Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: April 26, 2018

FILE NO.: 151093

Assessed Person(s): Brendan Charters, Marion Patricia Est Charters

Appellant(s): Brendan Charters

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

Respondent(s): City of Toronto

Property Location(s): 134 Ranee Avenue

Municipality(ies): City of Toronto

Roll Number(s): 1908-043-180-02000-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3225511

Taxation Year(s): 2017

Hearing Event No.: 689890

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

Heard: February 08, 2018 in Toronto, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Brendan Charters	Self represented
MPAC	Nathan Cohen
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 134 Ranee Avenue. The home was built in 1951 and underwent an extensive renovation in 2012. The quality of construction is currently 6.5 but the assessor claimed that this reflects the quality of the original home prior to the renovation. The property has a lot with 41 feet of effective frontage and 132 feet of effective depth for a total effective site area of 5,412 square feet or 0.12 acres. The total building area of the home Is 2,473 with 1,231 on the first floor, 1,242 on the second floor and 884 square feet in the basement of which 170 square feet is finished space. For the 2017 taxation year, the current value assessment (“CVA”) was returned at $1,082,000.

2Nathan Cohen, the assessor from MPAC, provided the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) with an estimate of current value of $1,165,000 based on five comparable property sales located within the vicinity of the subject property. Mr. Cohen made a further equity adjustment of 8.2% resulting from the equity study showing a median Assessment to Sale Ratio (“ASR”) of 0.918. Mr. Cohen recommends a CVA of $1,070,000 for the 2017 taxation year. Mr. Cohen recommends a further downward adjustment to $1,039,000 resulting from the value change between attached verses a detached garage and a 6.5 foot basement as opposed to a seven foot basement.

3Brendan Charters, (“Appellant”) introduced the average assessed value of $905,000 for five comparable properties on Ranee Avenue and concluded that his property should be assessed at the average for the five properties on the street or $905,000.

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 in reference to 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 $1,165,000.

6The Board also determines that the current value requires a further downward adjustment by 8.2% to a CVA of $1,069,000 in order that the assessment of subject property is equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity.

7The Board will therefore reduce the CVA of the subject property from $1,082,000 to $1,069,000 for the 2017 taxation year.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Current Value – Evidence and Analysis

8In accordance with s. 44.(3)(a) the first mandate of the Board is to determine “the current value of the land”. Section 1 of the Assessment Act (“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.”

9That is, for 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. Cohen presented five comparable property sales located in the vicinity of the subject property. He testified that two of the five sales, 21 Sultana and 39 Sultana Avenue are the most similar to the subject property. The time adjusted sale values of each are $1,285,673 and $1,294,923. Both properties have similar building areas and lot sizes to the subject property and both have undergone a renovation, like the subject. The only difference is that the subject has a pool while both 21 and 39 Sultana have no pool. Mr. Cohen concluded that based on the adjusted sale value of these two properties without pools he estimates the lower current value of the subject property at $1,165,000 with a pool to be quite reasonable.

11Mr. Cohen also entered the sale of 92 Ridgevale Drive which is a property that is located next door to subsidized housing. Mr. Cohen entered this property to show the impact of subsidized housing on the current value of a similar home to the subject as Mr. Charters referenced that his home was close to subsidized housing and therefore should have a lower value. The adjusted sale value of 92 Ridgevale is $1,234,996 and this property is inferior to the subject property which is assessed at $1,082,000. This property has a similar lot size as the subject but the building area is only 1,977 as opposed to 2,473 for the subject therefore confirming that there is no negative impact on the market value.

12Mr. Cohen also entered the sales of 106 Baycrest Avenue and 85 Ranee as two inferior properties with only 1,362 square feet of building area with adjusted sale values of $872,659 and 880,680 to show that even properties which are substantially inferior are selling close to the value requested by Mr. Charters of $905,000.

13Mr. Cohen is also prepared to make a further adjustment of $43,000 to compensate for the lower ceiling height of 6.5 feet as opposed to 7.0 feet and the single-garage as opposed to the double-garage.

Appellant’s Position

14Mr. Charters asserted that Ranee Avenue is a very unique street with no two similar homes. Mr. Charters did not provide any sales evidence citing that he was at a disadvantage and had little support from MPAC in finding comparable sales on Ranee Avenue.

15In relation to Mr. Cohen’s comparable sales Mr. Charters stated that Ranee Avenue is a very busy street and cannot be compared to properties presented by MPAC. Mr. Charters stated that Ranee Avenue runs between Dufferin and Bathurst with a bus route and substantial automobile traffic.

16Mr. Charters presented the assessments and characteristics of five homes on his street, 48, 180, 64, 66 and 68 Ranee Avenue. Mr. Charters pointed out that the average assessed value of the homes was $905,000 and for the most part these comparables had larger building areas, larger lots and better quality finishes than his home and yet they were assessed lower than his home which was returned at $1,082,000. Again Mr. Charters provided no sales evidence for these properties as Mr. Cohen pointed out that other than 85 Ranee, which he included in MPAC’s analysis, there were no other sales on Ranee Avenue.

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 will accept the five comparable sales provided by the MPAC as the only sales evidence in support of current value with sale dates that are within the shoulder years and sale values that have been properly time adjusted.

19Mr. Charters provided no evidence of comparable property sales in support of current value.

20Based on the evidence provided by MPAC the Board is in agreement that the best comparable sales are 21 and 39 Sultana Avenue. They are similar in lot size, building area, age and renovation.

21The Board will reject 92 Ridgevale, 106 Baycrest and 85 Ranee as being inferior to the subject property. These homes are substantially smaller in building area to the subject property and therefore not suitable for the purposes of establishing the current value of the subject property.

22Based on the adjusted sale values of 21 and 39 Sultana of $1,285,673 and $1,294,996 Board accepts MPAC’s recommendation of $1,165,000 as a reasonable current value of the subject property. While this appears to be somewhat lower than the adjusted sale values of 21 and 39 Sultana based on Mr. Cohen’s experience he felt it was a reasonable Current Value. Furthermore, Mr. Charters indicated that Ranee has more traffic than Sultana and therefore this difference will also be compensated for in the lower Current Value of $1,165,000.

23Based on the fact that 21 and 39 Sultana had no pool while the subject property had a reasonably new outdoor pool the board will balance the value of the pool with the adjustment for the garage and basement height and therefore make no further downward adjustment to the current value of $1,165,000 to compensate for the difference in the garage or the lower basement height.

24Therefore the Board will set the current value of 134 Ranee at $1,165,000.

Board’s Analysis of Equity

25Section 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”.

26The assessment to sale ratio (“ASR”) of a sample of sold properties is a tool often used to determine if a property in the vicinity is assessed below its current value. If other property is assessed below its current value, then a reduction in the assessment of the subject to below current value is required to make an 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.

27Mr. Cohen presented an equity analysis of 30 residential sales with sales that occurred from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2016, all located within 1.5 kilometer of the subject property resulting in a median ASR of 0.918. Mr. Cohen 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 current value assessments 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 0.918 therefore Mr. Cohen has justifiably recommended a downward adjustment of 8.2% to the current value.

28The Appellant’s provided the assessments of five properties on Ranee Avenue which are of little assistance to the Board as they did not sell and therefore we have no relative comparison of their assessed value to the market value. Furthermore a sample of five assessments is way too low to have any statistical significance in relation to the overall market.

29The best evidence on equity is the sale and assessment evidence of 30 properties presented by MPAC indicating a median ASR of 0.918. Based on MPAC’s equity study the Board will make a further 8.2 percent downward adjustment to the current value of the subject property in order to make the assessment equitable with the assessment of other property in the vicinity. The Board therefore reduces the current value from $1,165,000 to an equitable assessment of $1,069,470 rounded to $1,069,000.

CONCLUSION

30Based on all of the evidence, the Board reduces the current value assessment of the subject property from the returned value of $1,082,000 to $1,069,000 for the 2017 taxation year.