analysis shows that the CVA of the subject property at $681,000 is the correct current value and requests that the Board confirm the assessment of the subject property at $681,000 for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

Appellant’s Evidence

17In presenting his case, Mr. Pang submitted a list of six comparables sold in the vicinity of the subject property, showing property sizes, lot sizes, selling prices, dates and maps (Exhibit 3).

18Mr. Pang testified that he does not accept MPAC’s suggested comparables because they are not situated close enough to the subject property whereas his own suggested comparable properties are close to the subject property. He stated further that MPAC did not make adjustments for Sales B and F which have double garages and did not consider Sales D and E to be comparables as they are renovated and are flipped over sales within a short time.

19Mr. Pang stated that MPAC’s comparable properties in Tefley Road should be disregarded because all the properties in that street are in progression.

20Mr. Pang stated further that bus route #98 is on Grantbrook Street and hydro towers are located within 70 meters of the subject property. He requests the Board to make negative adjustments of 1% for light traffic and 14% for the subject property being close to a hydro corridor.

The Legislation

21In determining the value at which land shall be assessed, the Board must have regard to the following provisions of the Assessment Act (“Act”):

22Section 1 of the Act states:

“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.

23Section 19.(1) of the Act states:

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

24Section 19.2(1)3 of the Act states:

19.2 (1) Valuation days. – 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.

(5) Exception. – 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.

25Section 40.(17) of the Act states:

40.(17) Burden of proof. – For 2009 and subsequent taxation years, where value is a ground of appeal, the burden of proof as to the correctness of the current value of the land rests with the assessment corporation.

26Section 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.

27In determining the value at which any land shall be assessed, s. 44.(3)(a) and (b) of the Act requires the Board to do two things:

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.

Board’s Analysis and Conclusion

28The thrust of the Act is to rely on current value as the basis for assessed value. 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.”

29The best evidence of current value is the sale of the subject property on or close to the valuation day of January 1, 2012. If, no such sale occurred, the sales of similar properties in the vicinity will be considered to establish current value of the subject property.

30In reviewing Mr. Goldglas’s five different approaches to establish the current value of the subject property, the Board agrees with his analysis. While the Board notes that MPAC’s sales are not identical to the subject property they are similar in nature and in close proximity to the subject property.

31With respect to the Mr. Pang’s submitted list of comparable properties, the Board does not accept these comparable properties for the following reasons:

a) All the suggested comparable properties are one and a half storey bungalows versus the subject property which is a two-storey building. Mr. Pang submitted that there was no difference between the value of a bungalow and a two-storey house however, MPAC did not agree with the Appellant’s evidence and stated that a bungalow and a two-storey house is valued differently.

b) All the suggested comparable properties were built between 1950 and 1954 whereas the subject property was built in 1960.

c) The total building area of all the comparable properties is between 890 and 1,094 sq. ft. and the subject property is 1,630 sq. ft.

32Furthermore, Mr. Pang did not offer any evidence with respect to MPAC’s Sales D and E when he suggested that they should be disregarded for they were renovated and sold again. The Board agrees with Mr. Goldglas when he stated that this information would have been easy for Mr. Pang to obtain since he is a realtor. Mr. Goldglas stated further that most of Mr. Pang’s evidence is his own opinion and as a realtor he has also made miscalculations in his suggested comparable properties.

33Moreover, Mr. Pang submitted that MPAC’s suggested comparable properties which are located on Tefley Street must be disregarded for all the properties in that street are in progression. MPAC brought to the Board’s attention that the same impact would apply to the subject property because it is situated at the corner of Tefley and Grantbrook Streets.

34Therefore, the Board cannot make use of these suggested comparables by Mr. Pang and assigns no weight to the aforementioned document.

35With respect to Mr. Pang’s request for negative adjustments of 1% for light traffic and 14% for the subject property being close to a hydro corridor, MPAC granted a 1% negative adjustment for light traffic but does not grant a negative adjustment for the subject property being close to a hydro corridor. However, the Board has considered Mr. Pang’s evidence with respect to the subject property’s proximity to hydro towers and grants a 5% negative adjustment to the CVA of the subject property.

36Therefore, after reviewing both MPAC’s and the Appellant’s evidence, the Board determines that the subject property requires a 5% negative adjustment and sets the current value of the subject property at $646,950, which is fair and reasonable.

Equity Analysis

37The Board is required under s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act to 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.

38The Board finds that no equity adjustment is required.

CONCLUSION

39The Board reduces the assessment of the subject property for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years from $681,000 to $646,950.