Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: June 4, 2018

FILE NO.: WR 152895

Assessed Person(s): Diane Bederman, Marc LaFleur

Appellant(s): Diane Bederman

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 15

Respondent(s): Town of Caledon

Property Location(s): 290 Dominion Street

Municipality(ies): Town of Caledon

Roll Number(s): 2124-030-008-10800-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3194465 and 3306447 (deemed 2018 appeal)

Taxation Year(s): 2017 and 2018 (deemed appeal)

Hearing Event No.: 697270

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

Heard: April 20, 2018 by telephone conference call

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Appellant,	Marc LaFleur
MPAC	William Cottingham
Town of Caledon	No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY JENNIFER GRIFFITH

INTRODUCTION

1Diane Bederman and Marc LaFleur are the owners of 290 Dominion Street, in the Town of Caledon (the “Subject Property”), which is described as a single-family detached (not on water). It was built in 1959, renovated in 2007, and has a total building area of 1,288 square feet (“sq. ft.”) and a site area of 0.25 acres.

2Pursuant to the provisions of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act“), the assessment of land shall be based on its current value. The Act also provides that, for the 2017 to 2020 taxation years, the MPAC is required to assess this value as of the valuation date, January 1, 2016. (“current value”).

3MPAC’s initially assessed the current value of the Subject Property at $482,000, but, in response to a request for reconsideration made by the owners, has changed this assessed value to $466,000.

4Diane Bederman (the “Appellant”) has filed an appeal for 2017 taxation year with the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”), pursuant to s. 40 of the Act. Ms. Bederman was not in attendance and was represented by Mr. LaFleur, who is also an assessed owner and a party to this appeal. Mr. LaFleur takes the position that MPAC’s assessment of current value is too high, although he does not indicate a specific value for the correct current value of the Subject Property.

5MPAC assessed the property on the basis that it has a garage. However, MPAC inspected the Subject Property in February 2018, and discovered that it does not. At this hearing, MPAC takes the position that the correct current value of the Subject Property should be $443,000.

6Pursuant to s. 40.(11) of the Act, the Municipality, (in this case, the Town of Caledon) is a party to this proceeding. However, the Municipality did not advise the Board of its position on the issues raised in these appeals, and no one appeared at the hearing on the Municipality’s behalf.

7Section 44.(3)(b) of the Act, directs the Board to reduce the current value of the Subject Property if similar lands in the vicinity have been assessed at a lower value (“equitable reduction”). The purpose of this provision is to fairly distribute of the municipal tax burden according to the value of the property possessed by each ratepayer. MPAC takes the position that an equitable reduction is not required. The Appellant did not assert that an equitable reduction is required. Therefore, in this proceeding, this ground for appeal is not in issue.

8At the completion of the hearing, the Board reserved its decision. For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that the 2017 to 2018 tax years is $443,000.

ISSUE

9The issue before the Board is what is the correct current value of the Subject Property as of the valuation date January 1, 2016.

DECISION

10The Board finds the current value of the Subject Property is $443,000. Therefore, the Board reduces the returned assessment value from $466,000 to $443,000 for the 2017 and deemed 2018 taxation years.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Legislation

11In determining the value at which land shall be assessed, the Board must have regard to the following provisions of the Act.

12Section 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.

13Section 19.(1) of the Act states:

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

14Section 19.2(1)2 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:

1. For the 2006, 2007 and 2008 taxation years, land is valued as of January 1, 2005.

2. For the period consisting of the four taxation years from 2009 to 2012, land is valued as of January 1, 2008.

3. 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.

15Section 40.(17) of the Act states:

40.(17) Burden of proof. – For 2009 and subsequent taxation years, where value is a ground of appeal, the burden of proof as to the correctness of the current value of the land rests with the assessment corporation.

16Section 40.(19) of the Act states:

40.(19) Board to make determination. – After hearing evidence and the submissions of the parties, the Board shall determine the matter.

17In determining the value at which any land shall be assessed, s. 44.(3)(a) and (b) of the Act requires the Board to do two things:

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.

MPAC’s Evidence and Submissions

18In support of his argument, MPAC’s representative submits that the Subject Property is from an area with a cluster of about 20 properties, and that there are limited sales in the Subject Property’s homogeneous neighbourhood (C34-53). Because of the lack of sales, he was forced to expand his search to other homogeneous neighbourhoods (C30-49 and C22-204) in order to find sales of similar type (301-Single Family detached (not on water), comparable properties.

19He also submits that, for the last three years, the Subject Property was classified as residential and farm. For this appeal, the classification is residential and there is no issue relating to classification.

20MPAC gave submission that a recommendation to reduce the returned assessment of $482,000 to $466,000, based on a Request for Reconsideration (“RFR”) was presented to the Appellant and it was rejected. Despite the fact that the recommended value was rejected, MPAC stated that the value under appeal is $466,000.

21MPAC’s representative presented a Market Analysis of three sales to demonstrate how similar these three suggested comparable properties are to the Subject Property in terms of age, building size, lot size, and quality. He also presented the time adjusted factors he relied on to adjust the actual sale prices of the comparable properties to show what the sales would have been if they had occurred on the valuation date of January 1, 2016. The time adjustment factor is based on 213 sales from the subject’s neighbourhood and surrounding area, which occurred over the period 2015 and 2016.

22The above three sales of suggested comparable properties are located in homogeneous neighbourhoods (C34-53, C30-49 and C22-204), at 17196 Old Main Street, sold in 2016 at a time-adjusted sale price of $577,886; at 17 Heather Street, sold in 2016 at a time-adjusted sale price of $378,582; and at 23 Sunnyside Drive, sold in 2016 at a time-adjusted sale price of $382,077. These three suggested comparable properties have on average a total building area of 1,250 sq. ft., at total site area of 0.19 acres, year built 1926, quality rating of 5 and sold at $355.95 per sq. ft. based on total building area. This is compared to the Subject Property with a total building area of 1,288 sq. ft., total site area of 0.25 acres, year built 1959, with a quality rating of 4, and assessed at a value of $361.80 per sq. ft. based on total building area.

23Based on the sales of these three suggested comparable properties, the representative takes the position that the most similar comparable properties are 17 Heather Street, sold in 2016 at a time-adjusted sale price of $378,582; and at 23 Sunnyside Drive, sold in 2016 at a time-adjusted sale price of $382,077, with an average site area of 0.20 acres, at total building area of 1,072 sq. ft. age of 1944, quality 5 and sold at a price of $355 per sq. ft. based on total building area. This average sale price when applied to the Subject Property results in a value of $457,000. The representative further reduced this value to $443,000 because the subject property has no garage.

24MPAC’ representative submits that the current value is $443,000.

Appellant’s Evidence and Position

25In presenting his case, the Appellant argues that the Subject Property is assessed too high as compared to the assessments of three suggested comparable properties on the same street as the Subject Property. He argues that the Subject Property is assessed at 38% higher than the previous assessment (2012), whereas, the assessments of 282 Dominion Street, 266 Dominion Street and 246 Dominion Street increased by 10.5%, 16.5% and 22.5% respectively. He also argues that the increase in assessments of the three suggested comparable properties presented by MPAC is 2%, 26% and 3.3% respectively for that same period which is significantly lower than the Subject Property. The Appellant did not provide the Board with evidence of any sales of these three properties, nor did he provide the Board with any alternate comparative sales analysis using any of MPAC’s proposed comparable properties.

26The Appellant submits that the location of the Subject Property is a relevant consideration, noting that the three suggested comparable properties he presented are located on the same street as the Subject Property, whereas, the three sales of suggested comparable properties presented by MPAC are located on different streets, and two of the comparable properties are from different homogeneous neighbourhoods. Although the Appellant questions the location of MPAC’s suggested comparable properties, he did not assert that these properties are not comparable to the Subject Property. The Appellant provided no market sales for any of the three suggested comparable properties presented on the same street as the subject property. The Appellant presented no other sales in support of current value.

27The Appellant agrees with MPAC that there are no sales of comparable properties in the homogeneous area. He also argues that two of the MPAC’s suggested comparable properties have municipal water, whereas, the Subject Property has well water, making it less desirable.

Board’s Analysis

28The Board accepts that it is necessary to extend the search area for sales of comparable properties, as all parties agree that that there are limited sales in the homogeneous neighbourhood of the Subject Property.

29The Board finds that the Appellant presented no quantitative evidence to demonstrate the impact of well water on the assessed value of the subject property.

30In reviewing all the above evidence, the Board finds that MPAC presented the best and only evidence in support of current value, with the sales of two similar type (301 Single-Family Detached not on water) comparable properties, located at 17 Heather Street, sold in 2016 at a time-adjusted sale price of $378,582; and at 23 Sunnyside Drive, sold in 2016 at a time-adjusted sale price of $382,077, with an average sale price $355 per sq. ft. based on total building area. These two similar comparable properties have an average site area of 0.20 acres, a total building area of 1,072 sq. ft., year built 1944, a quality rating of 5 and sold at a price of $355 per sq. ft. based on total building area. This is compared to the Subject Property with a total building area of 1,288 sq. ft., total site area of 0.25 acres, year built 1959, with a quality rating of 4, and assessed at a value of $361.80 per sq. ft. based on total building area.

31The average sale price when applied to the Subject Property it results in a value of $457,000 ($355.00 x 1,288 sq. ft.). When the value of $457,000 was further adjusted for no garage, it results in a value of $443,000.

32In reviewing the Appellant’s evidence, the Board finds that the Appellant presented no sales evidence to assist this Board in its determination of current value.

33The Board does not accept the Appellant’s argument that the Subject Property is over-assessed because the returned assessment value for the Subject Property increased by 38% from the valuation date January 1, 2012 to January 1, 2016, whereas, the assessment of the three suggested comparable properties increased by 10.5%, 16.5% and 22.5% for that same period. There is no dispute that the appropriate assessment methodology for the Subject Property is a comparable sales analysis. The Act provides that the value of the property is determined as of the valuation date. The market for each of these properties may change between January 1, 2012 and January 1, 2016, but not necessarily at the same rate. For this reason, differing percentage increases are not a reliable indicator of current value.

34Based on the above analysis and findings, the Board finds the correct current value of the Subject Property is $443,000.

2018 DEEMED APPEAL

35An appeal for the 2017 taxation year is presently before the Board. Section 40.(26) of the Assessment Act provides that the appellant is deemed to have made the same appeal for the subsequent taxation year if the appeal is not finally disposed of before March 31 of the subsequent taxation year. The Board has not disposed of the 2017 appeal before March 31, 2018. For that reason, this decision also applies to the 2018 taxation year.

36Section 40.(26) of the Act directs:

Deemed appeals, 2009 and subsequent years

(26) For 2009 and subsequent taxation years, an appellant shall be deemed to have brought the same appeal in respect of a property,

(a) in relation to the assessments under sections 32, 33 and 34 for the year; and

(b) in relation to the assessment, including assessments under sections 32, 33 and 34, for a subsequent taxation year to which the same general reassessment applies, if the appeal is not finally disposed of before March 31 of the subsequent taxation year or, if an assessment has been made under section 32, 33 or 34, before the 90th day after the notice of assessment was mailed.