Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: June 15, 2018

FILE NO.: WR 151793

Assessed Person(s): George William Sweenie

Appellant(s): George William Sweenie

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 16

Respondent(s): Township of Tiny

Property Location(s): 21 Timcourt Drive

Municipality(ies): Township of Tiny

Roll Number(s): 4368-000-017-01851-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3231055 and 3308298 (deemed 2018 appeal)

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

Hearing Event No.: 696180

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

Heard: March 14, 2018 by telephone conference call

APPEARANCES:

Parties Representative

George William Sweenie Self-represented

MPAC Darren Manuel

Township of Tiny No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY DAN WEAGANT

INTRODUCTION

1The subject property is a single family dwelling located on the shores of Fairlain Lake in the Township of Tiny. The subject dwelling sits on a lot of 1.18 acres, has 1 ¾ storeys and was built in 1940.

2The subject property has a 2017 returned current value assessment (“CVA”) of $425,000. George Sweenie (the ‘Appellant’) believes this amount is too high because of:

• the age and condition of the structure;
• its location in proximity to a septic tile field with an ongoing file with the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Energy (MOEE); and
• the relationship of the first floor elevation to the Fairlain Lake water levels.

Mr. Sweenie believes the assessment of the subject property should be approximately $375,000.

3For the 2017 taxation year, MPAC returned a value of $425,000 in the Residential property class. The parties were unable to resolve their disagreement and an appeal was filed with the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”).

4The Board must decide two things in this appeal. First the Board must determine, based on the evidence at the hearing, the current value of the subject property for the 2017 taxation year and the deemed 2018 taxation year. Having reference to the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity, the Board must then decide if the current value determined needs to be reduced for the purpose of equitable assessment.

DECISION

5The Board finds that the current value of the subject property for the 2017 and deemed 2018 taxation year is $425,000. The Board also finds that there is no evidence to support a requirement to reduce this value for the purpose of equitable assessment.

6Accordingly, the Board finds that property for the 2017 and deemed 2018 taxation year the assessment of the property at 25 Timcourt Drive is confirmed at $425,000, in the Residential property class.

LEGISLATION

7In making its determination of these appeals, the Board must consider the relevant sections of the Assessment Act (“Act”).

8Section 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.

9Section 19.(1) of the Act states:

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

10Section 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) the 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) the 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.

11Section 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

12MPAC’s valuation report compared the subject property to six other properties; all with frontage on Fairlain Lake. These six properties all sold between June 2014 and September 2015. In order to compare the sale values of the comparable properties to the subject property, Mr. Manuel applied a Time Adjustment Factor (“TAF”) to each of the sale values.

13The TAF selected for each of the six sales was determined by a Time Adjustment Study prepared for the purpose. The study considered 299 sales that took place between January 2014 and December 2016. The Time Adjusted Sale (“TAS”) values applied to each of the six comparable properties in the analysis allows them to be compared as though they occurred on the statutory January 1, 2016 valuation day stipulated in the Act. A summary of the data for the six comparable properties appears in Table A.

TABLE A

	Subject Property	Sale 1 – 27 Timcourt Drive	Sale 2 – 23 Timcourt Drive	Sale 3 – 53 Timcourt Drive	Sale 4 – 73 Timcourt Drive	Sale 5 – 214 Fairlain Lake Road East	Sale 6 – 148 Fairlain Road East
Lot Area (acres)	1.18	0.92	0.74	0.58	0.55	0.56	1.07
Living Area (sq. ft.)	1,692	1200	1200	1428	1211	1296	776
Quality of Construction	6	5.5	5.5	6.5	6	5.5	5
Sale Price ($)/Date	N/A	415,000 / Nov 2014	410,000 / Sept 2014	425,500 / Sept 2015	530,000 / Dec 2014	455,000 / Sept 2014	500,000 / June 2014
TAS Price ($)	N/A	427,739	424,516	428,810	545,029	471,109	521,274
TAS/sq. ft.($)	N/A	356.45	353.76	300.29	450.07	363.51	671.74
2016 CVA ($)	425,000	452,000	530,000	531,000	517,000	469,000	456,000
2016 CVA / sq. ft. ($)	251.18	376.67	441.67	371.85	426.92	361.88	587.63
Year Built	1940	1976	1976	1990	1999	1957	1974

14In support of MPAC’s position on current value, Mr. Manuel testified as follows:

• The returned CVA represents a per sq. ft. value that is at $49 per sq. ft. less that the lowest per sq. ft. TAS value in the sample;
• The subject dwelling has the largest living area of all of the properties in the analysis;
• The most comparable properties; Sales 1, 2 and 3 all have a TAS value that is very close to the assessment returned for the subject property; and
• The effects of the age of the dwelling on value is countered by its larger living area.

15Mr. Manuel concluded that given his analysis, and the range of value determined by the comparable properties, the value returned of $425,000 is reasonable and correct.

Appellants’ Evidence

16The Appellant did not disclose any documentary evidence in support of his position on current value. Instead, he relied on his extensive personal experience in the neighbourhood and his knowledge of the subject property and those in the immediate area. Mr. Sweenie testified that:

• The subject property is subject to flooding more than his immediate neighbours because the subject dwelling was built at a lower elevation that the neighbours;
• There is a septic tile bed upstream from the subject property that has been the subject of Ministry of the Environment investigations.
• The subject dwelling was built in 1970, 17 to 50 years before the six comparable properties in the MPAC valuation report;
• There is no basement level in the subject dwelling;
• The subject dwelling is a seasonal residence (it is closed in the winter) whereas MPAC’s comparables are year-round dwellings;
• The subject dwelling has a partial second storey, whereas all of the comparables in MPAC’s valuation report are single storey structures.

17Mr. Sweenie also took issue with MPAC’s Time Adjustment Study, pointing out that many of the properties used to determine the TAFs for the months between January 2014 and December 2016 are waterfront properties on Georgian Bay. The Appellant submits that a better source of sales for this purpose would have been properties fronting on Orr Lake which is a lake of more comparable size to Fairlain Lake.

18Having identified all of the differences between MPAC’s comparable properties and the subject property, the Appellant submitted that a reasonable assessment for the subject property is $375,000, being some 10 to 15% below the most comparable properties in the MPAC sample.

When reference is made to the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity, is a reduction in the current value determined for the purposes of equitable assessment?

MPAC’s Evidence

19Mr. Manuel prepared an equity analysis where the assessments of 30 similar properties in the vicinity were compared with their TAS values. This comparison is known as the Assessment to Sale Ratio (“ASR”). Mr. Manuel testified that the results of the equity analysis show that the median ASR among the 30 properties is 0.995, indicating that, generally speaking, similar properties in the vicinity are assessed at 99.5% of their time adjusted sale value, indicating that assessments are equitable in the area of the subject property. He concluded that an adjustment to the current value determined is therefore not required for it to reflect equitable assessment.

Appellant’s Evidence

20Mr. Sweenie submitted no documentary or oral evidence in support of a lower assessment due to equity or fairness. He concluded that $375,000 is not only the correct current value, but it is also fair when compared to the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity.

Analysis

21The Board is sympathetic to Mr. Sweenie’s point of view, but he failed to provide any documentary evidence to support any specific value lower than what was returned. In contrast, MPAC’s valuation report provides a logical approach to the valuation of the subject property, which acknowledges the differences between the subject property and, on a balance of probabilities, concludes that the differences in size, condition and age, serve to balance out to the extent that the subject property’s assessment should be similar to the three comparable properties closest to the subject property (Sales 1, 2 and 3). The Board concurs with MPAC and finds that the current value of the subject property is $425,000, as returned.

22To make a determination on whether or not the current value determined for the subject property represents equitable assessment, the Board has only the equity analysis prepared by MPAC, where the assessments of 30 similar properties in the vicinity were compared to their TAS price. The Board accepts MPAC’s conclusion that the study’s resultant median ASR indicates equitable assessment among similar properties in the vicinity and finds that there is no evidence to support a reduction in the current value determined.

CONCLUSION

23The Board finds that the current value of the subject property for the 2017 taxation year is $425,000. The Board also finds that there is no evidence to support a requirement to reduce this value for the purpose of equitable assessment.

24Accordingly, the Board finds that the value of the property at 25 Timcourt Drive is confirmed, at $425,000 in the Residential property class.

2018 DEEMED APPEAL

25An 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.

26Section 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.