Danny Tamtakiridis and Georgina Tamtakiridis v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2017 CanLII 51184

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

August 02, 2017

FILE NO.:

WR 147943

Assessed Person:

Danny Tamtakiridis and Georgina Tamtakiridis

Appellants:

Danny Tamtakiridis and Georgina Tamtakiridis

Respondent:

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”), Region 09

Respondent:

City of Toronto

Property Location:

10 Barbara Crescent

Municipality:

City of Toronto

Roll Number:

1906-024-460-07300-0000

Appeal Numbers:

3244070, 3244071, 3244073, and 3244089

Taxation Years:

2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016

Hearing Event No.:

678477

Legislative Authority:

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

Heard:

July 26, 2017 in Toronto, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Representative

Danny Tamtakiridis and Georgina Tamtakiridis

Georgina Tamtakiridis

MPAC

Greg Tom

City of Toronto

No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY SCOTT McANSH

1This is an appeal of the 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 assessments of the property located at 10 Barbara Crescent in the City of Toronto. Georgina Tamtakiridis argued that the assessment is too high because the property has been negatively impacted by a nearby sewer construction project.

2The property was assessed at $1,504,000 for the 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 taxation years. MPAC defended that assessed value at the hearing before me. Ms. Tamtakiridis argued that the assessment should be reduced to $1,250,000.

3For the reasons set out below, I find that the current value of the property for the 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 taxation years is $1,504,000. There is no evidence that an adjustment is required to make the assessment equitable with that of similar properties in the vicinity. I therefore confirm the assessment for the 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 taxation years at $1,504,000.

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 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 taxation years.

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 date. Where that evidence is unavailable, the sales of similar properties on or near the valuation date are the next best evidence of value. MPAC presented six properties that had sold within eight months of the valuation day of January 1, 2012. Ms. Tamtakiridis did not provide any sales evidence. The relevant characteristics of the sales provided by MPAC are set out in the table below:

Address

House Size (sq. ft.)

Lot Size (sq. ft.)

Effective Year Built

Abuts Ravine

Sale Price

10 Barbara Crescent

4,187

7,515

2003

Yes

A

194 Parkview Hill Crescent

3,337

9,682

2011

Yes

$1,450,000

B

118 Parkview Hill Crescent

2,943

8,000

2010

Yes

$1,350,000

C

1 Fairchild Circle

3,094

9,360

2011

No

$1,352,679

D

5 Fairchild Circle

3,365

7,380

1999

Yes

$1,300,000

E

67 Parkview Crescent

4,196

7,280

1999

No

$1,400,000

F

203 Parkview Hill Crescent

3,221

8,350

2001

No

$1,341,000

7MPAC argued that these sales support a value of $1,601,886, relying primarily on Sale E, which is the most similar in structure size and lot size, and adjusting for the lack of ravine and higher traffic volume near Sale E. MPAC notes that a historic 5% reduction has been applied to the assessment of the property to account for nuisance factors, which would bring their suggested value to $1,521,792. MPAC is not seeking a higher assessment, but argued that these figures show that the returned assessment of $1,504,000 is reasonable.

8Ms. Tamtakiridis outlined the various issues the property has had since the City of Toronto began to rebuild the sewer system nearby. The construction took place at the end of Barbara Crescent, approximately five houses away from the property. The construction lasted from 2009 through 2013, and Ms. Tamtakiridis said that they could “feel the house shake” during that time. As a result of that construction there were numerous cracks in tiles, a concrete patio, trim and other finishing. As well, some doors became misaligned. Ms. Tamtakiridis said a lawsuit is pending against the City of Toronto for the damage, but did not provide MPAC, or this Board, with any evidence of the cost to repair the damage.

9Ms. Tamtakiridis argued that the damage makes the property difficult to compare to other properties. However, she did not present any property to which the property could be compared, or the amount of any adjustment that could be applied to the property to make it comparable to properties in the area. Without information on the cost of the repairs, or the sales of homes in a similar situation, I have no basis on which to determine an alternative value of the property.

10I do not have clear evidence that the market would have viewed the property as distinct from the sales presented by MPAC on the valuation day of January 1, 2012. The sewer construction was five houses away from the property and it is not clear that cracks in the finishing of the house would have had a significant impact on the sale price. Without clear evidence that the market would have considered the property unique, the sales of similar property is the best predictor of what the property would likely have sold for.

11The best evidence of value before me are the six sales presented by MPAC. Those show that smaller homes on similarly sized lots sell for at least $1,300,000. Sale E sold for $1,400,000 and has a comparable size of house and lot. The property before me is slightly newer construction than Sale E and abuts a ravine, both of which would add value to the property. The returned value of $1,504,000 is only $104,000, or 7%, higher than the sale price of Sale E and is amply supported by the differences in the properties. Sale A and Sale F have similarly sized parcels and differ primarily in age of construction and ravine. Sale A sold for $109,000 more than Sale F, which is a similar amount to the adjustment proposed by MPAC. That adjustment is supported by the evidence.

12I find that the evidence indicates that the property likely would have sold for $1,504,000 on January 1, 2012. That is, I find that the current value of the property for the 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 taxation year is $1,504,000.

Equity

13MPAC provided a report of the assessment to sales ratios of 42 properties in the vicinity of the property. That report showed that the median assessment in area is equal to the sale price of the property. This means that property in the area is, on average, assessed at its current value. This is strong evidence that assessing the property at its current value would not be inequitable or unfair, because the average property in that area is assessed at its current value. No adjustment is required in order to achieve equity.

CONCLUSION

14The current value of 10 Barbara Crescent is $1,504,000 for the 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 taxation years. There is no evidence that an assessment at that current value would be inequitable when compared to the assessment of other properties in the vicinity. I therefore confirm the assessment for the 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 taxation years at $1,504,000.