Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: August 09, 2017
Assessed Person(s): Leslie Allan Hunt and Ginette Parenteau Hunt
Appellant(s): Les Hunt and Ginette Hunt
Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 32
Respondent(s): City of Thunder Bay
Property Location(s): 2159 Glenoah Avenue
Municipality(ies): City of Thunder Bay
Roll Number(s): 5804-030-108-38102-0000
Appeal Number(s): 3173655
Taxation Year(s): 2016
Hearing Event No. 683476
Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended
Heard: July 19, 2017 in Toronto, Ontario
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Representative |
|---|---|
| Leslie Hunt | Self-represented |
| MPAC | Jodene Wylie |
| City of Thunder Bay | Vince Desando |
DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY SUBUOLA AWOLERI
INTRODUCTION
1The subject property is a single-family detached dwelling built in 2008, with construction quality of 7.5. It has a lot with 106.66 feet of frontage, 260.01 feet of depth, an effective site area of 27,878.40 square feet (“sq. ft”.) and a total building area of 1,998 sq. ft. The basement area is 1,505 sq. ft. of which 209 sq. ft. is finished. It also has an attached garage.
2For the 2016 taxation year, the current value assessment (“CVA”) was returned at $389,000. Jodene Wylie, the assessor from MPAC requested that the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) confirm this assessment based on the six comparable property sales within the vicinity of the subject property.
3Leslie Hunt, the owner of the subject property submits that the assessment is too high. According to him, the subject property is not comparable to all six comparable property sales presented by MPAC. He did not state what the subject property should be assessed at.
ISSUES
4The issues to be determined are:
i.) What is the correct current value of the subject property for the 2016 taxation year?
ii.) Is the current value as determined by the Board equitable in reference to the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity?
DECISION
5The Board finds the current value of the subject property for the 2016 taxation year to be $389,000.
6The Board also finds that the assessment at current value is equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity; hence no further reduction is required to achieve equity.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Current Value – Evidence
7In accordance with s. 44.(3) a) the first mandate of the Board is to determine “the current value of the land”. Section 1 of the Assessment Act (“Act”) defines current value 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, for the 2016 taxation year, the Board must determine what the subject property would have sold for in an arm’s length transaction on the January 1, 2012 valuation day set by the Act.
8Section 19.2(1) of the Act prescribes the valuation days, which provides:
Valuation days
19.2 (1) Subject to subsection (5), the day as of which land is valued for a taxation year is determined as follows:
For the 2006, 2007 and 2008 taxation years, land is valued as of January 1, 2005.
For the period consisting of the four taxation years from 2009 to 2012, land is valued as of January 1, 2008.
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.
9Section 40.(17) of the [Act