Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: June 26, 2018
Assessed Person(s): Manprit Dhillon, Bonita Dhillon
Appellant(s): Manprit Dhillon, Bonita Dhillon
Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 9
Respondent(s): City of Toronto
Property Location(s): 277 Parkview Avenue
Municipality(ies): City of Toronto
Roll Number(s): 1908-092-790-00200-0000
Appeal Number(s): 3251755 and 3299155 (deemed 2018 appeal)
Taxation Year(s): 2017 and 2018 (deemed appeal)
Hearing Event No.: 693269
Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended
Heard: February 8, 2018 by telephone conference call
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Representative
Manprit Dhillon, Bonita Dhillon
Self-represented
MPAC
Carlo Bassi
City of Toronto
No one appeared
DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY SCOTT McANSH
1Manprit Dhillon and Bonita Dhillon have appealed the 2017 taxation year assessment of their property, located at 277 Parkview Avenue in the City of Toronto (the “property”). The property was assessed at $1,994,000 and Mr. Dhillon argues that it would be equitable to assess the property at $1,772,250. MPAC argues that the current value of the property is actually $2,358,225 and that value is equitable with the assessments of other properties in the vicinity. However, MPAC is not seeking to increase the returned assessment of $1,994,000.
2I find that the current value of the property for the 2017 taxation year is $2,339,000 but that it would be inequitable to assess the property at that amount. An equitable assessment is at 92.6% of its current value, or $2,166,000. However, MPAC has not filed a notice seeking a higher assessment. I therefore confirm the $1,994,000 assessment of the property for the 2017 taxation year.
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 subject property would have sold for in an arm’s length transaction on the relevant valuation day, set pursuant to s. 19.3 of the Act, as 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.
5In addition to the 2017 taxation year appeal that was filed, 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.”
6Rule 40(b) of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure requires timely notice before a higher assessment can be sought.
Current Value
7The 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.
8MPAC provided 25 sales that all took place within one year of January 1, 2016. Mr. Dhillon did not provide any additional sales, instead arguing that some of those sales are not comparable to the property. The houses are all two storey dwellings with finished basements. Mr. Dhillon argues that his property is not comparable because of defects in construction, including an inadequate heating system, a poorly constructed roof