Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: May 25, 2017
Assessed Person(s): Harinder Singh, Urvinder Chawla
Appellant(s): Harinder Singh, Urvinder Chawla
Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 15
Respondent(s): City of Brampton
Property Location(s): 66 McLaughlin Road North
Municipality(ies): City of Brampton
Roll Number(s): 2110-040-034-03000-0000
Appeal Number(s): 3142654
Taxation Year(s): 2016
Hearing Event No.: 645066
Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended
Heard: December 07, 2016 in Brampton, Ontario
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel+/Representative
Harinder Singh Urvinder Chawla
Harinder Singh
MPAC
Faissal Hussain and Filipp Iannone
City of Brampton
Aida Karreman (Observing)
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY TYRONE D. SKANES ON DECEMBER 07, 2016
INTRODUCTION
1The 2016 taxation year appeal before the Assessment Review Board ("Board") is in respect of the assessment of the subject property (“SP”), which is a single story residential home that had the attached garage renovated to accommodate a travel agency business in Brampton.
2Faissal Hussain, representing MPAC, advised that he recently took carriage of this file from a colleague who retired.
3Mr. Hussain said that as the SP had a business component the assessment was apportioned between the residential and commercial tax classes, based on a determination that 240 square feet (“sq. ft.”) was being used for the business. The apportionments were:
Residential (RT) $343,900
Commercial (CT) $45,100
4Mr. Hussain submitted six sales comparables that he said supported the returned assessment and asked the Board to confirm the assessment.
5Harinder Singh, representing the Appellants, said that although there was a business operating out of the home he did not understand why there has to be an apportionment of the assessment. He said he did not have an issue with the amount of the assessment. He did not present any sales comparables but did point out that all of MPAC’s comparable properties were assessed for less than the SP.
ISSUE
6The issue before the Board is to determine the current value of the SP, as apportioned, for the 2016 taxation year and then determine if an assessment at the current value is equitable with the assessment of similar lands in the vicinity.
DECISION
7The Board is required by s. 44.(3)(a) and (b) of the Assessment Act (“Act”) to determine the current value of the land and have reference to the value at which similar lands in the vicinity are assessed and adjust the assessment 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.
8The Board finds that the current value of the SP as of January 1, 2012, is $389,000 and apportioned as follows:
Residential (RT) $343,900
Commercial (CT) $45,100
9The Board finds that this value is equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity and therefore confirms the assessment for the 2016 taxation year.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Relevant Legislation
10Section 19.(1) of the Act states:
19.(1) Assessment based on current value. – The assessment of land shall be based on its current value.
11Section 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