Floyd Yuen Szeto v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2018 CanLII 14269

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: March 13, 2018 FILE NO.: WR 150493

Assessed Person(s): Floyd Yuen Szeto Appellant(s): Floyd Yuen Szeto Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 09, City of Toronto

Property Location(s): 20 Tom Wells Crescent Municipality(ies): City of Toronto Roll Number(s): 1901-113-480-18068-0000 Appeal Number(s): 3229455 Taxation Year(s): 2017 Hearing Event No.: 689777

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

Heard: January 18, 2018 in Toronto, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Floyd Yuen Szeto	Self-represented
MPAC	Mary Stiliadis
City of Toronto	No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY MARCELLE BOURASSA

BACKGROUND

1Floyd Yuen Szeto, (the “Appellant”) is the owner of 20 Tom Wells Crescent (the “Subject Property”) in the City of Toronto (the “Municipality’). It is a two-storey single family home (not on water) located on a pie-shaped lot with a total effective lot size is 4,076.86 square feet (“sq. ft.”) and 48.41 ft. of effective frontage. It has a 2,122 sq. ft. of total building area, a walk-out basement with 413 sq. ft. of finished basement area and a basement garage. The property was built in 2007 and MPAC has assigned it a quality of construction rating of 7.0.

2For the 2017 taxation year under appeal, MPAC returned the assessment for the Subject Property at $1,020,000.

3The Appellant 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 is $1,010,000. Furthermore, he expressed the view that MPAC overvalues homes on pie-shaped lots on Tom Wells Crescent such as the Subject Property relative to similar size homes on standard non-corner rectangular lots. It is his position that an equitable reduction is required and that the Subject Property would be more fairly assessed at $936,000.

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 consisting of the four taxation years from 2017 - 2020, the Subject Property is valued as of the legislated valuation date of January 1, 2016. MPAC’s representative, Mary Stiliadis, estimates the current value of the Subject Property to be $1,190,000, based on the direct comparison approach. Ms. Stiliadis also conducted an equity study and determined an equitable value of $1,059,000 for the Subject Property, which is higher than the assessment as returned of $1,020,000. Therefore, it is MPAC’s position that an equitable reduction pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act is not required. It is MPAC’s further position that its assessment as returned of $1,020,000 should be confirmed for the 2017 taxation year.

5Pursuant to s. 40(11) of the Act, the Municipality is a party to this proceeding. However, no one from the Municipality appeared at the hearing.

6At the completion of the hearing, the Board reserved its decision.

DECISION

7For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that the current value of the property as of the January 1, 2016 valuation date is $1,088,000. Furthermore, the Board finds that, to make the assessment of the Subject Property equitable with that of similar lands in the vicinity, it is necessary to reduce the assessment below the current value as determined from $1,088,000 to $968,000.

8Accordingly, the assessment of the Subject Property for the 2017 taxation year is reduced from $1,020,000 to $968,000.

RELEVANT LEGISLATION

9Section 1 of the Act states:

1. “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.

10Section 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.

11Section 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.

12Section 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.

13Section 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.

ISSUES

14The issue(s) to be determined on this appeal are:

1. What is the correct current value of the Subject Property as of the January 1, 2016 valuation date;
2. Whether there should be an equitable reduction of the current value as determined pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act, and, if so, what the amount of this reduction should be.

Discussion, Analysis and Findings

Issue No. 1: What is the correct current value of the Subject Property as of the January 1, 2016 valuation date?

MPAC’S Evidence

15MPAC’s Representative, Mary Stiliadis, relies on a Valuation Report that she prepared. This Report provides information on the sales of five properties, including four properties on Tom Wells Crescent and one property on Canongate Trail. All five properties are located in the same homogeneous neighbourhood as the Subject Property Time Adjusted Sales (“TAS”) ranging from $1,177,340 to $1,236,669.

16The property located at 1 Canongate Trail shares similarities with the Subject Property in terms of its lot size of 3,913.35 sq. ft., an effective frontage of 49.11 ft., total building area of 2,142 sq. ft., a finished basement area of 420 ft., a basement garage and the same year of build and quality of construction. However, it receives a negative 1% adjustment for its corner location. It sold on April 28, 2016 for $1,015,000 (TAS $1,184,881). Ms. Stiliadis considers that this property is comparable to the Subject Property.

17The property located at 31 Tom Wells Crescent, has an irregular shaped lot that is smaller at 3,323.25 sq. ft. and a smaller effective frontage of 42.32 ft. It shares similarities with the Subject Property in terms of total building area of 2,142 sq. ft., a finished basement area of 420 ft., a basement garage and the same year of build and quality of construction. It sold on July 19, 2016 for $1,280,000 (TAS $1,191,970). Ms. Stiliadis considers that this property is inferior to the Subject Property due its smaller lot size.

18The property located at 46 Tom Wells Crescent has been the subject of two sales and has a pie-shaped lot that is larger at 4,102.37 sq. ft. and has a slightly smaller effective frontage of 44.5 ft. It has a slightly larger total building area of 2,350 sq. ft. and a finished basement area of 534 ft. and a basement garage and the same year of build and quality of construction. It sold on September 30, 2014 for $970,000 (TAS $1,177,340). It sold again on August 26, 2016 for $1,300,000 (TAS 1,197,920). Ms. Stiliadis considers that this property is comparable to the Subject Property.

19The property located at 50 Tom Wells Crescent, has a pie-shaped lot which, at 5,620 sq. ft., is larger than the Subject Property lot, and has a slightly larger effective frontage of 52.15 ft. It also has a slightly larger total building area of 2,350 sq. ft. and a finished basement area of 534 ft. Like the Subject Property, it has a basement garage and the same year of build and quality of construction. Unlike the Subject Property, it abuts a green space but does not receive a positive adjustment. The property sold on July 21, 2016 for $1,328,000 (TAS $1,236,669). Ms. Stiliadis considers that this property is superior to the Subject Property as it has a larger lot and dwelling.

20The property located at 62 Tom Wells Crescent, has a regular shaped lot which, at 2,748.22 sq. ft., is smaller than the Subject Property, and has a smaller effective frontage of 31.86 ft. It has a slightly larger total building area of 2,350 sq. ft. and a finished basement area at 534 ft. Like the Subject Property, is has a basement garage and the same year of build and quality of construction. Unlike the Subject Property, it abuts a green space but does not receive a positive adjustment. It sold on September 17, 2014 for $980,000 (TAS $1,189,478). Ms. Stiliadis considers that this property is inferior to the Subject Property due to its smaller lot size.

21In response to Mr. Szeto’s evidence, Ms. Stiliadis stated that their data records do not reflect finished basement apartments in the homes located at 1 and 9 Canongate Trail and 31, 46, 50 and 62 Tom Wells Crescent. Building permits were not taken out and there have been no recent inspections of these properties. They are assessed as single family dwellings that generally sell for less. Below ground level suites are not assessed to the same extent. All depending on the size, a rental suite could add $20,000 to $30,000 to an assessed value.

22Based on the direct comparison approach, Ms. Stiliadis estimates the current value of the Subject Property to be within the range of $1,177,000 to $1,236,000.She estimates that the current value of the Subject Property is $1,190,000, which is the median of the six time adjusted sales.

MPAC Representative’s Submission

23Ms. Stiliadis submits that the correct current value of the Subject Property is estimated at $1,190,000.

Appellant’s Evidence

24Mr. Szeto represented himself.

25He stated that he has made no improvements to his home. He asserts that all of the homes in this development have a separate side entrance, a finished area on the ground level with a walk-out to the backyard. The finished area is at this level, behind the garage. He asserts that this is the area referenced in MPAC’s records as the finished basement area.

26Mr. Szeto expressed his opinion that the correct current value is $1,010,000 and that the sale of 9 Canongate Trail supports this value. He states that this property has the same total building area of 2,122 sq. ft., and a finished area of 413 sq. ft., a basement garage and the same year of build and quality of construction. He states that the main difference is the lot size, noting that this property has a smaller rectangular sized lot of 2,613 sq. ft. He points out that, unlike the Subject Property and, according to a MLS listing for 9 Canongate Trail, this property also has an additional bathroom. It sold in December 2014 for $858,000 (TAS $1,000,428).

27Mr. Szeto expressed his opinion that the properties at 1 Canongate Trail and 31 Tom Wells Crescent should not be considered as these properties have a corner lot and an interior corner lot locations at the bottom of the “U” crescent, respectively. It is his opinion that they are not appropriate comparables as they have side yards with useable space whereas the Subject Property does not.

28He also expressed his opinion that the Subject Property’s current value should be less than MPAC’s estimate of current value of $1,190,000. In support of this opinion, he noted the two TAS sale amounts for 46 Tom Wells Crescent, were only $20,000 apart and averaged $1,190,000. He agrees that this is a fair and accurate current value assessment for 46 Tom Wells Crescent. However, he expressed his opinion that 46 Tom Wells Crescent is superior to the Subject Property given its larger building area, finished basement area and lot size.

29Mr. Szeto also referenced MLS listings for 31, 46, 50 and 62 Tom Wells Crescent and 1 and 9 Canongate Trail that indicate that these properties have been improved with rental suites, as follows:

a) The property at 31 Tom Wells Crescent has an apartment (bedroom, full bathroom and kitchen) on the ground level and another bedroom and full bathroom on the basement level, with a separate entrance.

b) The property at 46 Tom Wells Crescent has an apartment (two bedrooms, full bathroom and kitchen) on the ground level with a separate entrance and another apartment (two bedrooms and full bathroom) in the basement level, with a separate entrance.

c) The property at 50 Tom Wells Crescent has an apartment (bedroom, full bathroom and a roughed in kitchen) in the basement level with a separate entrance.

d) The property at 62 Tom Wells Crescent, based on a February 2016 MLS listing, has an apartment (two bedrooms, full bathroom and a kitchen) on the ground floor level and another bedroom and full bathroom in the basement level, with a separate entrance.. It was pointed out by MPAC’s representative that her evidence refers to a 2014 sale and that it is possible that the property was improved after the sale. However, the Board notes that the Appellant’s evidence also includes a previous 2009 MLS listing for a 2009 sale that references the apartment on the ground level.

e) The property at 9 Canongate Trail has a separate main floor side entrance with an extra bedroom and bathroom. The potential for rental income is highlighted.

f) The property at 1 Canongate Trail has a separate entrance to the ground floor with a bedroom and bathroom. (The Appellant agreed with MPAC’s representative that the MLS listing does not emphasize the potential for rental income. However, he stated that it has a full basement apartment.)

30Mr. Szeto emphasized that these improvements have not been captured in MPAC’s records nor has MPAC taken into account the potential rental income. He expressed his view that one might expect to pay more for a property that could generate rental income of about $2,000 per month per unit.

Appellant’s Submissions

31The Appellant submits that the assessment as returned is overstated and that the correct current value is $1,010,000.

32The Appellant submits that properties with income producing basement apartments should be valued higher than the Subject Property that has not been improved. He noted that he is not an expert but suggested that one possibility to quantify the additional value would be to consider the cost of approximately $30,000 to $40,000 per unit.

Findings on Issue 1

33The 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.

34The 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. The measure acts as a benchmark and a gauge of the accuracy for the assessed value of the subject property and comparable properties.

35To 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.

36The Board has considered the six properties with sales in evidence.

37The property at 1 Canongate Trail shares similarities with the Subject Property in terms of its lot size of 3,913.35 sq. ft., an effective frontage of 49.11 ft., total building area of 2,142 sq. ft. on two upper levels and a finished ground level area of 420 ft. It has a basement garage and the same year of build and quality of construction as the Subject Property. According to an MLS listing this area includes a fourth bedroom and a bathroom. The Appellant agreed with MPAC’s representative that the MLS listing does not emphasize the potential for rental income. However, the Board finds that the MLS listing does emphasize recent upgrades including hardwood flooring, a renovated kitchen with granite counters and stainless steel appliances and five bedrooms. MPAC’s data may not have captured these improvements but the market has. It has a TAS of $1,184,881. The Appellant also expressed the view that this property should not be considered as a comparable given its side yard with useable space which is desirable. The Board does not find this factor in itself to be determinative. However, the Board finds this property to be slightly superior to the Subject Property given the noted renovated kitchen and other upgrades.

38The property at 31 Tom Wells Crescent has an irregular shaped lot that is smaller at 3,323.25 sq. ft. and a smaller effective frontage of 42.32 ft. It shares similarities with the Subject Property in terms of total building area of 2,142 sq. ft. and a finished ground level area of 420 ft. It has a basement garage and the same year of build and quality of construction. According to the MLS listing for 31 Tom Wells Crescent, it has an apartment (bedroom, full bathroom and kitchen) on the ground level and another bedroom and full bathroom in the basement and a separate entrance, The MLS listing emphasizes upgrades such as hardwood flooring, crown molding, pot lights, new paint and the rental income potential MPAC’s data may not have captured these improvements but the market has. It has a TAS of $1,191,970. The Board finds this property to be slightly superior to the Subject Property given the two rental units.

39The property at 46 Tom Wells Crescent which has a pie-shaped lot that is slightly larger at 4,102.37 sq. ft. and has a slightly smaller effective frontage of 44.5 ft. It has a slightly larger total building area of 2,350 sq. ft. and finished ground level area of 534 ft. It has a basement garage and the same year of build and quality of construction. According to the MLS listing, it has an apartment (two bedrooms, full bathroom and kitchen) on the ground level with a separate entrance and another apartment (two bedrooms and full bathroom) in the basement level. MPAC’s data may not have captured these improvements but the market has. It has two sales with TAS of $1,177,340 and $1,197,920, respectively. The Board finds this property to be superior to the Subject Property given its larger lot size and total building area and its two rental units.

40The property at 50 Tom Wells Crescent has a pie-shaped lot that is larger at 5,620 sq. ft. and has a slightly larger effective frontage of 52.15 ft. It has a slightly larger total building area of 2,350 sq. ft. and finished area at the ground level of 534 ft. Like the Subject Property is has a basement garage and the same year of build and quality of construction. Unlike the Subject Property, it abuts a green space but receives no positive adjustment. Also, according to the MLS listing for 50 Tom Wells Crescent, it has an apartment (bedroom, full bathroom and a roughed in kitchen) in the basement level with a separate entrance. MPAC’s data may not have captured these improvements but the market has. It sold on July 21, 2016 for a TAS of $1,236,669. The Board finds this property to be superior to the Subject Property given its larger lot size and total building area, the fact that it abuts a green space and the rental unit in the basement.

41The property at 62 Tom Wells Crescent has a regular shaped lot that is smaller at 2,748.22 sq. ft. and has a smaller effective frontage of 31.86 ft. It has a slightly larger total building area of 2,350 sq. ft. and finished area at the ground level of 534 ft. Like the Subject Property is has a basement garage and the same year of build and quality of construction. Unlike the Subject Property, it abuts a green space but receives no positive adjustment. Also, according to the MLS listing for a February 2016 sale for 62 Tom Wells Crescent, it has an apartment (two bedrooms, full bathroom and a kitchen) on the ground floor level and another bedroom and full bathroom in the basement level, with a separate entrance. MPAC’s data may not have captured these improvements but the market has. It has two sales with a TAS of $1,189,478 and a TAS of $1,236,614, respectively. The Board finds this property to be superior to the Subject Property given its larger total building area, the fact that it abuts a green space and the rental units.

42The property located at 9 Canongate Trail has the same total building area of 2,122 sq. ft., and a finished area at the ground level of 413 sq. ft., a basement garage and the same year of build and quality of construction. The main difference appears to be the lot size and an additional bathroom on the ground floor area (according to a MLS listing for 9 Canongate Trail). It has a smaller rectangular sized lot of 2,613 sq. ft. It has a TAS of $1,000,428. The Board finds this property to be inferior to the Subject Property due to its smaller lot size.

43Based on the sales evidence, the Board finds the Subject Property’s current value to fall within the range of $1,000,428 (the TAS of the inferior property) and $1,177,340 (the lower end of the range of the superior properties). The Board sets the current value at the midpoint of the range at $1,088,884 or $1,088,000 (rounded).

Issue No. 2: Whether there should be an equitable reduction of the current value as determined pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act, and, if so, what should the amount of this reduction be.

MPAC’S Evidence

44Ms. Stiliadis also relies on an Equity Analysis Report that considered the time adjusted sales of 30 single family detached properties that occurred within the period of June 1, 2014 to December 31, 2016 and that are located within a radius of 2.4 kilometres from the Subject Property.

45In her report, she states that the level of appraisal is established by determining the median Assessment to Sale 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 0.89 which not within the target level of appraisal.

46Appraisal 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 8.3% 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 8.3% from the median ASR.

47Therefore, she concludes that on average, the properties in this neighbourhood are uniformly under assessed by 11% below their market values.

48Ms. Stiliadis determined an equitable value of $1,059,000 (rounded) by multiplying her estimate of current value of $1,190,000 by the median ASR of 0.89. This value is higher than the assessment as returned of $1,020,000. An upward equitable adjustment is not permitted under s. 44(3)(b) the Act. Therefore, the assessment as returned of $1,020,000 should be confirmed for the 2017 taxation year.

MPAC’s Submissions

49Ms. Stiliadis submits that there is no sales evidence to support the assertion that pie-shaped lots are overvalued. For instance, the TAS for the sales at 46 and 50 Tom Wells Crescent produced an average ASR of 0.89 which is the same result as the median ASR of 0.89 for the sample of 30 sales. These properties also sold for an average 11% higher than their current value assessments.

50Ms. Stiliadis submits that the assessment as returned of $1,020,000 should be confirmed for the 2017 taxation year.

Appellant’s Evidence

51Mr. Szeto expressed the view that MPAC overvalues homes on pie-shaped lots on Tom Wells Crescent such as the Subject Property relative to similar sized homes on standard rectangular lots. It is his position that the Subject Property would be more fairly assessed at $936,000 as compared to 9 Canongate Trail with a current value assessment (CVA) of $932,000.

52He noted that 50 Tom Wells Crescent has a pie-shaped lot that fans out the most. It has a TAS of $1,236,669 and a CVA of $1,118,000. The property at 62 Tom Wells Crescent is rectangular in shape and has a TAS of $1,189,478 and CVA of $985,000. They have the same total building area of 2,350 sq. ft. but 46 Tom Wells Crescent has a larger lot size. The difference in assessed values is $133,000 while the difference in TAS values is $47,000.

53He noted that 46 Tom Wells Crescent has a pie-shaped lot. It has a TAS of $1,177,340 and a CVA of 1,057,000. The property at 62 Tom Wells Crescent is rectangular in shape and has a TAS of $1,189,478 and current value assessment of $985,000. They have the same total building area of 2,350 sq. ft. but 46 Tom Wells Crescent has a larger lot size. The difference in assessed values is $72,000 while the difference in TAS values is $12,138.

54He concludes that houses on pie-shaped lots are not selling for significantly more than the houses on the standard non-corner rectangular lots. However, he expressed the view that MPAC overvalues homes on pie-shaped lots on Tom Wells Crescent such as the Subject Property relative to similar sized homes on standard rectangular lots.

Appellant’s Submissions

55The Appellant submits that an equitable reduction is required. The current value should be reduced and the Subject Property would be more fairly assessed at $936,000, as compared to 9 Canongate Trail with a CVA of $932,000.

Findings on Issue 2

56Section 44.(3)(b)of the Act states that “…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 land.”

57The purpose of equitable adjustment has been described 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 application of 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.

58In 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]”.

59The term “vicinity” is not defined in the Act, but refers to the appropriate geographical area that will yield meaningful comparables (see Ontario Regional Assessment Commissioner, Region No. 3 v. Graham, 1993 CanLII 8621 (Ont. C.A.) at page 6).

60The test set out in s. 44(3)(b) of the Act, requires that the Board refer to similar lands in the vicinity. In determining whether other lands are similar, the Ontario Divisional Court, in Municipal Property Assessment Corp. v. Loblaw Properties Ltd., 2017 ONSC 1299, 62 M.P.L.R. (5th) 253, 2017 CarswellOnt 2861, 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.

61Considering an ASR study using a reasonable sample of property sales is one method to establish equity.

62The MPAC Representative’s Equity Analysis Report considered the time adjusted sales of 30 single family detached properties that occurred within the period of June 1, 2014 to December 31, 2016 and that are located within a radius of 2.4 kilometres from the Subject Property. In this instance, the sales sample produced a median ASR of 0.89 which is not within the accepted range of tolerance proposed by the “IAAO” of 0.90 -1.10.

63The Appellant expressed the view that MPAC overvalues homes on pie-shaped lots on Tom Wells Crescent such as the subject property relative to similar size homes on standard rectangular lots. However, the Board finds that the TAS for the sales at 46 and 50 Tom Wells Crescent with pie-shaped lots produced an average ASR of 0.89 which is the same result as the median ASR of 0.89 for the sample of 30 sales. These properties also sold for an average 11% higher than their respective current value assessments.

64For the reasons above, the Board finds the 30 sales of single family detached properties located within 2.4 kilometres of the subject property to be the most persuasive evidence and determines that an equity adjustment is required. The evidence shows that these properties are at a substantially lower level of assessment than their correct current values. Therefore, the Board must determine the amount of the reduction. The Board finds that utilizing the median ASR of 0.89 as a percentage reduction of current value, is a reasonable approach. The current value of $1,088,000 as determined above multiplied by 0.89 equals $968,320 or $968,000 (rounded).

CONCLUSION

65In summary, the Board finds that the current value of the property as of the January 1, 2016 valuation date is $1,088,000. Furthermore, the Board finds that, to make the assessment of the Subject Property equitable with that of similar lands in the vicinity, it is necessary to reduce the assessment below the current value as determined from $1,088,000 to $968,000.

66Accordingly, the assessment of the Subject Property for the 2017 taxation year is reduced from $1,020,000 to $968,000.