Patrick Luc Gadoury v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2017 CanLII 41934

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

June 30, 2017

FILE NO.:

WR 147392

Assessed Person(s):

Patrick Luc Gadoury

Appellant(s):

Patrick Luc Gadoury

Respondent(s):

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”)

Region 28

Respondent(s):

Municipality of West Nipissing

Property Location(s):

1469 Highway 575

Municipality(ies):

Municipality of West Nipissing

Roll Number(s):

4852-140-001-27800-0000

Appeal Number(s):

3216560

Taxation Year(s):

2016

Hearing Event No.:

684671

Legislative Authority:

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

Heard:

June 15, 2017 by telephone conference call

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Representative

Patrick Luc Gadoury

Self-represented

MPAC

Blair Adams

Municipality of West Nipissing

No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY SCOTT McANSH

INTRODUCTION

1This in an appeal of the 2016 assessment of the property located at 1469 Highway 575 in the Municipality of West Nipissing. Patrick Luc Gadoury, the appellant, argued that the assessment is too high. He is concerned with the amount his municipal taxes have increased in the last few years.

2The property was assessed at $250,000 for the 2016 taxation year. Before me Blair Adams, representing MPAC, recommended that the assessment be reduced to $218,000. Mr. Gadoury argued that the assessment should be reduced to $150,000.

DECISION

3For the reasons set out below, I find that the current value of the property for the 2016 taxation year is $170,000. The evidence does not demonstrate that a reduction is required to make the assessment equitable with that of similar properties in the vicinity. I therefore reduce the assessment for the 2016 taxation year from $250,000 to $170,000.

Legislation

4Section 44.(3)(a) of the Assessment Act (“Act”) requires the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) to “determine the current value of the land.” Current value is defined in s. 1 as “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.” That is, I must determine what the subject property would have sold for in an arm’s length transaction on the relevant valuation day, set pursuant to s. 19.3 of the Act, as January 1, 2012 for the 2016 taxation year.

5Once I have determined the current value, s. 44.(3)(b) requires that I “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” but only if that adjustment would result in a reduction of the assessment.

Current Value

6The best evidence of the current value of a residential property is the sale of that property on or near the valuation day. When that evidence is not available, the sales of similar properties on or near the valuation day are the next best evidence. The further removed in time sales are from the valuation day, the less that sale is an indication of what the property would have sold for on the valuation day. Housing markets change over time. As such, the best evidence is sales that took place as close as possible to the January 1, 2012 valuation day.

7The only sales evidence I have before me are four sales provided by MPAC. Mr. Gadoury did not present any sales evidence. The only market evidence provided by Mr. Gadoury was the opinion of his daughter-in-law, a realtor, that the property was likely worth $150,000. That opinion was not provided in writing, and the daughter-in-law was not present at the hearing. I must determine current value on market evidence, and not on the unsubstantiated opinions of people not before me.

8The four properties presented by MPAC, and their relevant characteristics, are set out in the table below:

Address

House Size (sq. ft.)

River Frontage (ft.)

Built

Lot Size (acres)

Sale Date

Sale Price

1469 Highway 575

1,308

492.64

1977

57.61

A

323 Leduc Road

1,101

165

2004

0.56

Oct 2012

$130,000

B

49 Bourbonnais Road

902

2,640

1982

152.5

July 2008

$199,000

C

51 Bourbonnais Road

1,792

400

1992

149.11

July 2010

$305,000

D

193 Roberts Road

1,367

3,700

1963

153.62

Dec 2011

$172,500

9Sale A is constructed in a flood plain, and is on a very small lot, making it inferior to Mr. Gadoury’s property.

10Sale B is far removed from the valuation day, so is not a useful guide to value on that day.

11It is unclear why Sale C sold for so much more than the other properties, but the larger dwelling could partially drive the value of that sale. The larger house, on a larger lot, makes Sale C superior to Mr. Gadoury’s property. These three sales indicate that Mr. Gadoury’s property is worth more than $130,000 and less than $305,000.

12MPAC argued that Sale D is the most similar to Mr. Gadoury’s property. It has a very similarly sized dwelling that is of a similar effective age. However, Sale D has a lot that is nearly three times the size of Mr. Gadoury’s property, with over seven times the frontage along the Sturgeon River. MPAC’s opinion is that Mr. Gadoury’s property is superior due to the number of buildings on Mr. Gadoury’s property. There are six buildings in addition to the dwelling on the property: a Quonset hut, two detached garages, two carports, and a chicken coop. Sale D only has one detached garage.

13The evidence before me is that all of the buildings on Mr. Gadoury’s property are in a rundown condition. It is unlikely that the five additional rundown buildings on the property would command $218,000, which is $45,500 more than Sale D. This is especially so given how much more land Sale D contains. I agree with MPAC that Sale D is the most comparable sale, but find that it is likely that Mr. Gadoury’s property is worth slightly less than the $172,500 that Sale D sold for, due to the inferiority in both lot size and river frontage.

14I therefore find that Sale D is the best guide to value, and indicates that Mr. Gadoury’s property likely would have sold for slightly less than $172,500. The evidence indicates that the most likely sale value of Mr. Gadoury’s property on the valuation day is the rounded value of $170,000.

Equity

15No adjustment to the current value is required to make the assessment equitable with that of similar properties in the vicinity. MPAC provided a report of the assessment to sales ratios of 30 properties in the vicinity of Mr. Gadoury’s property. That document showed that the median assessment in the vicinity is 97% of the sale price. That is, properties in the area are, on average, assessed only 3% below their current value. That is within the margin of error set by the International Association of Assessing Officers and indicates that properties in the area are assessed near their sale prices.

CONCLUSION

16The current value of 1469 Highway 575 is $170,000 for the 2016 taxation year. The evidence does not show that value to be inequitable with other properties in the vicinity. I therefore reduce the 2016 assessment from $250,000 to $170,000.