Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: October 22, 2018

FILE NO.: RD 2018M14

Assessed Person: Lewis Mario Lawrence Cassar

Appellant: Lewis Cassar

Respondent: Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 09

Respondent: City of Toronto

Property Location: 313 Cummer Avenue

Municipality: City of Toronto

Roll Number: 1908-094-200-07000-0000

Appeal Numbers: 3186559 and 3294409

Taxation Year: 2017 and 2018

Legislative Authority: Rule 120 of the Assessment Review Board Rules of Practice and Procedure

Request for: A review of the Board’s Decision WR 151092 issued on June 1, 2018

Heard: By written submission

Parties	Representative	Submissions
Lewis Cassar	Self-represented	Requester
MPAC	No one appeared	Not Requested
City of Toronto	No one appeared	Not Requested

DECISION DELIVERED BY PAUL MULDOON AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

INTRODUCTION

1Lewis Cassar is requesting the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) review its decision in Cassar v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 9, 2018 CanLII 50599 (ON ARB) (the “Decision”) pursuant to Rule 120 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”). This request for review was filed with the Board on August 09, 2018.

2Mr. Cassar is the owner of the property at 313 Cummer Avenue and he appealed the assessment of that property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years. He appeared before the Board on February 12, 2018. The Decision reduced the assessment for both taxation years from $1,010,000 to $1,007,000. He alleges that the Decision contains a number of errors.

3The Board is not satisfied that the Decision contains any errors that are likely to have led to a different outcome. The Board therefore dismisses Mr. Cassar’s request to review the Decision

Background

4Mr. Cassar argued at the hearing that his property was not renovated, while the comparable properties presented were, and that his property would therefore be worth less than the comparable properties. He also argued that there should be reduction for the amount of traffic on Cummer Avenue, that his larger lot decreased the value of the property, and that land speculation in the area had driven up prices.

5The Decision accepted Mr. Cassar evidence on the state of the property and removed $34,000 from the value indicated by the comparable sales in order to account for the lack of renovation. The Decision does not address Mr. Cassar’s other arguments around current value.

6The Decision then considered if would be equitable to assess the property at its current value of $1,090,000. The Decision found that MPAC’s equity study was the best evidence on that question. MPAC’s evidence indicated that similar property in the vicinity was being assessed, on average, at 92.4% of its current value. The Decision found that it would equitable to also assess Mr. Cassar’s property at 92.4% of its current value and therefore set the assessment of the property at $1,007,000.

Rules

7Mr. Cassar seeks a review of the Decision. Reviews are governed by Rules 120 through 123 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”). Rule 120 sets out the procedural requirements that must be met before a review will be considered. Those are met here. Rule 121 set outs the requirements that must be met before a review can succeed. The Board must be satisfied that one of the five clauses in Rule 121 is made out. Mr. Cassar does not reference a particular clause of Rule 121 in his submissions, but all of his concerns relate to clause (b): “the Board made a significant error of law of fact such that the Board would likely have reached a different decision.”

Alleged Errors

8Mr. Cassar submits that there are two errors in the Decision. First, he alleges that the $34,000 reduction applied for the condition of the property is too low. Secondly, he alleges that the Decision erred in not applying a negative 22% adjustment for obsolescence, which MPAC had applied to the 2012 assessment of the property.

Property Condition Adjustment

9Mr. Cassar complains that the Decision applied a reduction based on the value MPAC applied to a certain class of renovation. MPAC admitted at the hearing that it had applied a “B” renovation to the property, despite not having any evidence of an actual renovation. MPAC’s evidence was that applying the renovation was “intended to reflect ongoing, normal maintenance and minor upgrades that it considers reasonable,” (see paragraph 17 of the Decision). The Decision took the value MPAC had assigned to the notional renovation and removed it from the value indicated by the comparable sales.

10Mr. Cassar says that a $34,000 reduction is not an appropriate estimate of the state of his property. He does not say, however, what an appropriate adjustment would be. That was the same position he took at the hearing. The Decision notes, at paragraph 22, that, when addressing a reduction for the property condition, “he was not specific as to percentage or amount.”

11This Board must make decisions on the best evidence presented by the parties at a hearing. The Decision acknowledged Mr. Cassar’s argument that the amount of reduction for condition should be more than $34,000, but did not accept that argument. The Decision, instead, took the only estimate of the value of the renovation that was in evidence: MPAC’s $34,000 figure. There is no error in a Decision preferring some evidence over other evidence. That is, in fact, one of the primary roles that this Board plays in assessment disputes.

External Obsolescence

12Mr. Cassar argues that the Board should have reduced the indicated value of his property by 22%. He takes that figure from a document sent to him by MPAC, dated October 11, 2017. That reduction is made up of a 2% market adjustment and a 20% external obsolescence adjustment. Those are metrics from MPAC’s mass appraisal model. Mr. Cassar argues that the Decision is in error because it did not apply those metrics.

13The role of the Board at a hearing is not testing or reviewing MPAC’s model. The Board’s obligation is to determine what the property likely would have sold for on the specified valuation day based on the best evidence before it. Generally, market evidence is the best evidence of value because one can only estimate what something would sell for by looking at other sales. Neither a market adjustment nor external obsolescence needed to be considered in the Decision.

14There is no explanation for what a market adjustment is. It appears to be a metric applied to MPAC to correct the value returned by their model. The Decision looked at the sales of similar properties in the same neighbourhood as Mr. Cassar’s property. Those indicated a likely sale value of $1,124,000. The Decision then applied a $34,000 reduction to account for the condition of the property. That is a 3% reduction, which is more than the 2% market adjustment in MPAC’s model. It may be that the market adjustment was to account for the property’s condition, but that is far from clear.

15External obsolescence has no role in a direct comparison approach analysis. That concept is applied as part of a cost analysis. This Board explained in General Motors of Canada Limited v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region No. 27, 2017 CanLII 3664 (ON ARB), at paragraph 22, that “it is often appropriate to deduct an amount for decreases in value caused by forces outside of the Plant, known as external obsolescence. That is to reflect the fact that a Plant like this might not be built in the current economic climate.” It is impossible to apply that concept to a residential property in Toronto. There are no economic forces that would cause a detached home not be built in North York. The Decision is not in error in declining to apply an external obsolescence adjustment to Mr. Cassar’s property.

Conclusion

16None of the complaints that Mr. Cassar has made about the Decision are valid. The Decision was not in error in preferring the evidence of MPAC on the value reduction for the property’s lack of renovation. Nor was the Decision in error in declining to apply various components of MPAC’s model to the value of the property indicated by the sales. Mr. Cassar’s request for review is therefore denied.