Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: July 11, 2017

FILE NO.: WR 147493

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: Lake Nosbonsing Road

Municipality: Municipality of East Ferris

Roll Number: 4834-000-001-53704-0000

Appeal Number: 3183358

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	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 Lake Nosbonsing Road in 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 no road access, is too steep to build upon, and is potentially contaminated.

2The property was assessed at $35,000 for the 2016 taxation year. MPAC defends that assessment. Mr. Millar argues that the assessment should be reduced to $4,000.

DECISION

3For the reasons set out below, I find that the current value of the property for the 2016 taxation years is $35,000. 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 confirm the assessment for the 2016 taxation year at $35,000.

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 unavailable, the sales of similar properties on 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 four sales provided by MPAC. One of those sales is a second sale of the same parcel. Mr. Millar did not present any sales evidence. All of the properties are vacant residential lots, just like Mr. Millar’s property. The three properties presented by MPAC, and their relevant characteristics, are set out in the table below:

	Address	Lot Size (acres)	Sale Date	Sale Price
	Lake Nosbonsing Road	1.97
A	30 Philip Road	1.55	Mar 2013	$35,000
B	30 Philip Road	1.55	Feb 2012	$33,000
C	55 Park Drive	2.28	Dec 2012	$35,000
D	33 Park Drive	2.11	Oct 2012	$35,000

8MPAC argued that all of these sales are relatively comparable to Mr. Millar’s property. I agree that the properties are similar in size and indicate a likely value of $35,000. Mr. Millar argued that his property is not comparable to these properties because he has no road access to his property, it is too steep to build on, and it is likely contaminated.

Road Access

9The road access to the property arose out of Mr. Millar’s attempts to level the site. The property is former rail lands and Canadian National Railway had built a railway trestle on either side of the road from the property. Mr. Millar began removing material from the site in 2011 and continued through 2012 despite complaints from the Municipality. The Municipality eventually brought an application to Superior Court seeking to restrain Mr. Millar from removing fill from the site. In East Ferris (Municipality) v Millar, 2012 ONSC 6586, [2012] O.J. No 5457, Justice Rivard granted a temporary restraining order, but also directed Mr. Millar to apply for an “access permit” from the Municipality. The permit was to be considered in good faith and Justice Rivard stated that “if no access permit is issued to permit [Mr. Millar] to continue with the removal of the material, either party will be at liberty to apply to this Court to have this matter returned before me for further directions.”

10Mr. Millar states that he applied for that access permit and that it was denied by the Municipality on the basis that the road adjacent to his land is not a public road. He did not bring the matter back before Justice Rivard due to concerns about cost. He argued before me that he cannot now access the lot and that the lot is therefore worth less than the comparable lots.

11I do not find that these issues with access are likely to run with the land. It appears that the issues are part of a lengthy dispute between Mr. Millar and the Municipality. I note that Justice Rivard held that the property is “adjacent to Lake Nosbonsing Road, a major roadway in and out of the village of Astorville.” Justice Rivard also noted that the work on the land was conducted from the “existing entrance from the public road to the Millar lands.” There is no indication that the road adjacent to Mr. Millar’s land is anything other than a public roadway. I do not find that Mr. Millar’s dispute with the Municipality would impact the value of this land.

Steep

12Mr. Millar also argued that his lot was not comparable to the other properties because it is too steep to build on. MPAC’s evidence was that part of the lot is steep, but that a large part of the lot is not. Mr. Millar did not dispute that assertion, but focused his arguments on how steep one portion of the land is. MPAC also argued that all of the comparable properties also have a slope. I find that a slope at one end of a two acre lot is not likely to have a significant impact on value.

Environmental Contamination

13Mr. Millar argued that his lot would require phase one and phase two environmental assessments before any residential construction could begin, while the other properties would not. He did not provide any documentary evidence on why those environmental assessments would be required, other than to say that his lot is former rail land. It is certainly possible that former rail land would be contaminated. However, I cannot make an adjustment for contamination without specific evidence of its impact on value. I have no evidence before me on which to adjust the value for contamination.

14I find that Mr. Millar’s property is comparable to the three properties presented by MPAC. I therefore find that the current value of Mr. Millar’s property is $35,000.

Equity

15No 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 two properties, but neither is comparable to his property. Both are much larger, with one being 6.21 acres and the other 64.37 acres. Further, one of the suggested comparable properties has no access, and the other is farmland.

16Even if those properties were similar to Mr. Millar’s lot, 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 is no evidence to indicate that assessing Mr. Millar’s land at its current value is inequitable or unfair.

CONCLUSION

17The current value of the vacant lot on Lake Nosbonsing Road is $35,000 for the 2016 taxation year. The evidence does not show that value to be inequitable with other properties in the vicinity. I therefore confirm the 2016 assessment at $35,000.