Ivan Kraljevic v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 09, 2017 CanLII 34411

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: June 2, 2017

FILE NO.: WR 146242

Assessed Person(s): Ivan Kraljevic

Appellant(s): Ivan Kraljevic

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

Respondent(s): City of Toronto

Property Location(s): 34 Clissold Road

Municipality(ies): City of Toronto

Roll Number(s): 1919-016-720-02300-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3186762

Taxation Year(s): 2016

Hearing Event No. 670276

Legislative Authority: Section 34 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended

Heard: March 31, 2017 in Toronto, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Representative

Ivan Kraljevic

Self-represented

MPAC

M. Cheung

City of Toronto

No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY S. LIGHT

ISSUE

1The subject property is a two storey single family detached house on a lot containing an effective frontage of 33.3 feet and an effective depth of 120 feet. The effective site area is about 4000 square feet. The house was originally a bungalow constructed in 1950 with 842 square feet containing two bedrooms and two full bathrooms, a finished basement and a detached garage. It was renovated in 2015 and the renovations included a second floor addition, replacement of the front porch and rear deck and interior alterations to the basement and ground floor.

2The assessment for the subject property was returned at $578,000 for the 2016 taxation year and a property assessment change notice in the amount of $273,000 under s. 34 of the Assessment Act (“Act”) was also issued on January 1, 2016 for the subject property resulting in a total valuation of $851,000. MPAC recommended at the request for reconsideration stage and at this hearing a reduction of $20,000 in the supplementary assessment to $253,000 and a total assessed value of $831,000.

3Ivan Kraljevic (“Appellant”) argues that his property is incorrectly assessed because MPAC has classified it as Quality Class 7 and relies on a suggested comparable property classified as Quality 7 in its valuation analysis. He argues that his property should be classified as Quality Class 6 and that his assessment should be reduced accordingly. He is also asking the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) to direct MPAC to change the property data in its mass appraisal data base respecting the subject property to reflect a 6.0 quality of construction rather than a 7.0. The Appellant did not suggest a specific value for the corresponding reduction to his assessment.

4The Board must determine whether the 2016 supplementary assessment resulting in a total value assessment of $851,000 is correct and equitable.

DECISION

5For the reasons stated below, and as directed by s. 44.(3)(a) of the Act, the Board finds that the current value of the subject property is $831,000.

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

7Accordingly, the supplementary assessment of the subject property in the 2016 taxation year should be reduced from $273,000 to $253,000 and the returned assessment of $578,000 should be confirmed thereby reducing the total assessment for the property to $831,000 as recommended by MPAC .

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) 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.

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.

Current Value Analysis

12Maria Cheung is a Property Valuation Specialist with MPAC. She has 18 years experience in the field of property assessment at MPAC. She prepared a valuation report which she submitted to the Board as Exhibit 1. Of the three suggested comparable sales in her valuation report, Ms. Cheung considered the sale at 73 Clissold Road to be the most comparable to the subject property. That property sold at a time adjusted sale price of $904,112. The Board has reviewed the property data of that sale and finds that it is very close to the data of the subject property.

13The Appellant argues that the subject property is misclassified as quality 7.0 rather than 6.0 as he believes it should be classified. He therefore argues that his assessment should be reduced based on it being a 6.0 quality of construction. He argues that MPAC’s classification of the property as a quality 7.0 cannot be supported.

14The Board prefers the opinion of Ms. Cheung on this issue based on her extensive experience reviewing property data and inspecting properties. The detailed description she presented respecting the interior of the subject property as including four inch baseboards, hardwood or engineered hardwood flooring, customized kitchen, granite countertops with backsplash, pot lights and built in appliances clearly indicate features of a generally higher quality than the “standard grade” distinguishing it from construction quality 6.0 .

15The Appellant also did not provide to the Board any comparable sales of his own classified as a quality of construction 6.0 that would support his argument that the quality of construction code attributed to the subject property was inappropriate. It seems evident that the original bungalow on the property constructed in 1950 and classified as a construction quality 6.0 has been substantially upgraded by the 2015 interior renovation from a quality code 6.0 to 7.0.

16In any case the Board does not have the jurisdiction to order MPAC to revise the data in its system respecting the subject property from a construction quality code 6.0 to a 7.0. The Board’s jurisdiction is simply to determine the current value of the property based on the evidence provided at the hearing.

17In this case the best evidence of current value presented to the Board at the hearing was the relatively comparable sale of 73 Clissold Road at the time adjusted dale price of $904,112 and the detailed information provided by Ms. Cheung respecting the internal renovations to the subject property. This time adjusted sale at 73 Clissold Road supports the recommended current value of $831,000 after the sale price was further adjusted by MPAC for the lack of a detached garage at the subject property and there being less interior square footage at the subject property.

18Accordingly, the supplementary assessment of the subject property in the 2016 taxation year should be reduced from $273,000 to $253,000 and the returned assessment of $578,000 should be confirmed thereby reducing the total assessment for the property to $831,000 as recommended by MPAC.

Equity Analysis

19There 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.

20Accordingly, the Board finds that the current value should not be adjusted for equity pursuant to s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act.