Langlois v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2018 CanLII 32197

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: April 12, 2018

FILE NO.: WR 150943

Assessed Person(s): June Timony Langlois, Rheal Langlois

Appellant(s): June Timony Langlois

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 30

Respondent(s): Town of Markstay-Warren

Property Location(s): 477 Langlois Road

Municipality(ies): Town of Markstay-Warren

Roll Number(s): 5208-000-001-04300-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3160501, 3093533, 3049940 and 2973185

Taxation Year(s): 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016

Hearing Event No. 691173

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

Heard: January 31, 2018 by telephone conference call

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
June Timony Langlois	Self-represented
MPAC	William Semenuk
Town of Markstay-Warren	No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY DAN WEAGANT

INTRODUCTION

1June Timony Langlois appealed the 2013 assessment of the subject property because she believed the value returned by MPAC was too high. Ms. Langlois acknowledged that MPAC had made an adjustment to the assessment, but believes the adjustment downward was not enough and that the returned value was still too high. Ms. Langlois submitted that the assessment of the subject property should be no more than $64,000.

2MPAC returned a value of $97,000 for the 2013 taxation year and subsequently reduced the assessment for 2014 through 2016 to $96,000, resulting from the Request for Reconsideration process.

3The Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) must decide two things in this appeal. Firstly the Board must determine, based on the evidence at the hearing, the current value of the subject property for the 2013 through 2016 taxation years. Having reference to the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity, the Board must also decide if the current value determined needs to be reduced for the purpose of equitable assessment.

DECISION

4The Board finds that the current value of the subject property is $78,000. The Board also finds that no reduction in the current value determined is required for the assessment to be equitable with the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity.

5Accordingly, the Board finds that the assessment of the subject property, at 477 Langlois Road, , for the 2013 taxation year is reduced, from $97,000 to $78,000 in the Residential property class. For the 2014, 2015 and 2016 taxation years the assessment is reduced, from $96,000 to $78,000.

LEGISLATION

6In making its determination of these appeals, the Board must consider the relevant sections of the Assessment Act (“Act”).

7Section 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.

8Section 19.(1) of the Act states:

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

9Section 40.(1) of the Act states:

40.(1) Appeal to Assessment Review Board. Any person, including a municipality, a school board or, in the case of land in non-municipal territory, the Minister, may appeal in writing to the Assessment Review Board,

(a) on the basis that,

(i) the current value of the person’s land or another person’s land is incorrect,

(ii) he person or another person was wrongly placed on or omitted from the assessment roll,

(iii) the person or another person was wrongly placed on or omitted from the roll in respect of school support,

(iv) he classification of the person’s land or another person’s land is incorrect, or

(v) or land, portions of which are in different classes of real property, the determination of the share of the value of the land that is attributable to each class is incorrect; or

(b) on such other basis as the Minister may prescribe.

10Section 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.

What is the Current Value of the subject property?

MPAC’s Evidence

11William Semenuk is an Assessor with MPAC and provided a valuation study to show how he arrived at the current value returned on the roll for 2013. The study compared the subject property with six properties that sold between April 2010 and November 2013.

12When comparing these six properties to the subject property, Mr. Semenuk applied a Time Adjustment Factor (TAF) to all but Sale D, which sold 23 months after the valuation day. TAFs are used to adjust the sale price so that it more closely reflects the value at which the properties would have sold for on the valuation day of January 1, 2012. The TAFs used by Mr. Semenuk were derived from a ‘time changes over time’ study that used 600 sales of residential properties in the area that took place between January 2008 and December 2012. This study creates a trend line to show how prices for residential sales in the area change over that time period. A TAF for each month in the time period is applied to sales in that month to arrive at a ‘Time Adjusted Sale’ (TAS) value.

13Table A summarizes the characteristics of each of the six comparable properties used by Mr. Semenuk, and the subject property. Two of the properties sold twice during the period covered by the valuation study, bringing the total number of sales to eight.

TABLE A

	Lot Area (Acres)	Living Area (sq. ft.)	Building Quality Rating	Year Built	Sale Price ($) / Date	TAS Price ($)	TAS / Sq. ft. ($)
Subject Property 477 Langlois Road	160	588	3	2010	N/A	N/A	N/A
Sale A 536 Driftwood Road	160.5	683	2	2010	55,000 / April 2010	57,408	84.05
Sale B 187 Carl Road	159	671	3	1970	110,000 / Sept 2012	108,120	161.13
Sale C 187 Carl Road	159	671	3	1970	130,000 / February 2011	132,854	197.99
Sale D 1377 Beauparlant Road	101.5	1,136	3	2001	99,000/ Nov. 2013	99,000	87.15
Sale E 1224 Turcot Road	160	939	4	1930	128,000 / October 2011	128,658	137.02
Sale F 1224 Turcot Road	160	939	4	1930	118,000 / April 2010	123,165	131.17
Sale G 1089 Northern Centre Road	160	687	4	1957	100,000 / December 2013	100,000	145.56
Sale H 1843 Rabbit Trail Road	160	556	4	1950	88,000 / November 2010	90,499	162.56

14Mr. Semenuk testified that the resulting sample of eight sales provides a range of value that could be applied to the subject property. He submitted that the amended value of $96,000 falls within this range and is reasonable and correct as a result.

The Appellant’s Submissions

15Ms. Langlois took issue with the comparable properties in the MPAC sample and submitted that they lacked sufficient comparability to her property to be usable in determining the question of current value and that the value should be reduced to $64,000 because:

• The dwelling is very modest and was constructed with lesser quality materials than that of the comparable properties used in MPAC’s analysis;
• The lot of 160 acres is mostly swampy and or rocky and very little of it can be used for any further development;
• Adjustments to the assessment, at and after the time of the construction of the dwelling, don’t make sense.

The Board’s Analysis

16Having reviewed the comparable properties in evidence, the Board disregards the following sales, for the purposes of determining the current value of the subject property:

• Sales B and C are disregarded as properties with a holding tank and a private well are not suitably comparable to the subject property which has neither.
• Sales E, F and H are disregarded as properties with a septic tile system, a private well and hydro available are not suitably comparable to the subject property which has none of these conditions.
• Sale G is disregarded as a property with a holding tank, hydro available and access to a water body is not suitably comparable to the subject property which has none of these characteristics.

17The Board is left with Sales A and D. Neither of these two properties has hydro, sanitary or water services and are similar to the subject property. Sale A was built in 2010, the same as the subject dwelling, at a construction quality code of 2. The dwelling on Sale A is slightly larger than the subject property and the lot is ½ acre larger.

18Sale D has a smaller lot, at 101.5 acres, with a quality class 3.0 dwelling of 1,136 sq. ft. It was built in 2001. Despite the date of the sale being 23 months from the valuation day, the Board finds the time adjustments to be modest in the area and finds the sale value to be acceptable for use as an indicator of value of the subject property.

19By comparing the differences between these two properties and the subject property, the Board finds that the subject property should be valued higher than Sale A as the dwellings are very similar, but the construction quality code of Sale A is lower. In addition the Board finds that the value of the subject property should be lower than the value of Sale D as that property has a similar quality dwelling of nearly twice the size.

20In the absence of any specific evidence from either party as to the differences in value indicated by these two properties, the Board finds a reasonable current value of the subject property is their mean value. The Board finds the current value of the subject property is $78,000 (rounded).

When reference is made to the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity, is a reduction in the current value determined necessary to make the subject property’s assessment equitable?

21Neither party advanced any evidence or any argument with respect to the equity of the current value as determined. Therefore, the Board finds that no reduction in the current value determined is necessary to make the assessment of the subject property equitable when compared to the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity.

CONCLUSION

22The Board finds that the current value of the subject property is $78,000. The Board also finds that no reduction in the current value determined is necessary for the assessment to be equitable with the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity.

23Accordingly, the Board finds that the assessment of the subject property, at 477 Langlois Road, for the 2013 taxation year is reduced, from $97,000 to $78,000 in the Residential property class. For the 2014, 2015 and 2016 taxation years the assessment is reduced, from $96,000 to $78,000.