Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: March 13, 2018 FILE NO.: WR 150092

Assessed Person(s): Dana Flavelle Appellant(s): Dana Flavelle Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 09 Respondent(s): City of Toronto

Property Location(s): 86 Victoria Park Avenue Municipality(ies): City of Toronto Roll Number(s): 1901-011-020-05610-0000 Appeal Number(s): 3237386 Taxation Year(s): 2017 Hearing Event No.: 688269

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

Heard: December 11, 2017 by telephone conference call

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Dana Flavelle	Self-represented
MPAC	Chris Vallier
City of Toronto	No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY MARCELLE BOURASSA

INTRODUCTION

1The Subject Property is located at 86 Victoria Park Avenue in the City of Toronto in the neighbourhood known as “The Beach.” It is a two-storey single family detached property constructed in 1999 with 2,940 square feet (“sq. ft.”) of total building area and a finished basement area of 1,000 sq. ft. MPAC has assigned it a quality of construction rating of 7. It has 25 feet (“ft.”) of effective frontage and an effective site area of 0.15 acres. The property receives a positive 4% variable adjustment for abutting a ravine and a negative 5% variable adjustment for light traffic.

2For the 2017 taxation year under appeal, MPAC returned the assessment of the Subject Property at $1,568,000.

3The Appellant, Dana Flavelle, has appealed the assessment for the 2017 taxation year to the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”), pursuant to s. 40 of the Assessment Act (“Act”). It is the Appellant’s position that MPAC’s assessment is too high and that the correct current value should be set $1,412,000 for the full four year cycle. It is her position that this value reflects the assessment for the 2017 taxation year for an identical property located next door to the Subject Property at 88 Victoria Park Avenue and that the Subject Property should be fairly assessed at the same value.

4Pursuant 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 2017-2020, the Subject Property is valued as of January 1, 2016. MPAC’s representative, Chris Vallier, stated that the current value for the Subject Property should be about $1,650,000 based on the direct sales comparison approach. However, using its mass appraisal method, MPAC’s model generated the 2016 current value assessment (“CVA”) of $1,568,000, which is lower. In this proceeding, a primary consideration relates to an identical property located next door to the Subject Property at 88 Victoria Park Avenue, which MPAC assessed lower at $1,412,000 for the 2017 taxation year, due to a negative a 10% adjustment that was carried through from previous years. MPAC maintains that this adjustment should have been removed for the 2017 taxation year. A similar negative 10% adjustment was removed from the calculation of current value for the Subject Property for the 2012 CVA. Mr. Vallier indicated that the assessment for 88 Victoria Park Avenue would be adjusted upwards to $1,568,000, effective January 1, 2018. Due to this error, MPAC is prepared to set the assessment of the Subject Property at $1,412,000 for only the 2017 taxation year. MPAC maintains that the 2016 CVA of $1,568,000 is correct and, therefore, this value should apply to the 2018 to 2020 taxation years. MPAC also takes the position that no further equity adjustment other than the adjustment for the 2017 taxation year is required under the Assessment Act (the “Act”).

5Under the Act, the Assessment Review Board (“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

6For 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, 2016, at $1,412,000, which will apply to each taxation year in the four year cycle. Furthermore, the Board finds that the evidence does not lead to the conclusion that the current value, as determined above, is inequitable relative to the assessments of similar lands and does not require a further adjustment under s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act.

7Accordingly, for the 2017 taxation year, the assessment is reduced from $1,568,000 to $1,412,000.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Legislation

8Section 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.

9Section 19.(1) of the Act states:

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

10Section 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.

11Section 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.

12Section 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

13Mr. Vallier relies on a Valuation Report. He provided information on the sales of 12 properties with sales that occurred during the period of January 10, 2014 to August 3, 2017 that he maintains support the 2016 CVA of $1,568,000 for the Subject Property. Property details are summarized below.

Address	Bldg. Area (sq. ft.)	Finished Basement (sq. ft.)	Year Built	Lot Size (acre)	Other	CVA	Time Adjusted Sale (“TAS”)	Comparability to Subject Property
86 Victoria Park Avenue (subject property)	2,940	1,000	1999	0.15	25 ft. frontage Q7	$1,568,000	N/A
52 Victoria Park Avenue* **	2,896	1,093	2007	0.1	-35 ft. frontage -Q 8	$2,145,000	$2,447,992 (07/02/14)	similar/ superior
70 Victoria Park Avenue* **	2,424	750	2016	0.07	-25 ft. frontage -Q7 -1 storey	$1,607,000	$1,570,796 (07/27/16)	superior but smaller
80 Victoria Park Avenue* **	2,556	1,157	2014	0.06	-21 ft. frontage -Q7.5	$1,490,000	$2,008,661 (05/23/14)	similar/ inferior
88 Blantyre Avenue	2,084	781	2008	0.11	-25 ft. frontage -Q7	$1,407,000	$1,637,521 (05/21/15)	inferior
43 Blantyre Avenue	2,341	269	1924 (eff. 1976)	0.1	-36.08 ft. Frontage -Q7 -21/4 storeys -“D” reno (1979)	$1,417,000	$1,578,876 (05/26/16)	inferior
93 Blantyne Avenue	2,471	918	2007`	0.1	-34 ft. Frontage -Q 7.5	$1,717,000	$1,452,702 (09/01/16)	similar/ inferior
181 Blantyne Avenue	2,044	792	2006	0.07	-25 ft. Frontage -Q7	$1,328,000	$1,324,674 (09/01/15)	Inferior
14 Falling-brook Road	2,710	1,000	1947 (eff. 2000)	0.12	-39.5 ft. frontage Q 6.5 -“C” reno (2005 added 1,279 sq. ft.)	$1,566,000	$1,811,763 (07/15/15)	inferior
128 Willow Avenue	2,818	858	2008	0.07	-25 ft. frontage -Q 7.5	$1,674,000	$2,045,539 (07/15/15)	similar/ superior
128 Willow Avenue	2,818	858	2008	0.07	-25 ft. Frontage -Q 7.5	$1,674,000	$1,811,821 ((07/29/16)	similar/ superior
9B Scarborough Road	2,612	619	2016	0.06	-25 ft. frontage -Q 7.5 -2 3/4 storeys	$1,730,000	$1,626,968 (11/10/16)	superior but smaller lot

• +4% abuts a ravine ** -5% light traffic ***abuts multi-residential

14Mr. Vallier states that the current value for the Subject Property should be about $1,650,000 based on the direct comparison approach. However, using its mass appraisal method, MPAC’s model determined that the value of the 2016 CVA is $1,568,000, which is lower. He added that, in his opinion, none of the sale comparables indicated a CVA less than $1,568,000.

15Mr. Vallier added that MPAC is prepared to change the 2017 taxation year assessment to $1,412,000 to match that of 88 Victoria Park Avenue due to the error in not removing the negative 10% adjustment carried through from previous years.

16Mr. Vallier also referred to an Equity Analysis Report that considered the TASs of 60 single family detached properties that occurred within the period of January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2016 and that are located within a radius of 0.75 kilometres from the Subject Property.

17In his report, Mr. Vallier states that the level of appraisal is established by determining the median Assessment to Sales Ratio (“ASR”) in the sales sample. The International Association of Assessing Officers (“IAAO”) standards state that the level of appraisal for all property types should fall between 0.90 - 1.10. In this instance, the sales sample produced a median ASR of 0.956 which is also within the target level of appraisal.

18Appraisal uniformity among individual properties is measured by determining the average percentage deviation from the median ASR, known as the Coefficient of Dispersion (“COD”). In this case, the COD is 10.4% which is below the IAAO standard of CODs of not more than 15% for residential properties. It means that individual ASRs differ, on average by 10.4% from the median ASR which he states is a reasonably good result.

19Mr. Vallier submits that the 2016 CVA of $1,568,000 is correct and, therefore, this value should apply to the 2018 to 2020 taxation years. He also submits that no further equity adjustment other than the adjustment for the 2017 taxation year is required.

Appellant’s Case

20Ms. Flavelle stated that she discovered that the property next door was assessed lower than her own property from MPAC’s website. She submitted a Request for Reconsideration which was rejected without explanation. She then pursued the appeal process to the Board and paid the requisite non-refundable fee. It took a long while to get an explanation. She was told it was a mistake. Eventually, she got the explanation as provided at the hearing. She added that she still does not understand how the 10% discount was derived.

21Ms. Flavelle is of the opinion that the Subject Property’s CVA should be set at $1,412,000 for the full four year cycle.

22She commented on MPAC’s comparables noting that most are either newer homes or sit on wider lots or both. She asserts that these are features for which buyers will pay a hefty premium. She submits that these are not fair comparisons and that they skew the average assessed value to a much higher level.

23She provided some specific examples and noted that the following properties should not be considered as comparable:

-52 Victoria Park Avenue – it is a wider lot with 35 ft. of frontage, a higher quality of construction rating of 8, a huge two car garage with useable space above it, it is closer to the lake and its usable table land is larger as the ravine starts to level off. It is one of the most desirable properties on the street and its higher CVA of $2,145,000 reflects this.

-128 Willow Avenue – it has a similar building area but it is newer having been built in 2008 and has a higher quality of construction rating of 7.5 that commands a premium price. It sold two times within a 12 month period. Its CVA is higher at $1,674,000.

-93 Blantyre Avenue – it is a wider lot with 34 ft. of frontage and was built more recently in 2007. Its CVA is higher at $1,717,000.

-9B Scarborough Road – is a newer home having been built in 2016 and has a higher quality of construction rating of 7.5. Its CVA is higher at $1,730,000.

24Ms. Flavelle stated that her property has had no renovations or upgrades. She referred to several properties in support of her position that the CVA should be $1,412,000. She selected properties that she knew sold for roughly the same amount or more than her own property when it was purchased in 2001 for $605,000. She maintains that no obvious changes have been made to those other properties since then and emphasizes that they are all assessed at a lower value than her property. She also referred to some newer properties with more recent sales that were valued lower than MPAC’s determination of the 2016 CVA for her property.

Address	Building Area (sq. ft.)	Finished Basement Area (sq. ft.)	Year Built	Lot Size (acres)	Other	CVA	Sale (TAS)
86 Victoria Park Avenue (subject property)	2,940	1,000	1999	0.15	25 ft. frontage Q7	$1,658,000	N/A
90 Victoria Park Avenue	2,202	988	1966	0.15	25 ft. frontage Q 6.5 Renovated & sold	$1,511,000	N/A
80 Victoria Park Avenue	2,556	1,157	2014	0.12	21 ft. frontage Q 7.5 Brand new home	$1,490,000	$2,008,661 (05/2014)
1A Blantyne Avenue	2,422	369	1988	0.07	25 ft. frontage Q 7 Renovated & sold around 2001	$1,292,000	N/A
32 Victoria Park Avenue	2,534	1,034	1979	0.09	25 ft. frontage Q 7 ½ storey	$1,519,000	N/A
110 Beech Avenue	1,875	350	1994	0.07	25 ft. frontage Q 7.5	$1,344,000	N/A
104 Fallingbrook	2,827	360	1922	0.14	50 Ft. frontage Q 6.5 Renovated	$1,472,000	$1,299,870 (04/2017)
165 Silver Birch Avenue	2,161	500	2002	0.07	.25 ft. frontage Q 7.5	$1,454,000	$1,549,400* (11/2015)
71 Victoria Avenue	2,478	485	2001	0.16	32 ft. Frontage Q 7	$1,544,000	N/A

Current Value

25The 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.

26The 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, 2016. This method acts as a benchmark and a gauge of the accuracy for the assessed value of the Subject Property and comparable properties.

27To 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.

28The Board has considered the properties in evidence with sales between January 1, 2015 and April 2017.

29The Board finds the following properties to be superior to the Subject Property.

3052 Victoria Park Avenue is similar in lot size at 0.1 acres and building size at 2,896 sq. ft. and subject to the same variables for light traffic and abutting a ravine. However, it has 35 ft. of frontage, a higher quality 8 construction rating and it is newer having been built in 2007. According to Ms. Flavelle, it also has a two car garage with useable space over it and is located closer to the lake and has more usable table land than the Subject Property. It has the highest TAS of $2,447,992.

3180 Victoria Park Avenue has a slightly smaller frontage at 21 ft., a smaller total building area of 2,556 sq. ft. and a smaller lot size at 0.06 acres and is subject to the same variables for light traffic and abutting a ravine. However, it is much newer having been built in 2014 and has a higher quality 7.5 construction rating. It has a TAS of $2,008,661.

3270 Victoria Park Avenue has the same frontage at 25 ft. and quality 7 construction rating, a slightly smaller total building area at 2,424 sq. ft., a smaller lot size at 0.07 acres and is subject to the same variables for light traffic and abutting a ravine. However, it is much newer having been built in 2016. It has a TAS of $1,570,796.

33128 Willow Avenue has the same frontage at 25 ft., is similar in total building area at 2,818 sq. ft. but has a smaller lot size at 0.07 acres. However, it is newer having been built in 2008 and has a higher quality 7.5 construction rating. It has a TAS of $2,045,569.

3488 Blantyre Avenue Willow has the same frontage at 25 ft. and same quality 7 construction rating, is similar in lot size at 0.11 acres and has a much smaller total building area at 2,084 sq. ft. However, it is newer having been built in 2008. It has a TAS of $1,637,521.

359B Scarborough Road has the same frontage at 25 ft., is similar in total building area at 2,612 sq. ft. but has a smaller lot at 0.06 acres. However, it is much newer having been built in 2016 and a higher quality 7.5 construction rating. It has a TAS of $1,626,968.

3693 Blantyne Avenue has a similar lot size at 0.1 acres but a smaller total building area at 2,471 sq. ft. However, it has 34 ft. of frontage and a higher quality 7.5 construction rating and is newer having been built in 2008. It has a TAS of $1,452,702.

37165 Silver Birch Avenue has as the same frontage at 25 ft. and a much smaller total building area at 2,161 sq. ft. and a smaller lot size at 0.07 acres. However, it is newer having been built in 2006 and has a higher quality 7.5 construction rating. It has a TAS of $1,549,400.

38The Board considers the following property as being inferior to the Subject Property.

39181 Blantyne Avenue has the same frontage at 25 ft. and quality 7 construction rating. However, it has the smallest total building area at 2,044 sq. ft. and a smaller lot size at 0.07 acres. It is newer having been built in 2006. It has a TAS of $1,324,674.

40The Board did not consider 43 Blantyre Avenue as a comparable given that it is a much older property having been constructed in 1922 that underwent a “D” renovation in 1979. The Board also did not consider 104 Fallingbrook Road as it is a much older property having been construction in 1947 that underwent a “C” renovation in 2005. It also has a lower quality 6.5 construction.

41Based on the sales evidence before it, the Board finds that the current value for the Subject Property lies within the TAS range of $1,324,674 (the TAS of the inferior property property) and $1,452,702 (the lower end of the TAS range for the superior properties of $1,452,702 to $2,447,992). The midpoint of the range is $1,388,688 which is close to the value $1,412,000 asserted by Ms. Flavelle and which the Board is prepared to accept. The Board, therefore, sets the current value for the Subject Property at $1,412,000.

Equity with Similar Lands in the Vicinity

42Mr. Vallier also relies on an Equity Analysis Report that considered the TASs of 60 single family detached properties that occurred within the period of January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2016 and that are located within a radius of 0.75 kilometres from the Subject Property.

43In his report, Mr. Vallier states that the level of appraisal is established by determining the median ASR in the sales sample. The IAAO standards state that the level of appraisal for all property types should fall between 0.90 -1.10. In this instance, the sales sample produced a median ASR of 0.956 which is also within the target level of appraisal.

44In this case, the COD is 10.4% which is below the IAAO standard of CODs of not more than 15% for residential properties. It means that individual ASRs differ, on average by 10.4% from the median ASR.

45Mr. Valier submits that no further equity adjustment is required other than the adjustment to the assessment for the 2017 taxation year to match that of 88 Victoria Park Avenue due to the error in not removing the negative 10% adjustment that was carried through from previous years.

46However, given the Board’s determination of the current value of the Subject Property of $1,412,000, which will apply to each taxation year in the four year cycle. The Board finds that no further equity adjustment is required.

CONCLUSION

47For 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, 2016, at $1,412,000, which will apply to each taxation year in the four year cycle. Furthermore, the Board finds that the evidence does not lead to the conclusion that the current value, as determined above, is inequitable relative to the assessments of similar lands and does not require a further adjustment under s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act.

48Accordingly, for the 2017 taxation year, the assessment is reduced from $1,568,000 to $1,412,000.