Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l'évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: February 09, 2018

FILE NO.: WR 150542

Assessed Person(s): Peter Tighe, Diana Tighe

Appellant(s): Peter Tighe, Diana Tighe

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation ("MPAC") Region 4

Respondent(s): Township of Greater Madawaska

Property Location(s): 2039 Calabogie Road

Municipality(ies): Township of Greater Madawaska

Roll Number(s): 4706-006-015-22510-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3250055

Taxation Year(s): 2017

Hearing Event No.: 691366

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

Heard: January 17, 2018 in Calabogie, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel+/Representative
Peter Tighe, Diana Tighe	Diana Tighe
MPAC	Roxane Poulain
Township of Greater Madawaska	No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY SCOTT McANSH

1This is an appeal of the assessed value of 2039 Calabogie Road (the "property"). Diana Tighe argues that the assessment of $541,000, for the 2017 taxation year, is too high. She says that the evidence supports an assessment of approximately $500,000. MPAC argues that the assessed of $541,000 is correct.

2For the reasons set out below, I find that the current value of the property is $500,000 and that it would be equitable to assess the property at that current value. I therefore reduce the assessment of the property for the 2017 taxation year from $541,000 to $500,000.

Legislation

3Section 44.(3)(a) of the Assessment Act ("Act") requires the Assessment Review Board ("Board") to "determine the current value of the land." Current value is defined in s. 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 property would have sold for in an arm's length transaction on the valuation day, set pursuant to s. 19.3 of the Act, of January 1, 2016 for the 2017 taxation year.

4Once I have determined the current value, s. 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.

Current Value

5The best evidence of the current value of a residential property is the sale of that property on or near the valuation day. When that evidence is not available, the sales of similar properties on or near the valuation day are the next best evidence. The further removed in time sales are from the valuation day, the less that sale is an indication of what the property would have sold for on the valuation day. Housing markets change over time. As such, the best evidence is sales that took place as close as possible to the January 1, 2016 valuation day.

6The only sales evidence I have before me are seven sales provided by MPAC. Ms. Tighe did not present any sales evidence, but did provide a careful overview of the sales provided by MPAC.

7The property is a waterfront lot on the Matawaska River. It had a house built on it in 2006. The house is a single storey, measuring 1,919 square feet, with a partially finished walk out basement. The property is large, measuring 11.7 acres, but MPAC is only valuing it as a one acre lot. This position was adopted by MPAC after a previous mediation before this Board and is based on the steep and narrow nature of the lot. The evidence indicates that treating this lot as a one acre parcel is fair. There was no indication that most of the lot is used, or that it could be subdivided and sold. A steep, narrow lot would likely have little value to most purchasers of river front recreational land. I therefore accept that comparisons to one acre parcels are appropriate.

8The parties raised concerns with the fact that Ontario Power Generation ("OPG") owns a parcel of land between the property and the Matawaska River. MPAC argues that all of the comparable sales also have a parcel and that this Board has stated that property separated form water by a right of way is still considered waterfront, see Parsons v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2016 CanLII 4413 at para. 22. Ms. Tighe argues that her property is different from the others in that the OPG parcel in front of her land is large and the OPG parcel is only in front of her parcel, whereas OPG parcels usually are long and abut many properties. I do not find that those characteristics make the property difficult to compare to the others. This is especially so when the property is compared as a one acre parcel. That size adjustment allowance is further justified by the nature of the parcel between the property and the Matawaska River, which may be slightly more onerous than those adjacent to the other properties.

9The relevant characteristics of the properties presented by MPAC is set out below:

	Address	House Size (sq. ft.)	River Frontage (ft.)	Built	Lot Size (acres)	Sale Date	Sale Price
	2039 Calabogie Road	1,919	2,418	2006	11.71
1	196 McLeod Road	1,975	150	2003	1.66	Oct 2014	$622,000
2	65 Peggs Lane	1,927	100	2006	1.12	June 2014	$570,000
3	2891B Calaboie Road	1,978	200	2000	1.04	Dec 2106	$480,000
4	70 Flemming Lane	2,224	142	1997	0.99	Nov 2014	$540,000
5	122 Flemming Lane	1,446	150	1997	0.71	July 2015	$490,000
6	2967B Calabogie Road	2,064	250	2005	1.61	April 2014	$505,000
7	2983 Calabogie Road	1,631	170	1998	1.28	Oct 2016	$647,000

10Ms. Tighe argues that all of these properties are superior to the property. MPAC says that only Sale 7 is superior to the property, that Sales 1, 2 and 4 are comparable to the property, and that Sales 3, 5 and 6 are inferior to the property.

11Ms. Tighe's main dispute about the comparable properties was that MPAC had not accurately determined the quality class of the properties. Quality class is a metric MPAC assigns to buildings to help guide its value assessments. Quality classes range from 1 to 10, and MPAC usually compares properties to other properties with a similar quality class. Ms. Tighe conducted an evaluation using MPAC's quality class form and arrived at different quality class numbers for four of the properties presented.

12MPAC refused to see how Ms. Tighe came to her higher quality class determinations, despite her numerous offers to show MPAC that information. MPAC instead insisted that they had far more experience in assessing land so their conclusions on quality class should not be questioned. I did not find that assertion helpful. I do not know what the specific differences are between the assessments conducted by Ms. Tighe and MPAC, and cannot therefore say with any certainty which is more accurate. MPAC is the party that could have provided information to help me make that determination but explicitly refused to do so. I therefore draw an adverse inference against MAPC. That is, because of MPAC's refusal to argue quality class in detail, I infer that MPAC's assessment of quality class is less rigorous than Ms. Tighe's. I accept Ms. Tighe's quality class numbers for all of the properties.

13I find that Sale 1 is slightly superior to the property. While comparable in size and style, it has more finished basement space and a slightly higher quality class. This indicates that the property would likely have sold for less than $622,000 on the valuation day.

14I find that Sale 2 is also slightly superior to the property. While similar in size, it is a one and one-half storey house, while the property is a bungalow. This indicates that the property would likely have sold for less than $570,000 on the valuation day.

15I find that Sale 3 is slightly inferior to the property. It is similar in size, but does not have a garage. This indicates that the property would likely have sold for more than $480,000 on the valuation day.

16I find that Sale 4 is slightly superior to the property. It is a two storey house with over 300 square feet more area. This indicates that the property likely would have sold for less than $540,000 on the valuation day.

17I find that Sale 5 is slightly inferior to the property. It is over 400 square feet smaller than the property and has a similar quality class. This indicates that the property likely would have sold for something more than $490,000 on the valuation day.

18I find that Sale 6 is slightly superior to the property. It is slightly larger than the property and has a slightly higher quality classification. This indicates that the property likely would have sold for something less than $505,000 on the valuation day.

19The parties agree that Sale 7 is superior to the property. This indicates that the property likely would have sold for less than $647,000 on the valuation day.

20These sales indicate a range of value for the property between $490,000 and $505,000. I find that the property would be toward the higher end of that range and find that the most likely sale value of the property on January 1, 2016 is $500,000. That is the current value of the property for the 2017 taxation year.

Equity

21I must determine if it would fair and equitable to assess the property at its current value of $500,000. MPAC submitted an equity analysis report which looked at the level of assessment of 29 properties that had sold in the vicinity of the property. They found that the median level of assessment was 98.8% of its time adjusted sale price. This is well within the margin of error on such a small sample of properties and indicates that property in the area is assessed near its current value. There would, therefore, be no unfairness in also assessing the property at its current value.

22Ms. Tighe pointed to the assessments of the seven sales presented by MPAC and that they were assessed below their sales values. The margin of error on a sample of seven is very high and it would be unsafe to draw wide conclusions from that sample. Those seven properties are also part of the 29 property sample presented by MPAC. This indicates that the true level of assessment in the area is much closer to 100%. I therefore find that no adjustment is required pursuant to clause s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act.

CONCLUSION

23The property likely would have sold for $500,000 on January 1, 2016 and there is no evidence indicating that it would be unfair or inequitable to assess the property at that current value. I therefore reduce the assessment of the property for the 2017 taxation year from $541,000 to $500,000.