Ghaffari-Haghi v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2018 CanLII 29532

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: April 05, 2018

FILE NO.: WR 151144

Assessed Person(s): Sohrab Ghaffari-Haghi, Poupak Zanjani

Appellant(s): Sohrab Ghaffari-Haghi, Poupak Zanjani

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 09

Respondent(s): City of Toronto

Property Location(s): 18 Bamboo Grove

Municipality(ies): City of Toronto

Roll Number(s): 1908-083-150-02600-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3256776

Taxation Year(s): 2017

Hearing Event No.: 693067

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

Heard: February 15, 2018 in Toronto, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Ghaffari-Haghi Sohrab	Self-represented
MPAC	Carlo Bassi
City of Toronto	No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY ANTHONY LaREGINA

INTRODUCTION

1The subject property is a single-family two-storey detached dwelling located at 18 Bamboo Grove. The home was built in 1973 and renovated in 2000, resulting in an effective year built of 1990. The lot has 73 feet of effective frontage and 122 feet of effective depth resulting in an effective site area of 0.2 acres. The subject property has a total building area of 3,676 square feet (“sq. ft.”) with 2,000 sq. ft. on the first floor, 1,676 sq. ft. on the second floor and 2,119 sq. ft. in the basement of which 1,517 sq. ft. is finished space. The property also has a 650 sq. ft. pool built in 2004. For the 2017 taxation year, the current value assessment (“CVA”) was returned at $2,210,000.

2Carlo Bassi, the assessor from MPAC, provided the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) with an estimate of current value at $2,573,200 based on five comparable property sales located within the vicinity of the subject property. Mr. Bassi made a further equity adjustment of 12% resulting in a CVA of $2,269,562. Mr. Bassi is not requesting an increase in assessment and therefore recommends a confirmation of the returned CVA of $2,210,000 for the 2017 taxation year.

3Sohrab Ghaffari-Haghi, the Appellant is requesting a CVA of $1,950,000 based on the appraisal report he has submitted into evidence. Mr. Ghaffari-Haghi also requested written reasons.

ISSUES

4The issues to be determined are:

i.) What is the correct current value of the subject property for the 2017 taxation year?

ii.) Is the current value as determined by the Board equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity?

DECISION

5The Board finds the current value of the subject property for the 2017 taxation year to be $2,573,000.

6The Board determines that the current value requires a further downward adjustment by 12% to an assessment of $2,269,000 in order that the assessment of subject property is equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity.

7MPAC is not requesting an increase in the returned assessment and the Board will therefore confirm the assessment of the subject property at $2,210,000 for the 2017 taxation year.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Current Value – Evidence and Analysis

8In accordance with s. 44.(3)(a) of the Assessment Act, RSO 1990, c A.31 (“Act”) the first mandate of the Board is to determine “the current value of the land.” Section 1 of the Act defines current value as “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.”

9For the 2017 taxation year, the Board must determine what the subject property would have sold for in an arm’s length transaction on the January 1, 2016 valuation day set by s. 19.2 of the Act.

MPAC’s Position

10Mr. Bassi presented 24 comparable property sales located in the vicinity of the subject property. He considers 19 of the 24 properties to have smaller building areas and therefore inferior to the subject property. Mr. Bassi relied on the five most comparable sales that were similar in terms of building area and lot size to the subject property. Those properties are:

Address	Time adjusted sale value	Building Area sq. ft.	Time adjusted sale value per sq. ft.
26 Chavel Drive	$2,435,902	3,480	$700
48 Caravan Drive	$2,229,867	3,218	$693x1.04*=$721
4 Harlington Road	$2,222,756	3,321	$669
4 Chavel Drive	$2,311,374	3,418	$676
28 Cosmic Drive	$2,956,263	3,941	$750
MEAN			$703

*adjusted 2% for light traffic and 2% for corner lot.

11Mr. Bassi rounded the mean adjusted sale value per square foot of $703 to $700.

12Mr. Bassi set the current value of the subject property at $2,573,200 by applying the $700 average time adjusted sale value per sq. ft., for the five best comparables to the 3,676 sq. ft. building area of the subject.

Appellant’s Position

13Mr. Sohrab Ghaffari-Haghi entered an appraisal report submitted by Gordon Sommerville of HVI Appraisal. Mr. Sommerville was not present to answer any questions regarding the content of the report.

14Mr. Sommerville’s report has a total of seven comparable sales of properties in the vicinity. Adjusting the difference of the seven sales for building area, lot size, bathrooms, basement, and site improvements Mr. Sommerville concluded that the value range for the subject property should be between $1,869,000 and $2,174,000. In Mr. Sommerville’s report his final opinion of market value for the subject property is $1,950,000.

15Mr. Ghaffari-Haghi submits that Mr. Sommerville is a professional in his field and came up with his best opinion of value at $1,950,000 and requests that the Board reduce his assessment to $1,950,000 based on this appraisal.

16Mr. Ghaffari-Haghi further submits that the assessment of his property has increased by 45% from January 2012 to January 2016 even though there have been no changes to his home since the previous assessment to justify the increase.

Board’s Analysis of Current Value

17The best evidence of current value is the sale of the subject property on or near the valuation date of January 1, 2016. When no such sale occurs, as in this appeal, the Board looks to the recent sale of other similar properties in the vicinity to determine current value.

18The Board accepts the five best comparable properties submitted by MPAC because the sales fall within the shoulder years and the sale values are time adjusted to reflect a January 1, 2016 valuation day. In addition, these properties are similar in terms of building area and lot size to the subject property.

19The Board rejects the 7 comparables submitted by Mr. Ghaffari-Haghi that were identified in Mr. Sommerville’s appraisal report because they are 23% to 41% smaller in building area as compared to the subject property and the sales values have not been time adjusted. Furthermore, Mr. Sommerville was not present to clarify any data that he may have used for adjustments to building areas, lot sizes or other differences of the properties presented in his report. Mr. Ghaffari-Haghi did not have the expertise or knowledge to clarify many questions relating to the appraisal report.

20The Board therefore accepts the analysis of current value presented by Mr. Bassi based on the five best comparable properties in evidence.

21The Board finds that the current value of 18 Bamboo Grove is $2,573,200, rounded to $2,573,000.

Board’s Analysis of Equity

22Section 44. (3)(b) directs that, after determining current value, 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 the land.”

23The assessment to sales ratio (“ASR”) of a sample of sold properties is a tool often used to determine if property in the vicinity is assessed below its current value. If other property is assessed below its current value a reduction in the assessment below current value is required to make the assessment equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity. The ASR is determined by dividing the assessment as returned by the time adjusted sale price.

24Mr. Bassi presented an equity analysis of 30 residential sales that occurred from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2016, all located within 1 kilometer of the subject property, resulting in a median ASR of 0.88. Mr. Bassi submits that MPAC standards indicate that for residential property, the median ASR should fall between 0.95 and 1.05. If the median ratio falls within this range, this reveals that the CVAs are reflective of sales prices in the vicinity and therefore no further adjustment is required. In this case the median ASR falls outside of this range at 0.88 therefore, Mr. Bassi has justifiably recommended a downward adjustment of 12% to the current value.

25Mr. Ghaffari-Haghi provided no evidence in support of an Equity argument.

26The best evidence in relation to equity is the sale and assessment evidence of 30 properties presented by MPAC indicating a median ASR of 0.88. Based on MPAC’s equity study the Board finds that a further 12% downward adjustment to the current value of the subject property is required in order to make the assessment equitable with the assessment of other property in the vicinity. The Board therefore reduces the current value of from $2,573,000 to an equitable assessment of $2,269,562, rounded to $2,269,000.

CONCLUSION

27MPAC did not file a notice seeking a higher assessment, as required by Rule 40(a) of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. The Board therefore confirms the assessment of the subject property as returned at $2,210,000 for the 2017 taxation year.