Lui v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2018 CanLII 14218

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

March 13, 2018

FILE NO.:

WR 150392

Assessed Person(s):

Sheila Laura Amy Lui, Radon Pak-Lun Lui

Appellant(s):

Radon Lui

Respondent(s):

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 23

Respondent(s):

City of London

Property Location(s):

869 Maitland Street

Municipality(ies):

City of London

Roll Number(s):

3936-020-260-08800-0000

Appeal Number(s):

3255655

Taxation Year(s):

2017

Hearing Event No.:

690365

Legislative Authority:

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

Heard:

January 17, 2018 in London, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel+/Representative

Sheila Laura Amy Lui, Radon Park-Lun Lui

Radon Lui

MPAC

Toban Edmunds

City of London

No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY TYRONE D. SKANES

ISSUE

1The appeal before the Assessment Review Board ("Board") was filed by Sheila Laura Amy Lui and Radon Pak-Lun Lui (the “Appellants”) in respect of the assessment of a single, detached family home located at 869 Maitland Street, the subject property (“SP”), for the 2017 taxation year.

2The two-storey 1,782 square foot ("sq. ft.") home was built in 1925 but has an effective year built of 1947 and is situated on a lot size of 6,216 sq. ft. It has an unfinished basement of 829 sq. ft. The Quality Class ("QC") is 6.5. There is an attached garage measuring 234 sq. ft. and the SP is situated on a corner lot.

3Toban Edmunds, representing MPAC, entered seven sales representing five comparable properties that he said were good comparators to the SP. He said he used the direct sales comparison approach to value to determine the current value assessment (“CVA”) of the SP at $357,000. He said that it was his opinion that this value was both fair and reasonable and recommended the Board confirm that value.

4Radon Lui, representing himself and his wife, said he purchased the SP in 1996 and since that time he has not improved the property in any way. He said that most of the interior of the home is the same as when it was built and he considers the condition of the house to be poor, as opposed to MPAC’ s assessment of it as being average. He did not enter any sales evidence but said that he was asking the Board to reduce the CVA of the SP to $296,000 based on similar assessment increases to other area properties.

5The issue before the Board for determination is whether the assessment of the SP for the 2017 taxation year is at current value and whether the assessment is equitable with the assessment of similar lands in the vicinity.

DECISION

6The Board is required by s. 44.(3)(a) and (b) of the Assessment Act (“Act”) to determine the current value of the land and have reference to the value at which similar lands in 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.

7The Board finds that the current value of the SP as of January 1, 2016, is $492,000 (rounded). This value is higher than the $357,000 CVA proposed by MPAC and MPAC is not seeking a higher assessment. Therefore, the Board will confirm the CVA of $357,000 and finds that it is equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Relevant Legislation

8Section 44.(3) of the Assessment 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.

MPAC's Position and Evidence

9Mr. Edmunds’s valuation report was entered into evidence as Exhibit 1 and his Equity Analysis as Exhibit 2. He testified that the direct sales comparison approach to value was used in determining the current value of the SP.

10Mr. Edmunds entered the sales of seven comparable properties that he opined were good comparators to the SP. He said that all of the comparable properties were in the same homogenous neighborhood and in fact were in very close proximity to each other. He said that only Property One had the same structure type as the SP, that being a two storey home. All of the rest were either one and three-quarters stories, two and one half stories, or three stories.

11Mr. Edmunds entered an Equity Analysis Report in which he examined the sales of 15 similar lands located within 0.2 kilometer of the SP. He testified that his analysis determined that the equitable assessment of the SP was $348,000, a value lower than the CVA but as this value fell within a 5% range of the CVA an adjustment for equity was not required.

12Mr. Edmunds summed up his presentation by saying that he believed the evidence proved that the recommended CVA value of $357,000 was fair and reasonable and recommended the Board confirm that value.

Appellant’s Position and Evidence

13Mr. Lui, representing himself and his wife, entered a documentary package into evidence as Exhibit 3. There was a considerable amount of material in this exhibit but no recent sales. Mr. Lui focused his evidence on past assessments, the assessments of various properties in the area, and the cost of utilities for the SP. He also provided data relating to the fluctuation in housing prices in London over the years. He told the Board that he has not improved the property at all since purchasing it in 1996 and considers the condition to be poor, rather than MPAC’s opinion of average. He said that he has been unable to get the heating ducts in the SP cleaned because there is asbestos and the duct cleaning companies refuse to service the building until the asbestos has been removed.

14Mr. Lui said that he cannot understand how MPAC can assess the SP with a QC of 6.5 and then assess all of the comparable properties at 6.5, despite Properties Two, Four and Six having extensive renovations completed.

15Mr. Lui summed up his presentation by saying that all of the comparable properties were in better condition than the SP and he, therefore, is asking the Board to reduce the CVA to $296,000.

Board's Deliberations - Current Value

16The best evidence of current value is the sale of the SP if the sale meets the definition of current value on or near the valuation day. When no such sale occurs, as in this instance, the Board looks to the sale of similar properties in the vicinity to determine current value.

17The Board has carefully considered the testimony of the parties and the documentary evidence tendered as exhibits.

18The Board, when comparing properties, does not expect exactness or sameness. Therefore, the Board looks at similarity of characteristics, amenities and location to determine comparability.

19The Board usually considers the sales of comparable properties that have occurred within one year on either side of the valuation date as the ideal time period for consideration. The Board occasionally does extend the time period for considering comparable properties when the parties have demonstrated that there are an insufficient number of relevant sales during the ideal time period.

20MPAC entered seven sales of five properties in close proximity to the SP that the assessor opined were good comparators to the SP.

21The Board disagrees. The only comparable property to have the same structure type of two stories like the SP is Property One. All of the rest of the properties have either less, or more, stories than does the SP. If the assessor could not find any other two storey properties than he should have articulated this to the Board as to why he used the comparable properties that he did. The assessor said that he used the direct comparison approach in his analysis. The Board finds that Properties Two to Seven are not directly comparable to the SP and therefore disregards those properties from consideration. This leaves the Board with only Property One to consider.

22The Appellant did not enter any comparable sales into evidence for the Board to consider. Instead, he focused his argument on comparing his assessment to the assessments of other properties in the vicinity, without providing a foundation for the comparison. He also said that he did not understand how MPAC could justify the drastic difference in assessments from one assessment cycle to the next. He also talked about how he could not have his heating ducts cleaned due to the presence of asbestos and the cost of various utilities.

23The Appellant is not alone in owning an older home that has asbestos in it or that utilities may cost more in relation to many older homes. While these are legitimate concerns, the onus falls to the owner to remediate the asbestos particulate in the home and utilize various options to mitigate the cost of utilities.

24In regards to the increase between valuation dates the Board realizes that market conditions may change between valuation days. The Board acknowledges the Appellant’s dismay with the assessment increases from the 2012 to 2016 valuation days but there is nothing in the Act which requires there to be a correlation among assessments from one valuation period to another.

25Mr. Lui expressed great concern about how the SP was assessed, with a QC of 6.5, the same as the comparable properties despite some of them having been improved with recent renovations. He said that the interior of the SP was in poor condition as opposed to average, as stipulated by MPAC. However, he did not provide any evidence, either photographic or a home renovators report, to substantiate these claims. The Board was left with MPAC’s evidence that the SP was in average condition.

26While the Board is normally reluctant to use a single property in its analysis, it has to deal with the evidence tendered and the evidence in this instance is lacking and poor. Therefore, the Board will only use Property One to compare with the SP. Both properties are the same structure type, were initially built within two years of each other, have similar building and lot sizes. Neither property has a finished basement. The properties are located across the street from each other.

27Similarly, the Board is normally reluctant to only use one aspect of comparison but with a single property it is difficult to conduct any other type of comparative technique, such as bracketing. Therefore, the Board will utilize a per square foot analysis using the comparable property’s time adjusted sale price. That value is $276 per square foot.

28Applying this value of $276 to the SP’s square foot measurement of 1,782 returns a value of $491,832 or $492,000 (rounded) and the Board finds this value to be the CVA of the SP.

Board's Deliberations – Equity

29MPAC entered an equity analysis report into evidence in which the sales of 15 similar lands located within 0.2 kilometres of the SP were analyzed. The Board found the CVA of the SP to be $492,000 (rounded) and found that equity analysis fell within the margin of error and that no equity adjustment was required.

30The Appellant did not present any equity evidence.

CONCLUSION

31The Board finds the CVA of the SP to be $492,000 (rounded). This value is higher than the value returned to the assessment roll and MPAC has not applied for a higher assessment. Therefore, the Board will confirm the assessment as proposed by MPAC at $357,000 for the 2017 taxation year.