Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: June 2, 2017

FILE NO.: WR 146442

Assessed Person(s): Claudio Sanniti

Appellant(s): Claudio Sanniti

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 9

Respondent(s): City of Toronto

Property Location(s): 25 Earlington Avenue, Unit 203

Municipality(ies): City of Toronto

Roll Number(s): 1919-011-150-02122-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3171513

Taxation Year(s): 2016

Hearing Event No. 668768

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

Heard: April 4, 2017 in Toronto, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Representative

Claudio Sanniti

Self-represented

MPAC

H. Blackburn

City of Toronto

No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY S. Light

ISSUE

1The subject property, 25 Earlington Avenue, Unit 203, is a residential condominium unit located just south of Dundas Street West and east of Kingsway Crescent in a neighbourhood known as Kingsway South. The unit contains two bedrooms and two full baths, 940 square feet and includes two parking spaces and one locker.

2The assessment for the subject property was returned at $324,000 for the 2016 taxation year. It had been reduced to that amount by a previous Board decision on August 5, 2014 from a returned assessment of $383,000. MPAC argues based on its market study that the current value of the subject property is estimated to be $353,000 and that its study therefore supports the returned value at $324,000 as being correct.

3The Appellant argues that his property is incorrectly assessed based on the sale price of the subject property and the additional suggested comparable sales he obtained for this hearing. He did not have those comparable sales available at the previous Board hearing in 2014. He argues that the assessment of his property should be reduced from $324,000 to between $300,000 and $305,000.

4The Assessment Review Board (“Board”) must determine whether the returned assessment for the 2016 taxation year in the amount of $324,000 is 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 $324,000.

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

7Accordingly, the returned assessment for the 2016 taxation year should be confirmed at $324,000.

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) 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.

11Section 44.(3) of the Act 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

12Helene Blackburn is a Property Valuation Analyst with 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. Blackburn considered the sale of Unit 513 at the same address to be most comparable to the subject property. Like the subject property, it contains two bedrooms, two bathrooms, two parking spaces and one locker. It is just 40 square feet larger than the subject property. It sold for a time adjusted sale price of $365,124 in August of 2012. The property she considered to be the next most comparable to the subject property, being Unit 511, has the same characteristics specified for Unit 513,except it has only one parking space. It sold for a time adjusted sale price of $358,024 in September 2012.

13The Appellant brought with him to the hearing five additional suggested comparable sales that he indicated he did not have with him at the Board hearing in 2014. The Board has reviewed the property details of the additional suggested comparables that he submitted to the Board as Exhibit 3. Although three of these sales, being Units 102, 205 and 308, transacted in 2012 within 10 months of the valuation day, the sales involved units that were between 500-699 square feet with only one bedroom or a bedroom and a den and one bathroom. The Board finds that these sales are not comparable to the subject unit.

14The Appellant also presented another two suggested comparable sales, Units 109 and 323, both of which are smaller than the subject property with only one bathroom that sold in 2016. The Board finds that these sales are unsuitable comparable sales for determining current value as they are not only smaller than the subject property but the sales occurred significantly later in time than the valuation date of January 1, 2012.

15The subject property was purchased in March, 2013 at a sale price of just $300,000, as recorded in the Multiple Listing Service. The Board considered this sale in its analysis of the correct current value of the subject property. The Board finds that the returned value of $324,000 falls within the range between the sale price of the subject property and the suggested comparable sales presented by MPAC as being relatively comparable to the subject property.

16The Board has also considered the Multiple Listing Service information provided by the Appellant indicating that the units that sold in 2012 for close to $300,000 were all significantly smaller than the subject property. This information suggests that the sale price of the subject property at $300,000 may be an anomaly and perhaps not a reliable indicator of the correct current value of the subject property.

17Based on the foregoing information and analysis, the Board concludes that the returned assessment at $324,000 is correct.

Equity Analysis

18There was no evidence before the Board that would justify a reduction to the assessments based on equity considerations pursuant to s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act.

19Accordingly, the Board finds that the current value should not be adjusted for equity pursuant to s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act.

Conclusion

20Accordingly, the returned assessment for the 2016 taxation year should be confirmed at $324,000.