Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: May 5, 2017

FILE NO.: WR 145842A

AMENDED DECISION ISSUED ON: May 15, 2017

Assessed Person(s): Namtip Holdings Inc.

Appellant(s): Namtip Holdings Inc.

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

Respondent(s): City of Toronto

Property Location(s): 21 Meteor Drive

Municipality(ies): City of Toronto

Roll Number(s): 1919-038-280-00810-0000

Appeal Number(s): 2964798, 3016351, 3077126, 3148798

Taxation Year(s): 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016

Hearing Event No.: 666570

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

Heard: March 9, 2017 in Toronto, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Namtip Holdings Inc.	C. Ratnasingham
MPAC	E. Mui
City of Toronto	No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY MEMBER S. LIGHT

ISSUE

1The subject property is located at 21 Meteor Drive in an industrial section of

Amended pursuant to Rule 114 of the Assessment Review Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, effective April 1, 2017

Etobicoke in the City of Toronto north of Highway 401, just east of Highway 427. The lot

size is 0.93 acres and property is improved with a 19,436 square foot building constructed in 1969.

2MPAC returned the assessment for the subject property at $1,738,000 in the industrial tax classification (IT) for the 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 taxation years. The representative for MPAC recommends that this value be confirmed.

3The representative for the Appellant argued that the assessments for the respective taxation years should be reduced to $1,535,000. He does not dispute the industrial classification of the property.

4The Assessment Review Board (“Board”) must determine whether the 2013, 2014, 2015 and 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 $1,535,000.

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

7The assessment of the subject property is reduced accordingly from $1,738,000 to $1,535,000 for the 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

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

Amended pursuant to Rule 114 of the Assessment Review Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, effective April 1, 2017

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

13Edward Mui, a Property Valuation Specialist with MPAC, prepared a valuation report which he submitted to the Board as Exhibit 1. His report contains a sales analysis consisting of five suggested comparable sales. The sales prices ranged from $65.57 per square foot to $123.38 per square foot with a median price per square foot of $100.74.

14Except for the property at 354 Rexdale Boulevard, Mr. Mui’s suggested comparable sales are all located very close to the subject property in the area bounded by Highways 409, 427 and 401 close to Toronto Pearson International Airport. The buildings on his list of suggested comparable sale properties have effective year building dates ranging from 1966-1973. The building sizes range from 15,535 square feet to 18,642 square feet. The lot sizes range from 0.65 to 1.49 acres. In selecting the properties, Mr. Mui indicated that he considered their location very close to the same three highways and the airport to be the key determinants in selecting the comparable sales for his analysis. He did not consider the difference in lot sizes in his sales analysis and made no adjustment to the sale prices of his suggested comparable sales for lot size.

15Although Mr. Mui focused his analysis on the proximity of his suggested comparable sales to the subject property, he presented no empirical evidence to demonstrate that the sale prices per square foot of similar industrial properties would be much different for properties located in another part of Etobicoke further from the subject property within reasonable proximity of the highway system.

16In reviewing the sale prices per square foot of Mr. Mui’s suggested comparable sales, the Board notes that the sales at 163 and 280 Carlingview Drive involve lot sizes about 50 per cent larger than the subject property but with similar sized buildings and vintage as the subject, i.e. around 19,000 square feet. They both sold for substantially more per square foot ($123.38 and $100.74 respectively) than his suggested comparable sale property at 15 Meteor Drive which sold for $65.57 per square foot and has the same smaller lot size of 0.93 acres as the subject property but with a slightly smaller building of 17,462 square feet. Therefore, it would appear that lot size has a significant effect on the sale price of otherwise similar nearby industrial properties. Therefore, the unadjusted sales prices per square foot of properties with larger lot sizes than the subject property would not accurately predict current value of the subject property without adjustment for lot size.

17Chandelle Hamilton is a consultant with Altus with an A.I.M.A. designation. She submitted to the Board, as Exhibit 5, an assessment report and analysis based on three suggested comparable sales. She also included the property at 15 Meteor Drive included in Mr. Mui’s analysis.

18In addition to the sale of 15 Meteor Drive, Ms. Hamilton relied on two additional sales of industrial properties in Etobicoke located further away from the subject property than the ones selected by Mr. Mui. One property at 21 Connell Court is located close to, and is very accessible to, the Queen Elizabeth Way and the other property at 342 Munster Avenue she indicated to be just a short drive to the highway system.

19Not only is the property at 15 Meteor Drive almost identical in lot size to the subject property but it is also closest to the subject property of all of the suggested comparables presented at the hearing. As mentioned, the building situated on this property is about 2,000 square feet smaller than the building on the subject property. However, the property at 21 Connell Court is more similar to the subject property in terms of building size, height and year built but is only slightly larger in lot size at 1 acre as opposed to 0.93 acres for the subject property. The property at 15 Meteor Drive sold for $65.00 per square foot and the property at 21 Connell Court sold for $83.00 per square foot.

20The remaining property discussed by Ms. Hamilton, at 342 Munster Drive, has a lot size of 0.96 acres and a building containing 20,464 square feet constructed in 1966 and sold for $79.00 per square foot. This price of $79.00 would be the median price per square foot of the suggested comparables presented by Ms. Hamilton and is the value she considers the best indicator of current value for the subject property.

21The Board prefers Ms. Hamilton’s valuation analysis because the comparable sales she relied on were most similar to the subject property in terms of lot and building size but were still very accessible to the highway system.

22Based on the aforementioned analysis, the Board finds that the best evidence of current value would be $79.00 per square foot. When applied to the 19,436 square feet of the building at the subject property, the result is a current value for the subject property of $1,535,000.

Equity Analysis

23There was no evidence before the Board that would support a reduction to the assessments based on equity considerations pursuant to s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act.

24Accordingly, the Board finds that the current value should not be adjusted for equity pursuant to s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act.

25Accordingly, the Board reduces the assessment of the subject property from $1,738,000 to $1,535,000.