Richman v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2018 CanLII 102697

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: October 22, 2018

FILE NO.: WR 155846

Assessed Person(s): Cheryl Richman

Appellant(s): Cheryl Richman

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 13

Respondent(s): Township of Uxbridge

Property Location(s): 7 Bill Knowles Street

Municipality(ies): Township of Uxbridge

Roll Number(s): 1829-040-009-22305-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3262124, 3262123, 3265227 and 3301337

Taxation Year(s): 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018

Hearing Event No.: 703671

Legislative Authority: Sections 33 and 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended

Heard: September 13, 2018, in Uxbridge Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Cheryl Richman	Self-represented
MPAC	Joshua Cranney
Township of Uxbridge	Sue Straughan

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY MARCELLE BOURASSA

BACKGROUND

1Cheryl Richman (the “Appellant”) is the owner of a residential condominium townhouse located at 7 Bill Knowles Street (the “Subject Property”) in the Township of Uxbridge. It is situated within a condominium townhouse complex. It has 2,265 square feet (sq. ft.) of total building area comprised of 1,514 sq. ft. on the first floor and 751 sq. ft. on the second floor loft area. There is an attached double garage. It was built in 2015 and MPAC has assigned it a quality class rating of 7.0.

2For the 2015 and 2016 taxation years under appeal, MPAC returned the assessment for the Subject Property at $564,000. MPAC has recommended an assessed value of $537,000. For the 2017 and 2018 taxation years under appeal, MPAC returned the assessment for the Subject Property at $631,000 and 597,000, respectively. MPAC has recommended an assessed value of $597,000

3Ms. Richman has appealed the assessment for the 2015, 2016 , 2017 and 2018 taxation years to the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”), pursuant to s. 40 of the Assessment Act (“Act”) R. S. O. 1990 c. A. 31. She takes the position that MPAC’s recommended value of $537,000 for the Subject Property is too high. She estimates the Subject Property’s current value as of the January 1, 2012 valuation date as about $490,000 to $499,000.

4Ms. Richman takes the position that the Subject Property is inequitably assessed in relation to similar properties and should be assessed in the $400,000’s for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

5Ms. Richman states that she purchased the Subject Property from the builder for $659,000 inclusive of taxes in December 2015 and that it is reflective of its current value on January 1, 2016.

6Ms. Richman agrees that the Subject Property is inequitably assessed in relation to similar properties and should be assessed lower for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

7Pursuant to the Act, the burden of proof as to the correctness of the current value of the Subject Property rests with MPAC. For the period of 2013 to 2016, the Subject Property is valued as of January 1, 2012. MPAC’s representative, Joshua Cranney, called Amanda Thow as a witness. She estimates the current value of the Subject Property as of January 1, 2012 to be $584,000, based on the direct comparison approach.

8Ms. Thow conducted an equity study and determined that an equity adjustment is not required. Mr. Cranney states that MPAC is not seeking a higher assessment and it is his position that the recommended assessed value of $537,000 should be confirmed for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

9For the period of 2017 to 2020, the Subject Property is valued as of January 1, 2016. Ms. Thow estimates the current value of the Subject Property to be $710,000 based on the direct comparison approach.

10Ms. Thow conducted an equity study and determined that an equity adjustment is required. She recommends an equitable assessed value of $597,000 for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

ISSUES

11The issues to be determined on this appeal are:

a) What is the correct current value of the Subject Property as of the January 1, 2012 and January 1, 2016 valuation dates;

b) Whether there should be an equitable reduction of the current values as determined by the Board and, if so, what should the amount of this reduction be?

DECISION

12The Board finds that the current value of the Subject Property, as of the January 1, 2012 valuation date, is $535,000. Furthermore, the Board finds that the evidence before it supports the conclusion that an equitable adjustment is required under s. 44. (3)(b) of the Act. Therefore, the current value of $535,000 is reduced to $500,000.

13The assessment of the Subject Property located at 7 Bill Knowles Street is reduced from $564,000 to $500,000 for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

14The Board finds that the current value of the Subject Property, as of the January 1, 2016 valuation date, is $659,000. Furthermore, the Board finds that the evidence before it supports the conclusion that an equitable adjustment is required under s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act. Therefore, current value of $659,000 is reduced to $577,000.

15The assessment of the Subject Property located at 7 Bill Knowles Street is reduced from $631,000 to $577,000 for the 2017 taxation year and from $597,000 to $577,000 for the 2018 taxation year.

RELEVANT LEGISLATION

16Section 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.

17Section 19.1(1) of the Act states:

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

18Section 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 the period consisting of the four taxation years from 2013 to 2016, land is valued as of January 1, 2012.

4. For the period consisting of the four taxation years from 2017 to 2020, land is valued as of January 1, 2016.

19Section 33 of the Act states:

33.(1) Change re land omitted from tax roll – The following rules apply if land liable to assessment has been in whole or in part omitted from the tax roll for the current year or for all or part of either or both of the last two preceding years, and no taxes have been levied for the assessment omitted:

1. The assessment corporation shall make any assessment necessary to correct the omission.

2. If the land is located in a municipality, the clerk of the municipality shall alter the tax roll upon receiving notice of the change, and the municipality shall levy and collect the taxes that would have been payable if the assessment had not been omitted.

3. If the land is located in non-municipal territory, the Minister shall alter the tax roll upon receiving notice of the change, and shall collect the taxes that would have been payable if the assessment had not been omitted.

20Section 40.(17) of the Act states:

40.(17) For 2009 and subsequent taxation years, where value is a ground of appeal, the burden of proof as to the correctness of the current value of the land rests with the assessment corporation.

21Section 44.(3) of the Act states:

44.(3) Same, 2009 and subsequent years. 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.

Analysis and Findings

What is the correct current value of the Subject Property as of the January 1, 2012 valuation date?

MPAC’s Evidence and Submissions

22Mr. Cranney called Ms. Thow as a witness. Ms. Thow relies on a “Valuation Report” of the Subject Property.

23Key property details for the three proposed comparable properties, all condominium townhouses, presented by MPAC are set out below in Table A. All sales have been time adjusted to the January 1, 2012 legislated valuation date. Ms. Thow asserts that the Fred Barnard Way condominium townhouse complex is the most comparable complex to the Subject Property’s complex. There are no other condominium townhouse complexes in the vicinity with a quality of construction rating of 7.0 like the Subject Property’s. The complex was advertised as a luxury condominium townhouse development.

Table A

Property	Year Built (effective)	Quality	Building Area (sq. ft.)	Other	Sale (Time Adjusted Sale “TAS”)
7 Bill Knowles St. (Subject Property)	2015	7.0	2,265	-Condominium townhome -Attached double garage -Abuts a gold course/trail	N/A
43 Fred Barnard Way (Sale A)	2007	6.5	2,259	-Finished basement Area (1,000 sq. ft.) -1 ½ storeys -Attached garage	430,000 (437,252) (04/2011)
37 Fred Barnard Way (Sale B)	2007	6.5	2,259	-End unit -Finished basement Area (1,000 sq. ft.) -1 ½ storeys -Attached garage	460,000 (456,880) (04/2012)

24Ms. Thow states that she considers all of the proposed comparable sales to be inferior to the Subject Property. The Subject Property’s current value should be higher than the time adjusted sales that range from $426,000 to $456,000.

25However, she considers 37 Fred Barnard Way, Sale B, as the most comparable property given that the total building area is almost identical to that of the Subject Property. It is an end unit. She asserts that the finished basement area could offset the differences in age or quality class. It sold within four months of the January 1, 2012 valuation date and required minimal adjustment for time. Accounting for differences between Sale B and the Subject Property, her opinion of the Subject Property’s current value, as generated by the computer model, is $584,000.

26In response to the Board’s questions, Ms. Thow states that an end unit location could add 5% or more in value. A finished basement could add $10,000 to $20,000 in value. Also, the Subject Property abuts a golf course/public walkway but does not receive a positive variable adjustment. Lastly, Ms. Thow states that she did not time adjust the Subject Property’s December 2015 sale price back to the January 1, 2012 valuation date.

27The 2012 assessment was originally returned at $564,000. Ms. Thow states that MPAC recommended a value of $537,000 during the request for reconsideration process and that this value reflects a correction to the Subject Property’s square footage that was initially recorded in error at 3,060 sq. ft.

Appellant’s Evidence and Submissions

28Ms. Richman states that she purchased the Subject Property from the builder for $659,000 inclusive of taxes. She assigned the HST rebate (Ontario portion) of $24,000 to the Vendor. The closing date was December 8, 2015. She provided a copy of her “final closing statement of adjustments” that clearly states that the agreed sale price was $659,000. She states that she purchased the model home and the purchase price included appliances, upgrades and curtains. She adds that she did not pay a premium for its location backing onto the golf course and a walking trail. In fact, she considers the public trail at the rear of her property as a nuisance with people walking their dogs, bicycles, snowmobiles, etc.

29Ms. Richman agrees that Subject Property’s complex is a higher end complex as compared to the Fred Barnard Way residential condominium townhouse complex. It is her position that the Subject Property should have a current value of about $490,000 to $499,000 as of the January 1, 2012 valuation date.

Board’s Analysis and Findings

30Under s. 44.(3)(a) of the Act, the Board must first determine “the current value of the land.” The 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 date or close to it.

31Ms. Richman purchased the Subject Property on December 8, 2015 for $659,000 inclusive of taxes. The sale is very close to the January 1, 2016 valuation date and so, the Board will consider this evidence in its determination of the Subject Property’s current value as of the January 1, 2016 valuation date.

32The 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 legislated valuation date of January 1, 2012.

33To enable an estimate of value for the 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, etc. so as to enable a direct comparison to be made.

34Ms. Thow proposes three comparable sales, all located on Fred Barnard Way, with the time adjusted sales that range from $426,000 to $456,000. Ms. Richman did not propose any comparable sales.

35The Board finds all three properties to be inferior to the Subject Property as they are older and have a lower quality of construction. Also, the property at 23 Fred Barnard Way has a significantly smaller total building area at 1,692 sq. ft. The Board finds that the Subject Property’s current value should be higher. The property at 37 Fred Barnard Way has the highest time adjusted sale price of $456,000. Ms. Richman was forthright in her evidence when she stated that she purchased the model home with upgrades, appliances and the curtains. Taking into account differences between the Subject Property and the property at 37 Fred Barnard Way (that has a total building area that is almost identical to that of the Subject Property), the Board finds that MPAC’s recommended value of $537,000 is the best evidence of current value before the Board.

36The Board has also considered the public trail as a nuisance factor. However, the Board finds that there is insufficient evidence to support a further adjustment.

37Therefore, the Board finds that the current value of the Subject Property for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years is $537,000.

Whether there should be an equitable reduction of the current value pursuant to s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act, and, if so, what should the amount of this reduction be?

MPAC’s Evidence and Submissions

38Ms. Thow relies on an “Equity Analysis Report” that considers the time adjusted sales of 75 residential condominium properties (including some high rises) with property code 370 that occurred between January 2010 and December 2012 located within 2.32 kilometres of the Subject Property.

39In her Report, Ms. Thow states that the level of appraisal is established by determining the median ASR in the sales sample. For purposes of the equity test, MPAC takes the position that equity is achieved if the median ASR falls between 0.95 and 1.05. In this case, the median ASR is 1.00.

40Ms. Thow asserts that based on her analysis, similar properties in the vicinity have been assessed at or near their current values and that an equity adjustment is not required.

41Mr. Cranney states that MPAC is not seeking a higher assessment. It is his position that the assessment should be reduced from $564,000 to $537,000 for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

Appellant’s Evidence and Submissions

42Ms. Richman takes the position that the Subject Property is inequitably assessed in relation to similar properties and should be assessed in the $400,000’s for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years. The Subject Property is assessed significantly higher than other properties in her immediate neighbourhood.

43She referred to the 2012 assessments for ten properties with assessments that range from $303,000 to $450,000. She points out that condominium townhouses on Fred Barnard Way and freehold townhomes on Meadow’s End are assessed much lower than the Subject Property. Freehold bungalows on Caseton Crescent are assessed higher than the condominium townhouses. Freehold bungalows and two storey detached homes on Nelkydd Lane are assessed higher than condominium townhouses.

44The available key property details for the properties set out below in Table B.

Table B

[45] Property [46]	Year Built (effective)	Quality	Building Area (sq. ft.)	Other	Sale (Time Adjusted Sale “TAS”)	2012 Assessment
7 Bill Knowles St. (Subject Property)	2015	7.0	2,265	- Condominium townhome - Attached double garage	N/A
41 Fred Barnard Way	2007	6.5	1,692	- Condominium townhome - End unit - 1 ½ storeys - Single attached garage	320,430 (332,285) (2010/06)	342,000
27 Fred Barnard Way	2008	6.5	1,692	- Condominium townhome - End unit - Finished basement Area (600 sq. ft.) -1 ½ storeys		347,000
14 Meadows End Crescent	2010	6.0	1,410	- Freehold townhouse - Finished basement (499 sq. ft.)		312,000
18 Meadows End Crescent	2006	6.0	1,170	- Freehold townhouse - End unit - Finished basement (561 sq. ft.) - Single attached garage		303,000
24 Meadows Crescent	2006	6.0	1,170	- Freehold townhouse - End unit - Walk-out basement		316,000
5 Caseton Crescent	2005	6.5	1,650	- Freehold bungalow - Finished basement (1,402 sq. ft.) - Attached double garage		450,000
22 Caseton Crescent	2006	6.5	1,650	- Freehold bungalow - Attached double garage		425,000
24 Caseton Crescent	2006	6.5	1,655	- Freehold bungalow - Finished basement - Attached double garage		425,000
48 Nelkydd Lane				- Freehold bungalow - Finished basement		410,000
90 Nelkydd Lane	2011	6.5	1,749	- Freehold two storey home - Unfinished basement		407,000

Board’s Analysis and Findings

47Section 44.(3)(b) of the Act directs that after determining current value, the Board shall 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.”

48The purpose of equitable adjustment has been described as the equitable distribution of the tax burden according to the assessed value of property owned by taxpayers as follows by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Empire Realty Co. Ltd. and Assessment Commissioner for Metropolitan Toronto et al., 1968 CanLII 183 (ON CA) at page 2:

A prime objective of municipal taxation is the equitable distribution of the burden according to the value of the property possessed by each ratepayer; in the system prevailing in Ontario, the tax levied on the ratepayer is determined by the a uniform mill rate upon the assessed value of the ratepayer's taxable property set down in the assessment roll. If equity in taxation is to be achieved, it must result from equity in assessment.

49In addressing equity in assessment, the Court, at page 6, also noted that:

an assessment made at the actual value of lands and buildings … would be an unequitable assessment if all similar lands in the vicinity were assessed at some percentage of actual value substantially less than one hundred [emphasis added].

50The term “vicinity” is not defined in the Act, but refers to the appropriate geographical area that will yield a meaningful number of comparable sales (see Ontario Regional Assessment Commissioner, Region No. 3 v. Graham, 1993 CanLII 8621 (ON. C.A.) at page 6).

51The test set out in s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act, requires that the Board refer to similar lands in the vicinity. Use as a point of similarity, may be, but is not necessarily determinative of similarity. In determining whether other lands are similar, the Ontario Divisional Court, in Municipal Property Assessment Corp. v. Loblaw Properties Ltd., 2017 ONSC 1299, applied the decision of the Ontario Divisional Court in Trizec Equities Ltd. v. Ontario (Regional Assessment Commissioner, Region No. 27), [1988] O.J. No. 182. The Court stated at paragraph 23:

…All points of comparison must be considered. The Board must make a factual finding based on such a consideration. One point of similarity such as use may be, but is not necessarily, determinative. Some similarities may be overridden by other characteristics and some differences may be subordinated.

52The ASR analysis of a reasonable sample of sold properties is one method used to determine if properties in the vicinity are assessed below their current value. If other properties are assessed substantially below their current value, then a reduction is required to make the assessment of the Subject Property equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity. The ASR is determined by dividing the assessment as returned by the sale price.

53Ms. Thow relies on an Equity Analysis Report whose sample of time adjusted sales produced a median ASR of 1.00 and that would not support an equity adjustment.

54Ms. Richman takes the position that the Subject Property is inequitably assessed in relation to similar properties and should be assessed in the $400,000’s.

55The Board finds that eight of the properties are freehold properties including six townhouses, one bungalow and one two-storey house and are not similar to the Subject Property as it is a condominium townhouse. Ms. Richman’s evidence includes two properties that are residential condominium townhouses like the Subject Property. They are located on Fred Barnard Way. The property at 41 Barnard Way had a sale (TAS $332,285 and an ASR of 0.94) whereas the property at 27 Fred Barnard Way does not have a sale. Both properties have significantly smaller total building areas than the Subject Property. One might reasonably expect these properties to be assessed lower.

56The Board notes that MPAC’s Equity Analysis Report includes sales and assessment information for seven properties on Fred Barnard Way (23 (2 sales), 29, 30, 33, 37, 41 and 43 with ASRs that range from 0.80 to 1.18. The Board finds these properties are similar to the Subject Property as residential condominium townhouses and are located in the Subject Property’s vicinity. The median ASR is 0.935. In this case, the Board finds the sample of sales to be sufficiently large to support the conclusion that an equitable adjustment is required. Applying the median ASR of 0.935 to the current value of $535,000 results in an equitable value of $500,225 or $500,000 (rounded).

CONCLUSION

57The Board finds that the current value of the Subject Property, as of the January 1, 2012 valuation date, is $535,000. Furthermore, the Board finds that the evidence before it supports the conclusion that an equitable adjustment is required under s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act. Therefore, the current value of $535,000 is reduced to $500,000.

58The assessment of the Subject Property located at 7 Bill Knowles Street is reduced from $564,000 to $500,000 for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

What is the correct current value of the Subject Property as of the January 1, 2016 valuation date?

MPAC’s Evidence and Submissions

59Ms. Thow relies on a “Valuation Report” of the Subject Property.

60The key property details for the five proposed comparable properties presented by MPAC are set out below in Table C. All sales have been time adjusted to the January 1, 2016 valuation date. All properties are condominium townhouses. The properties on Fred Barnard Way abut a ravine and receive a positive 3% adjustment.

Table C

Property	Year Built (effective)	Quality	Building Area (sq. ft.)	Other	Sale (Time Adjusted Sale “TAS”)
7 Bill Knowles St. (Subject Property)	2015	7.0	2,265	- Double attached garage
59 Bill Knowles St. (Sale 1)	2015	7.0	1,601	- Single attached garage	649,000 (497,539) (08/17)
23 Fred Barnard Way (Sale 2)	2008	6.5	1,692	- 1 ½ storeys - End unit - Single attached garage - Abuts a ravine (+3%)	740,000 (581,214) (06/2017)
41 Fred Barnard Way (Sale 3)	2007	6.5	1,692	- 1 ½ storeys - End unit - Single attached garage - Abuts a ravine (+3%)	851,000 (668,397) (06/17)
27 Fred Barnard Way (Sale 4)	2008	6.5	1,692	- 1 ½ storeys - End Unit - Finished basement area (600 sq. ft.) - Single attached garage - Abuts a ravine (+3%)	765,000 (608,309) (05/17)
43 Fred Barnard Way (Sale 5)	2007	6.5	2,259	- 1 ½ storeys - Finished basement Area (1,000 sq. ft. - Attached double garage - Abuts a ravine (+3%)	860,000 (643,886) (10/2017)

61Ms. Thow states that 59 Bill Knowles Street is located in the same complex as the Subject Property and is of the same age and quality class. However, it has 664 sq. ft. less building area. She adds that this is the only arm’s length sale in a shoulder year to the January 1, 2016 valuation date. She asserts that the Subject Property’s current value should be higher than 59 Knowles Street’s time adjusted sale of $497,539.

62Ms. Thow states that the property at 1 Bill Knowles Street has a similar total building area at 2,237 sq. ft. However, it sold in July 2018 for $810,000 and she considers this sale too far removed from the valuation date. The properties at 52 and 54 Bill Knowles Street also sold in 2018. Again, she considers them too far removed from the legislated valuation date. The other sales on Bill Knowles Street are considered builders’ sales and not arm’s length sales.

63Ms. Thow considers the properties 23, 41 and 27 Fred Barnard Way with time adjusted sales of $581,214, $668,397 and $608,309, respectively, to be inferior to the Subject Property in terms of age, quality class and total building area. She acknowledges that they are end units and this factor could offset one of the differences with the Subject Property. She asserts that the Subject Property’s current value should be higher.

64Ms. Thow considers the property at 43 Fred Barnard Way with a time adjusted sale of $643,886 to be inferior to the Subject Property in terms of age and quality class. It is similar in terms of total building area. However, it has a full finished basement that could offset one of the differences with the Subject Property. She asserts that the Subject Property’s current value should be higher.

65Ms. Thow states that her opinion of value of the Subject Property is $710,000. This was based on her understanding that the sale price did not include the Ontario portion of the Harmonized Sale Tax.

Appellant’s Evidence and Submissions

66Ms. Richman states that she purchased the Subject Property from the builder for $659,000 inclusive of taxes in December 2015 and that it is reflective of its current value on January 1, 2016. She states that she purchased the Subject Property directly from the builder. However, she asserts that other properties on Bill Knowles Street were listed on the MLS and she produced a listing. The properties at 1, 11, 17, 34, 41, 54, 55 and 50 Bill Knowles Street sold from 2015 to 2018.

Board’s Analysis and Findings

67Under s. 44.(3)(a) of the Act, the Board must first determine “the current value of the land.” The 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 date or close to it.

68Ms. Richman states that she purchased the Subject Property on December 8, 2015 for $659,000 inclusive of taxes. The price also included appliances, upgrades and curtains. The sale is very close to the January 1, 2016 valuation date and the Board considers this as the best evidence of the Subject Property’s current value as of the January 1, 2016 valuation date.

69Ms. Thow relies on four proposed comparable sales with time adjusted sales that range from $497,000 to $669,397. The Board finds that there is only one arm’s length sale of a property within the Subject Property’s complex with a sale in either shoulder year to the January 1, 2016 valuation date. The property at 59 Knowles Street is of the same age and quality class. It is also an interior unit. However, it has 664 sq. ft. less building area and a single attached garage. It sold for $649,000 in July 2017 and has a time adjusted sale of $497,539. The Board finds it to be inferior to the Subject Property due to its much smaller total building area and single garage. The Subject Property’s current value should be higher.

70The properties at 23, 41 and 27 Fred Barnard Way have time adjusted sales of $581,214, $668,397 and $608,309, respectively. The properties at 23 and 41 Fred Barnard Way have 573 sq. ft. less total building area than the Subject Property. They are also several years older and have a lower quality of construction class of 6.5. Both are end units and abut a ravine which may offset some differences. On balance, the Board finds them to be inferior to the Subject Property on account of age of build, total building area and a single attached garage.

71The Board finds the property at 43 Fred Barnard Way to have similar building area and a double attached garage. It is also an interior unit. However, it is older, abuts a ravine and also has 1,000 sq. ft. of finished basement area that adds additional living space. The evidence before the Board includes an MLS listing for this property which references “upgrades galore” with “an unbeatable view of lush trees, pond and gardens”. The Board finds this property to be reasonably comparable to the Subject Property. Its time adjusted sale of $643,886 supports the Subject Property’s sale of $659,000.

72For all of these reasons, the Board finds the Subject Property’s current value as of the January 1, 2016 valuation date is $659,000.

Whether there should be an equitable reduction of the current value pursuant to s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act, and, if so, what should the amount of this reduction be?

MPAC’s Evidence and Submissions

73Ms. Thow relies on an “Equity Analysis Report” that considers the time adjusted sales of 30 residential condominium properties that occurred between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2017 located within 3.2 kilometres of the Subject Property.

74In her Report, Ms. Thow states that the level of appraisal is established by determining the median ASR in the sales sample. For purposes of the equity test, MPAC takes the position that equity is achieved if the median ASR falls between 0.95 and 1.05. In this case, the median ASR is 0.916.

75Ms. Thow asserts that based on her analysis, similar properties in the vicinity have not been assessed at or near their current values and that an equity adjustment is required. Applying the median ASR of 0.916 to the value of $710,000 results in an equitable value of $650,000.

76Mr. Cranney states that MPAC is not seeking a higher assessment. Applying the median ASR of 0.916 to the sale value of $659,000 results in an equitable value of $603,444. . It is his position that the assessment should be reduced from $631,000 to $597,000 for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

Appellant’s Evidence and Submissions

77Ms. Richman takes the position that the Subject Property is inequitably assessed in relation to similar properties and should be assessed lower than its current value of $659,000.

Board’s Analysis and Findings

78Ms. Thow relies on an Equity Analysis Report whose sample of time adjusted sales produced a median ASR of 0.916 that supports an equity adjustment.

79Ms. Richman agrees that the Subject Property is inequitably assessed and that the current value should be adjusted downward.

80Applying the median ASR of 0.916 to the current value of $659,000 results in an equitable value of $603,644.

81However, upon a closer review of the sales used in MPAC’s ASR Study, the Board notes that it includes seven sales on Fred Barnard Way with ASRs that range from 0.684 to 0.943. The median ASR is 0.873. This is the ASR for 43 Fred Barnard Way that the Board found to be reasonably comparable to the Subject Property. As stated above in the analysis in connection with the 2012 assessment, the Board found properties on Fred Barnard Way to be similar to the Subject Property as residential condominium townhouses and located in the Subject Property’s vicinity.

82The property at 50 Bill Knowles Street is also included in MPAC’s study has an ASR of 0.959. Including this ASR into the sample of sales on Fred Barnard Way results in a median ASR of 0.8765. The Board finds the rest of the sample of sales not to be similar property.

83Applying the median ASR of 0.8765 to the Subject Property’s current value results in an equitable value of $577,000.

84For all of these reasons, the Board finds that the evidence supports the conclusion that an equitable adjustment is required. Therefore, the current value of $659,000 is reduced to an equitable assessment of $577,000.

85The assessment of the Subject Property is reduced from $631,000 to $577,000 for the 2017 taxation year and from $597,000 to $577,000 for the 2018 taxation year.

CONCLUSION

86The Board finds that the current value of the Subject Property, as of the January 1, 2012 valuation date, is $535,000. Furthermore, the Board finds that the evidence before it supports the conclusion that an equitable adjustment is required under s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act. Therefore, the current value of $535,000 is reduced to $500,000.

87The assessment of the Subject Property located at 7 Bill Knowles Street is reduced from $564,000 to $500,000 for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

88The Board finds that the current value of the Subject Property, as of the January 1, 2016 valuation date, is $659,000. Furthermore, the Board finds that the evidence before it supports the conclusion that an equitable adjustment is required under s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act. Therefore, current value of $659,000 is reduced to $577,000.

89The assessment of the Subject Property located at 7 Bill Knowles Street is reduced from $631,000 to $577,000 for the 2017 taxation year and from $597,000 to $577,000 for the 2018 taxation year.