Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: July 11, 2017 FILE NO.: WR 147492

Assessed Person: Stewart Millar, Nancy Millar Appellant: Stewart Millar, Nancy Millar Respondent: Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 28 Respondent: Municipality of East Ferris Property Location: Groulx Road Municipality: Municipality of East Ferris Roll Number: 4834-000-001-41007-0000 Appeal Number: 3183357 Taxation Year: 2016 Hearing Event No.: 680988

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

Heard: June 20, 2017 by telephone conference call

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel+/Representative
Stewart Millar	Self-represented
MPAC	Louise St-Jean
Municipality of East Ferris	No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY SCOTT McANSH

1This is an appeal of the 2016 assessment of a vacant residential lot located on Groulx Road in the Municipality of East Ferris. The land is former rail land and was purchased by Stewart Millar, the appellant, from Canadian National Railway. Mr. Millar argued that the assessment is too high. He argued that the land has a road running through it and is not fairly assessed when compared to other lands.

2The property was assessed at $38,500 for the 2016 taxation year. MPAC defends that assessment. Mr. Millar argues that the assessment should be reduced to $22,000.

DECISION

3For the reasons set out below, I find that the current value of the property for the 2016 taxation year is $45,000. The evidence does not demonstrate that a reduction is required to make the assessment equitable with that of similar properties in the vicinity. However, MPAC has not filed a notice seeking a higher assessment. I therefore confirm the assessment for the 2016 taxation year at $38,500.

Legislation

4Section 44.(3)(a) of the Assessment Act (“Act”) requires the Assessment Review 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 the property on or near the valuation day. When that evidence is unviable, the sales of similar properties at or near the valuation day are the 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 five sales provided by MPAC. Mr. Millar did not present any sales evidence. All of the properties are vacant residential lots, just like Mr. Millar’s property. The five properties presented by MPAC, and their relevant characteristics, are set out in the table below:

	Address	Lot Size (acres)	Sale Date	Sale Price
	Groulx Road	14.58
A	729 Groulx Road	3.90	Nov 2012	$45,000
B	601 Groulx Road	6.79	Jan 2012	$45,000
C	Centennial Cres	6.22	Nov 2014	$45,000
D	1305 Centennial Cres	9.89	Oct 2013	$45,000
E	884 Macpherson Drive	4.76	Aug 2014	$45,000

8MPAC argued that all of these sales are inferior to Mr. Millar’s property because they are smaller. The evidence seems to indicate, however, that the price is fixed at $45,000 for vacant lots ranging from 3.90 acres to 9.89 acres. There is no indication that a lot just under five acres larger would not follow that trend. The evidence indicates that Mr. Millar’s property likely would have sold for $45,000 on January 1, 2012.

9Mr. Millar argued that his property is impacted by a road traversing the land, and is therefore diminished in value. I was provided with no evidence of how roads impact value, or if this road has been registered, or how it is used, or any other evidence relating to the road. I do not have any evidence on which to quantify the impact of the road on value. As such, I cannot make an adjustment for the road.

10I find that the current value of Mr. Millar’s property is $45,000.

Equity

11No adjustment to the current value is required to make the assessment equitable with that of similar properties in the vicinity. Mr. Millar provided the assessments of five properties, which are set out in the table below:

	Address	Lot Size (acres)	Assessment
	Groulx Road	14.58
1	CNR Chisholm	218.89	$103,000
2	Boulter PCL 12139	188.92	$54,000
3	Con 5, Pt Lot 27	64.37	$35,500
4	Con 4, Pt Lot 27	84	$28,000
5	349 Edmond House	80.55	$56,000

12Mr. Millar argued that the assessments of these larger lots indicate that his property is assessed too high. MPAC argued that none of these properties are similar. MPAC stated that properties 1 and 2 are assessed as rail land. They also argued that properties 3 and 5 are assessed as farmland. Finally, MPAC noted that property 4 has no access to it, making it significantly different from Mr. Millar’s lot.

13I agree with MPAC that these five properties are not comparable to Mr. Millar’s property. However, even if they were similar, they do not indicate that an equity adjustment is required. Assessments are only inequitable when similar property in the vicinity is assessed significantly below its current value. Only then would it be unfair to assess land at its current value. I have no evidence on what the likely current value is of these properties, so cannot say if they are assessed below their current value. There may be valid reasons why the assessments are different on different parcels of land. That is why the preferred metric for evaluating equity is how assessments compare to the value at which land sold.

14The five properties here do not indicate that assessing Mr. Millar’s land at its current value is inequitable or unfair.

CONCLUSION

15The current value of the vacant lot on Groulx Road is $45,000 for the 2016 taxation year. The evidence does not show that value to be inequitable with other properties in the vicinity. However, MPAC did not file a notice of higher assessment, so I confirm the assessment for the 2016 taxation year at $38,500.