Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: July 12, 2017

FILE NO.: WR 147592

Assessed Person(s): Katherine Shelagh Finn

Appellant(s): Katherine Shelagh Finn

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation ("MPAC") Region 16

Respondent(s): Township of Adjala-Tosorontio

Property Location(s): 9090 5th Sideroad ADJ Con 1 E Pt Lot 6 RP

Municipality(ies): Township of Adjala-Tosorontio

Roll Number(s): 430-010-004-01203-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3186961

Taxation Year(s): 2016

Hearing Event No.: 681699

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

Heard: June 15, 2017 in Alliston, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Katherine Shelagh Finn	Self-represented
MPAC	Elizabeth Walker
Township of Adjala-Tosorontio	No one appeared

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY VINCENT STABILE ON JUNE 15, 2017

INTRODUCTION

1The subject property comprises 6.69 acres. One (1) acre is classified residential and 5.59 acres are in the farm class with a single family detached home with a building area of 1,527 square feet ("sq. ft"), and a finished basement of 1,297 sq. ft. It has an attached garage of 408 sq. ft. and the house and garage were built in 2001. It also has a coverall structure of 1,624 sq. ft. built in 2010.

2MPAC has designated three soil classes as follows:

• Class 2 – 1.0 acre residential
• Class 3 – 4.69 acre farmland
• Class 4 – 1.0 acre farmland

3The property has been assessed at $237,000 broken down as follows:

• Residential - $190,600
• Farm- $46,400

4The owner, Katherine Finn operates a sheep farm and has received designation as a farmer from the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs.

5She has had ongoing arguments with MPAC for a number of years. The property was subject of a prior appeal heard by me in November, 2013, for the 2008 – 2012 assessment cycle.

6Ms. Finn submitted that the decision in this appeal should apply retrospectively to the taxation years 2013, 2014 and 2015.

7Elizabeth Walker, for MPAC, stated that no Request for Review had been filed by Ms. Finn for the 2013, 2014 or 2015 taxation years.

8Ms. Finn argued that MPAC has had notice of her intent to appeal. Further, she stated that she was led by MPAC to believe that she could challenge the assessments for the 2013, 2014 and 2015 taxation years. Ms. Finn acknowledged however that she had not complied with the provisions of the Assessment Act ("Act").

9Further, it was clear that no documents had been served by Ms. Finn, upon which she intended to rely in support of her appeal. She intended to rely on documents, including a report by a soil expert, which had evidently been produced to MPAC in October/November 2013 but had not given any formal notice to MPAC. Thus, Ms. Walker objected to the filing of any documents at the hearing.

10I accepted the submission from Ms. Walker that permitting the filing of such documents at this late date would be very prejudicial to her as she would not be prepared to respond reasonably. I therefore advised the parties that I would not receive into evidence any document which had not been served according to the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.

11Neither party requested an adjournment, accordingly the hearing proceeded in respect to the 2016 taxation year.

ISSUES

12The issues to be determined are:

(i) The current value of the subject property as of January 1, 2012, being the "valuation day", for 2016 taxation year.

(ii) Whether an assessment at current value is equitable with that of similar lands in the vicinity.

DECISION

13The assessment of the subject property for the 2016 taxation is confirmed at $237,000 apportioned at $190,600 for the residential buildings and $46,400 for the land.

14No adjustments are warranted on account of equity.

EVIDENCE

MPAC’s Position

15Ms. Walker filed a brief of documents, marked Exhibit #1, to support her assessment of $237,000.

16She stated that since the subject property is farmland with a residence and additional structures the approach to value used by MPAC is as follows:

• Building - cost approach less depreciation
• Land - MPAC values the land based on tables corresponding with the class of soil, of which there are six (6). That value is added to the building value. The classes range from 1 – 6, 1 being the highest and 6 the lowest. The values range from $10,100 per acre down to $2,475 per acre.

17The methodology is tested by applying the direct sales comparison approach to value.

18Ms. Walker presented and relied upon six (6) comparable sales of properties in the vicinity. The comparable sales were all farmer to farmer sales and all within the shoulder year of the valuation date, being January 1, 2012.

19The range of sales supported her assessment in respect to the subject property. Further, the assessments of the comparable properties were all lower than their respective sale prices, especially the smaller parcels. It is reasonable to infer, therefore, that the subject property is also under assessed.

20In the circumstances, Ms. Walker requested that the assessment be confirmed.

21Although no supporting documents were filed, Ms. Walker stated that she had prepared an Equity Study from which she determined that no adjustment was required to the assessed value.

Appellant’s Position

22As already noted, Ms. Finn had no documents to rely upon. She agreed with the valuation methodology used by MPAC but argued that the residence and coverall had been overvalued. She also argued that the land had been overvalued and submitted that her land should all be valued as class 6, the lowest of all classes.

23By way of cross-examination, Ms. Finn challenged Mr. Walker’s documentary evidence as well as her oral testimony. She was given wide latitude. Her presentation, including cross-examination, lasted more than 2.5 hours, however the evidence presented by Ms. Walker was not displaced.

LEGISLATION

24The Board’s jurisdiction to make corrections to an assessment is found in the Act. Section 19.(1) of the Act provides that the assessment of a property must be based upon its current value:

19.(1) Assessment based on current value. – The assessment of land shall be based on its current value.

25Section 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 a willing buyer.

26Section 19.2(1) of the Act provides:

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.

Exception

(5) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of the valuation of land for a taxation year after 2004 if the Minister prescribes a different day as of which land is valued for that year.

27Section 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.

28Section 45 of the Act states:

45. Powers and functions of the Assessment Review Board. – Upon an appeal with respect to an assessment, the Assessment Review Board may review the assessment and, for the purposes of the review, has all the powers and functions of the assessment corporation in making an assessment, determination or decision under this Act, and any assessment, determination or decision made on review by the Assessment Review Board shall be deemed to be an assessment, determination or decision of the assessment corporation and has the same force and effect.

ANALYSIS

29The best evidence of value is the sale of the subject property. There is no recent sale of the subject property to inform the Board. Thus, the Board looks to the sales of similar properties in the vicinity to determine current value.

30The Board accepts the Direct Comparison Approach to value as a valid approach. The Board also accepts a determination of current value based upon the valuation methodology applied by MPAC when valuating farmland with buildings on the land. The subject property is one of those properties.

31Decisions of the Board are based on the best evidence presented at the hearing.

32Applying the best evidence rule, I accept the evidence of Ms. Walker, both documentary and her oral testimony.

CORRECT CURRENT VALUE

33The assessment for the 2016 taxation year is confirmed at $237,000, apportioned at $190,600 for the building(s) and $46,400 for the land.

EQUITY

34Having established the current value of the subject property, the final issue for the Board to determine is whether an adjustment should be made to the assessment of the subject property in order to make it equitable with the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity.

35The Act requires the Board to lower an assessment below current value if required to make the assessment equitable with the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity.

36The only evidence received in respect to equity was the oral testimony of Ms. Walker.

37I am satisfied that no adjustment is warranted to achieve equity.

CONCLUSION

38The assessment of the subject property for the 2016 taxation year is confirmed at $237,000 apportioned at $190,600 for the residential buildings and $46,400 for the land.

Vincent Stabile