Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: June 13, 2018

FILE NO.: WR 152942

Assessed Person: Andre Joseph Nadon

Appellant: Andre Nadon

Respondent: Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 32

Respondent: Municipality of Greenstone

Property Location: 1 Beach Road

Municipality: Municipality of Greenstone

Roll Number: 5876-720-001-34600-000

Appeal Numbers: 3255591 and 3319171 (deemed 2018 appeal)

Taxation Years: 2017 and 2018 (deemed appeal)

Hearing Event No.: 696470

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

Heard: April 26, 2018 by telephone conference call

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Andre Nadon	Self-represented
MPAC	Tom Whalley
Municipality of Greenstone	Jack Kuzmimski

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY SCOTT McANSH

1Andre Nadon appealed the assessment of his summer cottage for the 2017 taxation year on the basis that it was too high. An appeal for the 2018 taxation year was deemed because the 2017 appeal was not disposed before March 31, 2018. MPAC returned an assessment of $92,000 for both the 2017 and 2018 taxation years and Mr. Nadon is of the opinion that the cottage is only worth $35,000 because it is not a true waterfront property and is located north of the Town of Nakina, which is suffering economic hardship.

2I find that Mr. Nadon’s cottage would likely have sold for $100,000 on January 1, 2016. I also find that it would be fair to assess the property at that value. However, MPAC is not seeking an increase in the assessment. I therefore confirm the assessment for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years at $92,000.

Legislation

3Clause 44.(3)(a) of the Assessment Act (“Act”) requires this Assessment Review Board (“Board”) to “determine the current value of the land.” Current value is defined in section 1 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.” That is, I must determine what the subject property would have sold for in an arm’s length transaction on the relevant valuation day, set pursuant to section 19.3 of the Act, as January 1, 2016 for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

4Once I have determined the current value, clause 44.(3)(b) requires that I “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” but only if that adjustment would result in a reduction of the assessment.

5In addition to the 2017 taxation year appeal filed by Mr. Wilkinson, there is a 2018 taxation year appeal before me. This is because, pursuant to subsection 44.(26), a 2018 appeal is deemed to have been filed if the 2017 taxation year appeal was “not finally disposed of before March 31, 2018.

Current Value

6Mr. Nadon’s cottage was built in 1983 on Cordingly Lake, about five kilometers north of the Town of Nakina. It is just less than 1,000 square feet, with a 600 square foot detached garage. It is across a small gravel road from the lake.

7Mr. Nadon focused his arguments on two main concerns: (1) the plight of the local economy; and (2) the classification of his property as waterfront.

Local Economy

8Mr. Nadon lamented the current economic condition of the Town of Nakina. The town currently only has 306 people living in it, does not have a grocery store, and has lost many of its sources of employment. While a local mill recently reopened, there is still not a great deal of economic activity taking place in Nakina.

9MPAC did not seriously dispute that the state of the town is depressed. I see no reason to doubt that evidence. However, determining the likely sale price of any property is not based on a general assessment of the plight of a town. It must be based on the sales of similar property in the same area, or some other reliable indication of value. The area will have the same, or at least similar, economic conditions and the sales will therefore reflect what a willing buyer would pay for property in that area.

Waterfront

10Mr. Nadon contested MPAC’s classification of his cottage as indirect waterfront. There is a gravel road that runs between the cottage and Cordingly Lake. MPAC indicated that they have found no evidence that a road separating a property from a body of water makes that property less valuable than a property that directly abuts the water. MPAC presented a number of previous decisions of this Board to support its position that use of the waterfront is the significant factor, including Stubbs v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp., Region No. 25, [2006] O.A.R.B.D. No. 449 and Zorzi v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp., Region No. 25, [2003] O.A.R.B.D. No. 337. The Board held in both of those decisions that ready access to the water is what provides value, not titled ownership of the waterfront per se. I agree with that proposition.

11Potential purchasers of Mr. Nadon’s cottage would likely attach value to the proximity of the cottage to Cordingly Lake. There was no evidence that access to the lake was seriously impeded by the roadway, and the photographs in evidence show that the cottage enjoys an unobstructed view of the lake. I therefore find that MPAC’s use of waterfront property for comparison is reasonable.

Sales

12MPAC entered the sales information of six properties in the general area. The relevant features of those sales are set out in the following table:

	Address	Size (sq. ft.)	Year Built	Water frontage	Sale Date	Sale Amount
	1 Beach Rd.	992	1983	115
1	66 MacPhail Dr.	930	1980	134	June 2013	$89,900
2	30 MacPhail Dr.	746	1982	135	July 2016	$110,000
3	53 MacIntosh Rd.	880	1972	105	June 2016	$95,000
4	214 Eagle Nest Rd.	714	1985	148	June 2014	$85,000
5	62 Creelman Creek Rd.	688	1972	134	Aug. 2014	$100,000
6	8 Camp 25 Rd. E	733	1960	127	Sept. 2013	$94,900

13Mr. Nadon provided photos of two homes in the Town of Nakina that sold for $13,000 and $16,000. He did not indicate when those sales took place, or how they compared to his cottage. Given that those properties were both in town, and not lakeside recreational properties, it is hard to see how they indicate a value for Mr. Nadon’s cottage. I do not find them to be good comparisons for the valuation problem before me.

14MPAC’s suggested comparable sales are all fairly similar to Mr. Nadon’s cottage. They show that lakeside cottages that are smaller than Mr. Nadon’s have sold for between $85,000 and $110,000. Most of these sales, however, are near the Town of Geraldton, which has more services than Nakina. Only 214 Eagle Nest Road is close to Nakina. The sale of that property shows, however, that there is not a significant difference in the sale prices of cottages near the two towns. 214 Eagle Nest Road lacks plumbing facilities and electricity, both of which Mr. Nadon’s cottage enjoys, and sold for $85,000. Those services would likely fetch far more than the $7,000 difference in value MPAC is suggesting.

15All of the sales presented by MPAC show that the current value of Mr. Nadon’s property is likely more than $92,000. Mr. Nadon’s cottage is larger than any of the other properties, yet is assessed at a lower value than four of the six sales. It seems more likely that the largest cottage would fetch near the highest price. I therefore find that the most likely current value of Mr. Nadon’s cottage is $100,000.

Equity

16Clause 44(3)(b) of the Act requires that I look at the assessments of other property in the vicinity to see that it would be fair to assess Mr. Nadon’s cottage at its current value of $100,000. MPAC presented an equity study that set out the level of assessment of 30 waterfront properties in the area. That study demonstrated that property is, on average, assessed at 96.5% of its time adjusted sale value. Mr. Nadon did not argue that there was any unfairness in assessing his cottage at current value.

17MPAC’s equity study shows that waterfront cottages in the vicinity are assessed very close to their actual value. There is, therefore, no evidence that assessing Mr. Nadon’s cottage at its current value of $100,000 would be unfair.

Conclusion

18I find that the likely current value of Mr. Nadon’s cottage for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years is $100,000 and that it would be fair to assess it at that value. However, MPAC did not seek to increase the assessment and was required to serve notice pursuant to Rule 40(b) of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure if was seeking a higher assessment. I will not increase the assessment because no notice was served. I therefore confirm the assessment of $92,000 for the 2017 and the deemed 2018 taxation years.

2018 DEEMED APPEAL

19An 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.

20Section 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.