Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: April 03, 2018
Assessed Person(s): Betty Stavropoulos and Tom Stavropoulos
Appellant(s): Tom Stavropoulos
Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 09
Respondent(s): City of Toronto
Property Location(s): 264 Calvington Drive
Municipality(ies): City of Toronto
Roll Number(s): 1908-032-570-18200-0000
Appeal Number(s): 3256891
Taxation Year(s): 2017
Hearing Event No.: 689885
Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended
Heard: November 23, 2017 in Toronto, Ontario
APPEARANCES:
Parties Representative
Betty Stavropoulos and Tom Stavropoulos Self-represented
MPAC James Twist
City of Toronto No one appeared
DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY MARCELLE BOURASSA
INTRODUCTION
1The Subject Property is a single family detached home (not on water) located at 264 Calvington Drive in the City of Toronto. It has 3,124 square feet (“sq. ft.”) of total building area in addition to an attached two-car garage. There is no finished basement area. The property was built in 1952 and underwent a “D” renovation in 2001 that included an addition of 2,077 sq. ft. and has an effective year built of 1999. MPAC has assigned it a quality of construction rating of 7.0. The total effective lot size is 6,840 sq. ft. acres (or 0.14 acres) and includes 57 ft. of effective frontage. The property abuts a green space but does not receive a variable adjustment.
2For the 2017 taxation year under appeal, MPAC returned the assessment for the Subject Property at $935,000.
3James Twist, representing MPAC, stated that he determined a current value of $1,063,000 based on the direct comparison approach. He then determined an equitable assessment of $990,000. As the equitable assessment was higher than the assessment as returned, no equity adjustment is permitted under the Assessment Act (“Act”). Accordingly, he submits that the assessment as returned at $935,000 should be confirmed for the 2017 taxation year.
4The Appellant, Tom Stavropoulos, submits that the Subject Property is over assessed and that the fair assessment is $836,736. He asserts that reducing similar sized homes in the neighbourhood to a square foot calculation is the only technique that allows for a reliable one to one comparison of each property to one another. He relies on the average assessed value per square foot of $267.85 for six properties located on Calvington Drive noting that MPAC revised the assessments for three of these properties in the final days of their discussions.
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 under s. 44.(3)(a) of the Act, the Board finds the current value of the Subject Property, as of the January 1, 2016, is 1,030,000. Furthermore, the Board finds that the evidence does not support the conclusion that the current value, as determined above, is inequitable relative to the assessments of similar lands and requires a further adjustment under s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act.
7The assessment as returned for the Subject Property of $935,000 is lower than the current value as determined of $1,030,000. MPAC is not seeking a higher assessment. Therefore, the assessment of the Subject Property is confirmed at $935,000 for the 2017 taxation year.
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Legislation
“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:
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.
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. Twist relies on a Valuation Report. He provided information on the sales of three properties. He submits that all three properties are very similar to the Subject Property in terms of location, site area, effective year built, quality class, number of storeys and total area.
14Mr. Twist submits that Sale 1 at 135 Calvington Drive is the most comparable property to the Subject Property as it is located on the same street, has a very similar lot size, identical quality class, similar effective year of build and similar total building area. It has not been renovated. It received a negative 2% adjustment for light traffic. It sold on June 22, 2016 for $1,100,000 or a time adjusted sales price of $1,030,573. Applying the time adjusted sale rate per square foot to the Subject Property results in an estimated current value of $1,063,000.
15Mr. Twist also submitted an Equity Analysis Report that considered the time adjusted sales of 18 residential properties located within 2 kilometres of the Subject Property that occurred within the period of January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2016.
16Mr. Twist stated 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 0.932 which is also within the target level of appraisal. He submits that similar properties in the vicinity have been assessed accurately and uniformly.
17Mr. Twist determined the equitable assessment by multiplying the estimated current value of $1,063,000 by the level of assessment of 0.932 resulting in the value of $990,000 (rounded). As the equitable assessment is higher than the assessment as returned, he submits that no equity adjustment is permitted under the Act.
18Therefore, he submits that the assessment as retuned of $935,000 should be confirmed for the 2017 taxation year.
Appellant’s Case
19Mr. Stavropoulos submits that the Subject Property is over assessed and that the fair assessment is $836,736 (based on revised data provided by MPAC). He asserts that reducing similar sized homes in the neighbourhood to a square foot calculation is the only reliable technique that allows for a one to one comparison of each property to one another. He relies on the average assessed value per square foot of $267.85 for six properties located on Calvington Drive which he asserts are similar in scope of renovation.
20Mr. Stavropoulos noted his concerns as to the reliability of information provided to the public via About My Property. He notes that the “My Neighbourhood Properties” document which is available to the public does not contain information as to the year of renovation or the renovation code (level of renovation), factors that are considered by MPAC in determining the Current Value Assessment (‘CVA”) for a property. These factors seemed very significant in the valuation of the Subject Property. There was an extensive e-mail conversation between Mr. Stavropoulos and Mr. Twist. In the final days of their discussions in which Mr. Stavropoulos raised his concerns as to the accuracy of MPAC’s data, he was informed by Mr. Twist that MPAC had inspected the properties and was provided with MPAC’s revised assessments for three of the properties (202, 204 and 143 Calvington Drive). He submits that that when he shows MPAC that the evidence they are using to assess the value of a home is not factual, they just “move the goal posts” and make the appeal chase an ever moving target.
21Mr. Stavropoulos relies on the following properties all located on the same street as the Subject Properties:
| Address | Bldg. Area (sq. ft.) | Lot Size (sq. ft.) | Year Built | Year & Level Renovated | Effective Year built | CVA | Sale |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 264 Calvington Drive (subject property) | 3,124 | 6,840 | 1952 | 2001 "D" | 1999 | $935,000 | N/A |
| 103 Calvington Drive | 3,996 | 6,981.52 | 1989 | N/A | N/A | $1,041,000 | N/A |
| 135 Calvington Drive* | 3,025 | 6,000 | 1998 | N/A | N/A | $898,000 | $1,100,000 (06/2016) |
| 143 Calvington Drive** | 3,104 | 6,200 | 1953 | 1994 "D" | 1992 | $867,000 | N/A |
| 202 Calvington Drive** | 3,168 | 6,000 | 1953 | 1980 "C" | 1978 | $716,000 | N/A |
| 204 Calvington Drive** | 3,312 | 6,000 | 1953 | 1991 "D" | 1990 | $919,000 | N/A |
| 268 Calvington Drive | 3,922 | 7,560 | 1952 | 2001 "D" | 2000 | $1,047,000 | N/A |
*includes a -2% variable adjustment for light traffic **includes updated information
22Mr. Stavropoulos raised the difference of $200,000 as between the sale amount in 2016 of $1,100,000 and the assessed value of $898,000 for 135 Calvington Drive noting that MPAC does not appear to abide by the sales data on hand.
23Mr. Stavropoulos also raised the issue of the open space foyer that extends from the main floor to the second floor ceiling thus reducing the actual usable square footage of his home. He submits that the square footage should be reduced by 203 sq. ft.
Current Value
24The 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.
25The 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.
26To 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.
27The Board considered the three sales in evidence:
Sale 1 - 135 Calvington Drive – is a two storey detached property built in 1998 located in the B26-137 neighbourhood. It has a slightly smaller effective frontage (50 ft.), a slightly smaller effective lot size (6,000 sq. ft. or 0.14 acres) and a slightly smaller total building area (3,025 sq. ft.) than the Subject Property. It also has an attached two-car garage but no finished basement area. It has the same quality of construction rating of 7. It receives a negative 2% adjustment for a light traffic pattern. It sold in June 2016 for a time adjusted sale value of $1,030,573. The Board finds this property to be reasonably comparable to the Subject Property.
Sale 2 - 34 Dorking Crescent – is a two storey detached property built in 2009 located in the B26-137 neighbourhood. It has a slightly smaller effective frontage (50 ft.), a slightly smaller effective lot size (0.15 acres) and a slightly smaller total building area (3,089 sq. ft.) than the Subject Property. It also has an attached two-car garage but no finished basement area. It has the same quality of construction rating of 7. It also has an outdoor pool. It sold in March 2016 for a time adjusted sale value of $1,051,792. The Board finds this property to be superior to the Subject Property given its age and condition as it was constructed in 2009.
Sale 3 – 70 Cuffley Crescent North – is a two storey detached property built in 1988 located in the B31-141neighbourhood. It has a slightly smaller effective frontage (55.28 ft.), a slightly larger effective lot size (0.17 acres) and a slightly smaller total building area (3,068 sq. ft.) than the Subject Property. It also has an attached two-car garage. Unlike the Subject Property it has 1,390 sq. ft. of finished basement area. It has the same quality of construction rating of 7. It sold in October 2016 for a time adjusted sale value of $1,128,667. The Board has not considered this property. While is similar to the Subject Property in terms of lot size and building area, it is also 10 years older. Furthermore, it is located in a different homogeneous neighbourhood than the Subject Property which, according to the market analysis map included in MPAC’s evidence, appears to be located in close proximity to Downsview Park. This may account for the property having the highest time adjusted sale value of the three sales comparables.
28The property at 135 Calvington Drive is the only sales comparable referred to by Mr. Stavropoulous. However, he submits that unlike 135 Calvington Drive which was newly constructed in 1998, the Subject Property underwent a “D” renovation that added 2,077 sq. ft. and includes both old and new construction. It should be valued lower.
29The Board recognizes that this is a very small sample of comparable sales. Mr. Stavropoulous stated that the Subject Property is located in an area where bungalows of approximately 1,000 sq. ft. were originally constructed in the 1950s for workers at the aircraft plant in Downsview. Some, like the Subject Property, underwent renovation that also added substantial building area. It appears that other properties were demolished and new houses with over 3,000 sq. ft. of total building area were constructed. Mr. Twist stated that there were relatively few sales of properties similar to the Subject Property in terms of location, site area, effective year built, quality class, number of storeys and total area.
30Based on the evidence, the Board finds that the property at 135 Calvington Drive is the best sale comparable. It is located on the same street as the Subject Property and is very similar in terms of frontage, lot size, total building area and quality of construction. It was constructed in 1998 whereas the Subject Property underwent a substantial “D” renovation and has an effective year built of 1999. The Board finds that the range of current value is between $1,030,573 and $1,051,792 and that the Subject Property‘s current value should not be higher than $1,030,573 or $1,030,000 (rounded).
31The Board did not consider Mr. Stavropoulos’s request to reduce the total building area by 203 sq. ft. to account for the open space foyer that extends from the main floor to the second floor ceiling thus reducing the actual usable square footage of his home. MPAC utilizes exterior measurements to measure all properties in Ontario in determining the total building area.
32Therefore, the current value is set at $1,030,000.
Equity with Similar Lands in the Vicinity
33The Board must also consider the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity and determine whether the correct current value, as established, is inequitable relative to those assessments. If so, it should be adjusted to make it equitable, as required by s. 44.(3) of the Act.
34For purposes of establishing equity, properties do not need to be comparable, they need to be of a similar nature and within a reasonable proximity. Considering an ASR analysis using a reasonable sample of property sales is one method for that purpose.
35Mr. Twist submitted an Equity Analysis Report that considered the time adjusted sales of 18 residential properties located within 2 kilometres of the Subject Property that occurred within the period of January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2016.
36Mr. Twist stated 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 0.932 which is also within the target level of appraisal. He submits that similar properties in the vicinity have been assessed accurately and uniformly.
37Mr. Twist determined an equitable assessment by multiplying his estimated current value of $1,063,000 by the level of appraisal of 0.932 resulting in the value of $990,000 (rounded). As the equitable assessment is higher than the returned CVA, he submits that no equity adjustment is permitted under the Act.
38The Board also considered Mr. Stavropoulos’s evidence of the six properties located on Calvington Drive and his submission that a one on one comparison is most appropriate to arrive at his proposed fair based assessment of $836,736. These properties have assessments that range from $716,000 to $1,047,000.
39The property at 103 Calvington was built in 1989 and has not been renovated. The Board notes that this property is assessed at the higher end of the range. In addition to being older, it also has 872 sq. ft. of additional building area, a finished basement area and a slightly larger site area when compared to the subject property. It makes sense that it is assessed higher at $1,041,000.
40The properties at 143, 204 and 268 Calvington Drive all underwent “D” renovations like the Subject Property. However, the renovations at 143 and 204 Calvington Drive occurred earlier and resulted in effective years built of 1992 and 1990, respectively, in comparison to the Subject Property with an effective year built of 1999. Both of these properties also have smaller lot sizes (6,000 sq. ft.) than the Subject Property. The assessments of $867,000 and $919,000 for these properties are at the lower end of the range and this makes sense.
41The property at 268 Calvington Drive also underwent a “D” renovation with an effective year built of 2001 and is assessed the highest at $1,047,000. However this property also has the largest lot size at 7,560 sq. ft. and a larger total building area at 3,922 sq. ft. when compared to the Subject Property. It makes sense that this property is assessed higher at $1,047,000.
42The property at 202 Calvington underwent a “C” renovation in 1980 with an effective year built of 1978 and is assessed at the lowest end of the range at $716,000. In addition to being the oldest property, the level of renovation was not as extensive. Also, the lot size is smaller at 6,000 sq. ft. when compared to the Subject Property. It makes sense that that this property is assessed lower at $716,000.
43The property at 135 Calvington Drive was built in 1998. It is assessed at $898,000 but receives a negative 2% adjustment (or a downward adjustment of $19,960) for light traffic. It also has a lot size that is 840 sq. ft. smaller than the Subject Property. It makes sense that this property is assessed lower than the Subject Property.
44Mr. Stavropoulos raised the difference of $200,000 as between the sale amount of $1,100,000 in 2016 and the assessed value of $898,000 for 125 Calvington Drive noting that MPAC does not appear to abide by the sales data on hand. The Board finds that 135 Calvington Drive is under assessed. However, based on the time adjusted sale value of $1,030,000 for 135 Calvington Drive is would appear that the properties on Calvington Drive may all be under assessed.
45The Board finds that the level of appraisal of 0.932 as established by determining the median ASR in the sales sample that considered the time adjusted sales of 18 residential properties located within 2 kilometres of the Subject Property that occurred within the period of January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2016 in MPAC’s Equity Analysis Report, is the most persuasive evidence in determining the equitable assessment value. By multiplying the current value of $1,030,000, as determined above, by the level of assessment of 0.932 results in the value of $959,960 or $960,000 (rounded). As the equitable value is higher than the assessment as returned of $935,000, no equity adjustment is required.
CONCLUSION
46For these reasons and under s. 44.(3)(a) of the Act, the Board finds the current value of the Subject Property, as of the January 1, 2016, is 1,030,000. Furthermore, the Board finds that the evidence does not support the conclusion that the current value, as determined above, is inequitable relative to the assessments of similar lands and requires a further adjustment under s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act.
47The assessment as returned for the Subject Property of $935,000 is lower than the current value as determined of $1,030,000. MPAC is not seeking a higher assessment. Therefore, the assessment of the Subject Property is confirmed at $935,000 for the 2017 taxation year.
“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```