Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: November 10, 2017

FILE NO.: WR 148393

Assessed Person(s): Estate of Gilles Guy Robert and Francine Alice Robert

Appellant(s): Francine Alice Robert

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 28

Respondent(s): The Municipality of West Nipissing

Property Location(s): 74 Northshore Road

Municipality(ies): The Municipality of West Nipissing

Roll Number(s): 4852-070-001-20000-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3136087 and 3160194

Taxation Year(s): 2015 and 2016

Hearing Event No.: 687264

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

Heard: August 23, 2017 in Sturgeon Falls, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties Representative

Francine Robert Self-represented

MPAC Marc Serré

The Municipality of West Nipissing No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY MARCELLE BOURASSA

INTRODUCTION

1The subject property is a single storey detached home located on Clear Lake. It has 1,946 square feet (“sq. ft.”) of total building area in addition to a 489 sq. ft. attached garage. There is no finished basement area. It also has a two level, 1,924 sq. ft. detached garage. The property was built in 2013 and MPAC has assigned it a quality class rating of 6.5. The total effective lot size is 1.23 acres and includes 154.53 ft. of effective frontage on Clear Lake.

2Marc Serré, representing MPAC, submits that the assessed values of $467,000 for the 2015 taxation year and $469,000 for the 2016 taxation year (that includes a new deck that was assessed in 2016) are correct. MPAC also asserts that no adjustment is required to make these assessed values equitable with that of similar lands in the vicinity of the subject property.

3Francine Robert submits that the property is over assessed by about $100,000 and should be assessed at $369,000. She relies on four properties that she maintains are better comparables.

4Under the Assessment Act (the “Act”), the Board must first determine the correct current value of the land and then determine whether it should be adjusted to make it equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity.

DECISION

5For the reasons stated below and pursuant to s. 44.(3)(a) of the Act, the Board sets the current value of the property, as of the valuation day of January 1, 2012, at $467,000 and finds that there is no evidence leading to the conclusion that the current value, as determined above, is not equitable relative to the assessments of similar lands. It requires no further adjustment under s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act.

6Accordingly, for the 2015 taxation year, the assessment is confirmed at $467,000 and for the 2016 taxation year, the assessment is confirmed at $469,000.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Legislation

7Section 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.

8Section 19.(1) of the Act states:

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

9Section 19.2(1) of the Act states:

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:

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.

10Section 44(1) of the Act states:

Assessment may be open upon appeal 44(1) Upon an appeal on any ground against an assessment, the Assessment Review Board or court, as the case may be, may reopen the whole question of the assessment so that omissions from, or errors in the assessment roll may be corrected, and the amount for which the assessment should be made, and the person or persons who should be assessed therefor may be placed upon the roll, and if necessary the assessment roll, even if returned as finally revised, may be opened so as to make it correct in accordance with the findings made on appeal.

11Section 44(3) of the Act states:

Same 2009 and subsequent years 44(3) 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.

THE BOARD’S ANALYSIS

MPAC’s Case

12Mr. Serré relied on a Valuation Report prepared by another assessor, Joanne Guillemette. He provided information on the sales of six properties all of which are located on Clear Lake. He considers five of those properties as being inferior to the subject property and one property, 84 Northshore Road, as relatively comparable to the subject property.

13He surmised that the subject property was inspected prior to the disclosure of MPAC’s Valuation Report as the value for the 2016 taxation year was increased by $2,000 to account for a deck that had not been valued in 2015. Ms. Robert stated that the hearing was originally scheduled for August 2016 and that MPAC’s Valuation Report was received in advance of that hearing date.

14Mr. Serré is of the opinion that the subject property’s assessed values of $467,000 for the 2015 taxation year and $469,000 for 2016 taxation year are reasonable.

15Mr. Serré also submitted an Equity Analysis Report which states that sales of six residential properties located on Bain Lake (also referred to as Clear Lake) that took place between January 2009 and December 2012 were considered. Mr. Serré notes that this data produces an Assessment to Sales Ratio (“ASR”) range of 0.39 and 1.45 with a median ASR of 0.98. He asserts that this is within the acceptable standard of 0.95 to 1.05 required to establish that the level of assessments of similar properties is reflective of the level of sale prices in the vicinity. He submits, therefore, that no equity adjustment is required.

Appellant’s Case

16Ms. Robert is of the opinion that the property is over-assessed by about $100,000 and should be assessed at $369,000. She relies on four properties that she maintains are better comparables.

Current Value

17The initial task of the Board is to use the best evidence available to determine the current value of the property as required by s. 1, s. 19.(1) and s. 44.(3)(a) of the Act.

18The best evidence the Board can receive of current value is an arm’s length and market-tested sale of the subject property on the valuation day or close to it. If, as in this case, no such transaction took place, the next best measure of current value is arm’s length and market-tested sales of comparable properties located nearby, as close as possible to the valuation date of January 1, 2012. The measure acts as a benchmark and a gauge of the accuracy for the assessed value of the subject property and comparable properties.

19To enable an estimate of value for the subject property to be derived from suggested comparable properties, there must be sufficient elements of similarity, in terms of physical factors such as building area, land area, land frontage, age of construction, physical condition, etcetera so as to enable a direct comparison to be made between a suggested comparable property and the subject property.

20The Board considered the following sales located on Clear Lake included in MPAC’s Valuation Report:

21Sale A - 45 Southshore Road - a two storey detached property built in 1965. It has a larger frontage (275 ft.), a bigger lot size (1.62 acres) and a smaller total building area (1,337 sq. ft.) than the subject property. It also has a lower quality class rating of 4. It does not have a garage. It sold in June 2011 for a time adjusted sale value of $144,500. The Board finds this property to be vastly inferior to the subject property given the smaller house, its age and a lower quality class rating and the absence of a garage.

22Sale B - 21 Southshore Road - a single storey detached property built in 1953. It has a much smaller frontage (86.01 ft.), a much smaller lot size (0.7 acres) and a much smaller total building area (816 sq. ft.) than the subject property. It also has a lower quality class rating of 4. There is a 285 sq. ft. shed. It sold in August 2009 for a time adjusted sale value of $142,500. The Board finds this property to be vastly inferior to the subject property given the smaller frontage, lot size and total building area, its age and a lower quality class rating and the absence of a garage.

23Sale C - 84 Northshore Road - a single storey detached property built in 1955. It has a larger frontage (239.52 ft.), a larger lot size (1.59 acres) and a slightly smaller building area (1,556 sq. ft.) than the subject property. It also has a lower quality class rating of 5. There is a 902 sq. ft. detached garage built in 1957 and a 256 sq. ft. shed built in 1997. It sold in September 2010 for a time adjusted sale value of $223,883. The Board finds this property to be vastly inferior to the subject property given the lower quality class rating and the age of the house and the much smaller detached garage.

24Sale D - 166 Northshore Road - a single storey detached property built in 1971. It has a smaller frontage (125 ft.), a much smaller total lot size (0.81 acres) and a much smaller total building area (816 sq. ft.) than the subject property. It also has a lower quality class rating of 4. There is also a 523 sq. ft. detached garage built in 1998. It sold in September 2010 for a time adjusted sale value of $159,916. The Board finds this property to be vastly inferior to the subject property given the smaller frontage, lot size and total building area, its age and a lower quality class rating.

25Sale E - 118 Northshore Road - a single storey detached property built in 1955. It has the same frontage (155 ft.), a much smaller total lot size (0.67 acres) and a much smaller total building area (775 sq. ft.) than the subject property. It also has a lower quality class rating of 4.5. There is also a shed built in 1963. It sold in August 2010 for a time adjusted sale value of $138,037. The Board finds this property to be vastly inferior to the subject property given the smaller lot size and total building area, its age and a lower quality class rating and the absence of a garage.

26Sale F - 148 Northshore Road - single-storey detached property built in 1960. It has a slightly larger frontage (165.68 ft.), a similar total lot size (1.19 acres) and a much smaller total building area (764 sq. ft.) than the subject property. It also has a lower quality class rating of 4. There is also a 1,427 detached garage built in 2012 and a 206 sq. ft. shed built in 2010. It sold in June 2012 for a time adjusted sale value of $168,644. The Board finds this property to be vastly inferior to the subject property given the smaller total building area, its age and a lower quality class rating.

27The Board also considered two sales as relied on by Ms. Robert.

28Property 4 - 134B Northshore Road - a one and three quarter storey detached property built in 2013. It has the same frontage (155 ft.), a similar total lot size (1.11 acres) and a smaller total building area (1,530 sq. ft.) than the subject property. It also has the same quality class rating of 6.5. There is also a newer but smaller 1,488 sq. ft. detached garage built in 2012. Ms. Robert stated that it has a better detached garage as the second level is better finished than the subject property’s detached garage. She believes it may have services such as water as the owners lived there during the construction of the house. There is also a 399 sq. ft. shed built in 2003. The Board finds this property to be inferior to the subject property given the smaller total building area and smaller detached garage. There was a May 2013 sale. However, it is coded as “01” meaning is involved a sale between family members. The Board will not consider the sale as it was not an arm’s length sale.

29Property 1 – 1111 Lac Clair Road - two storey detached property built in 1980. It has a slightly smaller frontage (140 ft.), a similar total lot size (1.21 acres) and a larger total building area (2,081 sq. ft.) than the subject property. It also has a lower quality class rating of 6.0. There is also a 1,353 detached garage built in 1989. The Board finds this property to be inferior to the subject property given its age and a lower quality class rating. It sold in May 2013 for $300,000. However, the sale is coded as “02” meaning the sale is suspect and may have been a power of sale or for non-payment of taxes. The Board will not consider this sale as the evidence suggests that it was not an arm’s length sale.

30The Board finds the current value of the subject property to be superior to the sale of 84 Northshore Road which had the highest time adjusted sale value of $223,883 of the six sales put forward by MPAC and to the sale of 1111 Lac Clair Road for $300,000 as put forward by Ms. Robert. As noted above, the sale of $300,000 is not a reliable sale. The suggestion of a transaction under power of sale or for non-payment of taxes infers that the sale was for a value inferior to its market value. The Board has taken into account that the subject property was inspected by MPAC. Based on the sales evidence before the Board, the value of $467,000 appears reasonable given the age, condition and total building size of the subject property’s dwelling (that includes an attached garage) and detached garage. The current value is set at $467,000.

Equity with Similar Lands in the Vicinity

31The Board must also consider the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity and determine whether the correct current value, as established, is inequitable relative to those assessments. If so, it should be adjusted to make it equitable, as required by s. 44.(3) of the Act.

32For purposes of establishing equity, properties do not need to be comparable, they need to be of a similar nature and within a reasonable proximity Considering an ASR analysis using a reasonable sample of property sales is one method for that purpose.

33Mr. Serré submitted an Equity Analysis Report which was prepared by another assessor that states that Bain Lake (also known as Clear Lake) was considered as the vicinity and that there were six sales of residential properties located on Bain Lake that took place between January 2009 and December 2012. The Report goes on to state that the sales produced an ASR range of 0.39 and 1.45 with a median ASR of 0.98 which is within the acceptable standard of 0.95 to 1.05 required to establish that the level of assessments of similar properties is reflective of the level of sale prices in the vicinity.

34This Equity Analysis Report is problematic for a number of reasons. It appears that an Equity Analysis Report that was prepared for another property may have been used as a template for this report. For instance, Ms. Robert queried the current value of “$426,000” that appears in the report at pages 4 and 5 that bears no relation to the subject property. Also, on page 4 of the report there is a reference to the sales of six residential properties that took place between January 2009 and December 2012 and a list of the sales and their respective assessments as appended to the report. Unfortunately, the sales are not identified and the attached report lists a total of 30 properties (including the sales of the six properties on Clear Lake included by MPAC as comparables for purposes of determining current value report). It also includes three more properties which by their addresses on Southshore Road and Northshore Road also appear to be located on Clear Lake. It is impossible to determine the vicinity based on the addresses and the small Equity Analysis Map included on the last page of the report. Clearly, other properties such as the two properties on Highway 64 are not located in the vicinity of Clear Lake. Furthermore, the ASR range of 0.39 to 1.45 and the average median of 0.98 appear to relate to the 30 properties used in another report. The Board will therefore not consider this report.

35Ms. Robert relies on four residential properties located on Clear Lake in support of her requested value of $369,000. As noted above, two of the properties had sales that the Board did not consider to be at arm’s length. The assessed values range from $310,000 to $361,000. While most of these properties share some similarities with the subject property in terms of lake frontage, lot size, age, quality class rating and outbuildings, the Board is of the opinion, based on the evidence before it, that the subject property is a superior property given the age, condition and building size of the subject property’s dwelling (that includes an attached garage) and detached garage. Therefore, the Board finds that the properties on which Ms. Robert relies do not support an equitable adjustment.

36The Board considered the ASRs for the nine arm’s length residential sales of properties located in the vicinity of Clear Lake as identified by their addresses on Southshore Road and Northshore Road in MPAC’s Valuation Report, as the best evidence before it for the purposes of determining whether the current value as determined above should be adjusted to make it equitable, as required by s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act. The Board did not include the two sales at 1111 Lac Clair Road and 134B Northshore Road as relied on by Ms. Robert as the Board does not consider them as arm’s length sales. The nine sales produced an ASR range of 0.77 to 1.21 and a median ASR of 0.97. This value is within the generally accepted range of tolerance.

37The Board concludes that the evidence adduced does not support the conclusion that the current value of the property as determined above requires an equity reduction.

CONCLUSION

38For the reasons stated above and pursuant to s. 44.(3)(a) of the Act, the Board sets the current value of the property, as of the valuation day of January 1, 2012, at $467,000 and finds that there is no evidence leading to the conclusion that the current value, as determined above, is not equitable relative to the assessments of similar lands. It requires no further adjustment under s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act.

39Accordingly, for the 2015 taxation year, the assessment is confirmed at $467,000 and for the 2016 taxation year, the assessment is confirmed at $469,000.