Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE:
January 19, 2018
FILE NO.:
WR 149293
Assessed Person(s):
David Warren Goodfellow
Appellant(s):
David Warren Goodfellow
Respondent(s):
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region No. 32
Respondent(s):
Town of Sioux Lookout
Property Location(s):
Dairy Cow Drive and Sturgeon Meadows Road
Municipality(ies):
Town of Sioux Lookout
Roll Number(s):
See attached Schedule “A”
Appeal Number(s):
See attached Schedule “A”
Taxation Year(s):
2015 and 2016
Hearing Event No.:
687864
Legislative Authority:
Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended
Heard:
November 14, 2017 by telephone conference call
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Representative
David Goodfellow
Self-represented
MPAC
Carlene Steiner
Town of Sioux Lookout
No one appeared
DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY MARCELLE BOURASSA
BACKGROUND
1David Warren Goodfellow (the “Appellant) owns 12 vacant residential lands (not on water) located at Dairy Cow Drive and Sturgeon Meadows Road (the “Subject Properties” in the Town of Sioux Lookout (the “Municipality”).
2The Appellant has been in the process of developing these lots for a mobile home subdivision described as the Diary Cow Subdivision for some years. A dispute has arisen with the Municipality and the Appellant asserts that the Municipality has refused to grant him building permits to allow him to finalize the subdivision agreement.
3MPAC’s representative, Carlene Steiner (“MPAC’s Representative”), stated that the 2012 Current Value Assessments (“CVA”) as at the January 1, 2012 valuation date are as follows or the Subject Properties as set out in Table 1.
Table 1
Roll Number
Valuation day as of January 1, 2012 ($)
6034-920-001-06322-0000
49,500
6034-920-001-06324-0000
50,000
6034-920-001-06326-0000
49,500
6034-920-001-06330-0000
49,000
6034-920-001-06332-0000
49,500
6034-920-001-06338-0000
49,000
6034-920-001-06340-0000
49,000
6034-920-001-06342-0000
49,000
6034-920-001-06344-0000
49,000
6034-920-001-06346-0000
49,000
6034-920-001-06348-0000
49,000
6034-920-001-06350-0000
49,500
4MPAC’s Representative also stated that assessments for the Subject Properties were returned as follows for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years as set out in Table 2:
Table 2
Roll Number
2015 Taxation Year Value ($)
2016 Taxation Year Value ($)
6034-920-001-06322-0000
47,250
24,500
6034-920-001-06324-0000
47,875
25,000
6034-920-001-06326-0000
47,250
24,500
6034-920-001-06330-0000
46,875
24,500
6034-920-001-06332-0000
47,250
24,500
6034-920-001-06338-0000
46,875
24,500
6034-920-001-06340-0000
46,975
24,500
6034-920-001-06342-0000
46,875
24,500
6034-920-001-06344-0000
46,875
24,500
6034-920-001-06346-0000
46,875
24,500
6034-920-001-06348-0000
46,875
24,500
6034-920-001-06350-0000
47,250
24,500
5MPAC’s Representative stated that MPAC offered to reduce the 2016 taxation year values during the Request for Reconsideration process in order to address the impact of the issues between the Appellant and the Municipality in respect to the Dairy Cow Subdivision, as raised by the Appellant. The values for the 2016 taxation year reflect the offer that was rejected by the Appellant.
6The Appellant does not dispute that the 2012 CVAs for the Subject Properties are correct. He concedes that the 2012 CVAs for the Subject Properties would be the correct values but for the subdivision dispute, which he asserts significantly reduces their value. It is the Appellant’s position that MPAC’s assessments of the Subject Properties for these taxation years are too high and that the correct assessed value for each of them is $4,166. The Subject Properties should be assessed as though they are one lot and therefore assessed at 1/12 of $50,000 (the 2012 CVAs, as rounded) or $4,166 per lot.
7At this hearing, MPAC’s Representative now takes the position that each of the Subject Properties should be assessed at values that range from $12,250 to $12,500, which is a 75% reduction of their 2012 CVAs for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.
8The Appellant did not assert that an equitable reduction is required pursuant to s. 44.(3)(b) of the Assessment Act (“Act”). MPAC’s Representative takes the position that an equitable reduction is not required.
9Pursuant to s. 40(11) of the Act, the Municipality is a party to this proceeding. However, no one from the Municipality appeared at the hearing.
10The parties agreed that these appeals should be heard together.
DECISION
11At the completion of the hearing, the Board reserved its decision. For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that the Subject Properties should be assessed at 75% of their respective 2012 CVAs for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.
12Accordingly, for the 2015 taxation year, the assessments are reduced as follows:
Table 3
Roll Numbers
From ($)
To ($)
6034-920-001-06322-0000
47,250
12,375
6034-920-001-06324-0000
47,875
12,500
6034-920-001-06326-0000
47,250
12,375
6034-920-001-06330-0000
46,875
12,250
6034-920-001-06332-0000
47,250
12,375
6034-920-001-06338-0000
46,875
12,250
6034-920-001-06340-0000
46,875
12,250
6034-920-001-06342-0000
46,875
12,250
6034-920-001-06344-0000
46,875
12,250
6034-920-001-06346-0000
46,875
12,250
6034-920-001-06348-0000
47,250
12,250
6034-920-001-06350-0000
49,500
12,375
13For the 2016 taxation year, the assessments are reduced as follows:
Table 4
Roll Numbers
From ($)
To ($)
6034-920-001-06322-0000
24,500
12,375
6034-920-001-06324-0000
25,000
12,500
6034-920-001-06326-0000
24,500
12,375
6034-920-001-06330-0000
24,500
12,250
6034-920-001-06332-0000
24,500
12,375
6034-920-001-06338-0000
24,500
12,250
6034-920-001-06340-0000
24,500
12,250
6034-920-001-06342-0000
24,500
12,250
6034-920-001-06344-0000
24,500
12,250
6034-920-001-06346-0000
24,500
12,250
6034-920-001-06348-0000
24,500
12,250
6034-920-001-06350-0000
24,500
12,375
Relevant Legislation
14Section 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.
15Section 19.(1) of the Act states:
19.(1) Assessment based on current value. – The assessment of land shall be based on its current value.
16Section 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:
For the 2006, 2007 and 2008 taxation years, land is valued as of January 1, 2005.
For the period consisting of the four taxation years from 2009 to 2012, land is valued as of January 1, 2008.
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.
17Section 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.
18Section 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 i 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.
ISSUE
19The 2012 CVAs for the Subject Properties are not in issue. The parties agree that the assessments as returned for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years should be reduced to address the impact of the issues between the Appellant and the Municipality in respect to the Dairy Cow Subdivision. At issue is the quantum of the adjustment. Neither party asserts that an equitable adjustment is required under s. 44.(3) of the Act.
Discussion, Analysis and Findings
MPAC’s Evidence
20MPAC’s Representative stated that she agrees that the assessments as returned for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years should be reduced. She recommends that each of the Subject Properties should be assessed at values that range from $12,250 to $12,500, which is a 75% reduction of their 2012 CVAs for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years. She pointed out that the recommended reduction is not based on market evidence. Rather, it is a temporary reduction until the issues between the Appellant and the Municipality are resolved. The Appellant is deemed not to be in compliance with registering the easements required by the Town and the Town has decided not to issue any further building permits until all conditions of the agreement are met. She considers her recommendation to be reasonable and fair under all of the circumstances.
MPAC’s Submissions
21MPAC’s Representative recommends that the each of the Subject Properties should be assessed at values that range from $12,250 to $12,500, which is a 75% reduction of their 2012 CVAs for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.
Appellant’s Evidence
22The Appellant provided evidence on his own behalf. He asserts in his Statement of Issues that the Municipality refuses to grant him building permits for theses lots. These are rural residential lots and the reason he did the subdivision in the first place was to be able to lease out these lots. He also asserts that the Municipality is refusing to allow him to finalize the Dairy Cow Subdivision so neither can he build on these lots nor can he sell them. He is of the opinion that the these lots have no real value until he can get the Municipality to grant him building permits and allow him to finalize the subdivision agreement and he can start building. In the meantime, he is locked in limbo. He also expressed his view that the Municipality should not be rewarded with the payment of taxes on these lots, which he asserts are basically worthless.
23The Appellant’s evidence included four letters between himself and the Municipality dating back to 2008 pertaining to the Dairy Cow plan of subdivision and the requirements for building permits and the Certificate of Completion. He also submitted an article from the National Post about a decision of the Nova Scotia appeal tribunal involving a seaside home where the owner had found a Mi’kmaq artifact on his property. According to the article, the owner was successful in arguing that the value of his seaside home should be reduced to $1 in light of his inability to guarantee clear title to anyone interested in purchasing it arguing that it was a matter of time before his house became the subject of a Mi’kmaq land claim.
24The Appellant stated that the subdivision is built, the road has been completed (and is maintained at his own expenses as the Municipality has yet to assume it) and easements (including drainage and the installation of Bell and Hydro utilities) have been completed as per the subdivision agreement. A lot cannot be improved until he is granted a building permit. Typically, he would enter into a land lease agreement with the tenant. He would put in a pad, a well and a septic field. A mobile home would then be installed.
25The Appellant concedes that the 2012 CVAs for the Subject Properties would be the correct values but for the subdivision dispute, which he asserts significantly reduces their value.
Appellant’s Submissions
26The Appellant submits that the Subject Properties should be assessed as though they are one lot and therefore assessed at 1/12 of $50,000 (the 2012 CVAs, as rounded) or $4,166 per lot.
Analysis and Findings
27The 2012 CVAs for the Subject Properties are not in issue. Neither party asserts that an equitable adjustment is required under s.44. (3) of the Act.
28The substantive issue in these appeals is the extent to which the current impasse respecting the issuance of building permits by the Municipality that would allow the Appellant to finalize the subdivision agreement for the Dairy Cow Subdivision and start
building negatively impacts the assessed values of the Subject Properties for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.
29Both parties agree that this is an unusual situation that requires a reduction.
30The reductions proposed by each party are not market based.
31MPAC’s Representative recommends that the each of the Subject Properties should be assessed at values that range from $12,250 to $12,500, which is a 75% reduction of their 2012 CVAs for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years. She referred to it as a temporary reduction until the issues between the Appellant and the Municipality are resolved.
32The Appellant is of the opinion that each of the Subject Properties should be assessed at $4,166. More specifically, each lot should be assessed at 1/12 of $50,000 (the 2012 CVAs, as rounded). The Appellant has expressed his opinion that the Subject Properties have no real value until he can get the Municipality to grant him building permits and allow him to finalize the subdivision agreement and start building. However, he did not adduce evidence by a qualified person to support this opinion. The Board is not persuaded that the evidence adduced at the hearing supports the lower value as requested by the Appellant. The Board is not persuaded that should the Appellant choose to abandon his plan to develop the Subject Properties, he would willingly sell the properties at a nominal value, particularly because he acknowledges that 2012 CVAs for the Subject Properties would be the correct values but for the subdivision dispute. The Board also finds that it is far from clear that a willing seller would discount the sale price of the Subject Properties by as much as 75% in these circumstances, because as MPAC’s representative has stated, this impasse is only a temporary situation.
33The Board must exercise subjective judgement in making its determination. Both parties agree that this is an unusual situation that requires a reduction. In this regard, the Board notes that, although the Appellant wishes a reduction that is closer to 90%, he obviously agrees it should not be less than 75%. So, there is consensus on this point. While the Board is not bound by an agreement between the parties, in the circumstances of this case, the Board is prepared to be guided by their consensus. Therefore, the Board accepts that the each of the Subject Properties should be assessed at values that range from $12,250 to $12,500, which is a 75% reduction of their 2012 CVAs for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.
CONCLUSION
34Therefore, the Board finds that the Subject Properties should be assessed at 75% of their respective 2012 CVAs for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.
35Accordingly, for the 2015 taxation year, the assessments are reduced as set out in Table 3 above.
36Accordingly, for the 2016 taxation year, the assessments are reduced as set out in Table 4 above.
“Marcelle Bourassa”
MARCELLE BOURASSA
MEMBER
Assessment Review Board
A constituent tribunal of Environment and Land Tribunals Ontario
Website: www.elto.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248
Schedule “A”
Schedule “A”