Susan Clare Nippard v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2018 CanLII 60439

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: June 29, 2018

FILE NO.: WR 152945

Assessed Person(s): Susan Clare Nippard, Darren Nippard

Appellant(s): Susan Clare Nippard, Darren Nippard

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 09

Respondent(s): City of Toronto

Property Location(s): 30 St. Andrews Gardens

Municipality(ies): City of Toronto

Roll Number(s): 1904-101-390-04600-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3191956 and 3297054

Taxation Year(s): 2017 and 2018

Hearing Event No.: 696575

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

Susan Clare Nippard, Darren Nippard

Self-represented

MPAC

Adriana Kim

City of Toronto

No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY MARCELLE BOURASSA

INTRODUCTION

1Clare and Darren Nippard are the owners of a residential property located at 30 St. Andrews Gardens (the “subject property”), in the Rosedale neighbourhood of City of Toronto. The dwelling has 2,914 square feet (“sq. ft.”) of building area and is located on 0.11 acres. It was built in 1913. It underwent a “D” renovation in 2014 that also added 61 sq. ft. and has an effective year of build of 2008. It has been assigned a quality of construction rating of 7.5. The Nippards purchased the subject property in March 2013.

2For the 2017 taxation year under appeal, MPAC returned the assessment for the property at $2,949,000. During the Request for Reconsideration process, MPAC offered a reduction of 5% for a revised assessed value of $2,802,000. The offer was rejected.

3The Nippards appealed the assessment for the 2017 taxation year to the Assessment Review Board (“Board”). Clare Nippard, on behalf of the Appellants, states that the assessment is too high. Ms. Nippard states that it is her opinion that the current value is $2,435,000 based on the median sale prices for six properties in the same neighbourhood as the subject property. Looking at equity, Ms. Nippard estimates a value of $2,354,000 based on the average current value assessments of eight properties including six properties located on St. Andrews Gardens. Ms. Nippard’s position is that the assessed value should be approximately $2,400,000 for the 2017 and deemed 2018 taxation years.

4Under the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”), the onus of proof as to the correctness of the current value of the property rests with MPAC. For the period consisting of the four taxation years from 2017-2020, a property is valued as of the legislated valuation date of January 1, 2016. MPAC’s representative, Adriana Kim estimates the current value of the property to be $2,820,000 based on the direct comparison approach. Ms. Kim also conducted an equity study. It is her position that an equitable reduction is not required. She concludes that the assessment should be confirmed at $2,802,000 for the 2017 and deemed 2018 taxation years.

ISSUES

5The issues to be determined are:

a) What is the correct current value of the property as of the January 1, 2016 valuation date?

b) Whether there should be an equitable reduction of the current value as determined by the Board and, if so, what should the amount of this reduction be?

DECISION

6For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that the current value of the subject property, as of the January 1, 2016 valuation date, is $2,905,258 under s. 44.(3)(a) of the Act. Furthermore, the Board finds that the evidence does not support the conclusion that the current value requires an equity adjustment under s. 44.(3)(b )of the Act.

7The assessment of the property located at 30 St. Andrews Gardens is confirmed at $2,802,000 for the 2017 and deemed 2018 taxation years.

RELEVANT LEGISLATION

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(1) of the Act states:

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

10Section 19.2(1) 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.

11Section 40.(17) of the Act states:

40.(17) 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.

12Section 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.

Analysis and Findings

What is the correct current value of the property as of the January 1, 2016 valuation date?

MPAC’s Evidence

13Ms. Kim relies on a Valuation Report. The Report provides information on the property and the sales of seven properties. She asserts that Sales 1 to 5 are the most comparable to the subject property in terms of lot size and building area.

14Ms. Kim noted that the subject property backs onto a strip of commercial property, the Summerhill Market that includes a restaurant, a dry cleaner and a grocery store. It receives a negative 3% adjustment for proximity to a commercial property. She added that there was construction on the commercial property that included an expansion of the parking lot. She asserts that the subject property does not require a further adjustment for this factor.

15Key points of comparison of property details for the subject property and the six sales comparables are set out below:

Property	Site Area (ac.)	Effective Frontage (ft.)	Year Built (effective)	Quality	Blg Area (sq. ft.)	Renovation	Secondary Structure(s)	Variable Adjustment	TAS
30 St. Andrews Gardens (subject property)	0.11	40	1913 (2008)	7.5	2,914	“D” (2014) plus 61 sq. ft.	Detached garage	-3%*
37 St. Andrews Gardens (Sale 1)	0.13	40	1913 (2005)	7.5	3,272	“D’ (2010) plus 193 sq. ft.	Detached garage	N/A	3,833,354 (08/2015)
15 St. Andrews Gardens (Sale 2)	0.1	45	1923 (2002)	7.5	2,848	“D” (2007) plus 480 sq. ft.	Attached garage	-1%**	2,687,379 (10/2015)
200 Douglas Drive (Sale 3)	0.08	30	1922 (2010)	7.5	2,276	“D”(2012) “C”(1989)	N/A	N/A	2,671,614 (09/2015)
31 Douglas Drive ((Sale 4)	0.14	45	1927 (1987)	7.5	3,652	“C(1998)	N/A	N/A	2,907,344 (09/2015)
72 Harper Avenue (Sale 5)	0.12	40	1927 (2005)	7.0	3,253	“B”(1994) ”C”(2012)	N/A	N/A	3,129,647 (01/2016)
38 St. Andrews Gardens (Sale 6)	0.11	40	1910 (2005)	8.0	3,089	“C”2010 ‘C’ (1993) plus 559 sq. ft.	Detached garage	-3%*	3,300,849 (08/2017)
28 St. Andrews Gardens (Sale 7)	0.11	40	1916 (1964)	7	2,597	“B’(1990)	N/A	-3%*	2,737,037 (06/2017)

*proximity to commercial **corner lot

16Ms. Kim considers Sale 1 as the most comparable property to the subject property. Unlike the subject property, it does not receive a negative 3% variable adjustment for proximity to the Summerhill Market. So, she further adjusted the time adjusted sale (“TAS”) value by 3% to make it comparable to the subject property for an adjusted TAS of $3,718,353.

17For Sale 2, Ms. Kim applied plus 1% and negative 3% variable adjustments to further adjust the time adjusted sale for an adjusted TAS of $2,633,631.

18For Sale 3, Ms. Kim applied plus 1% and negative 3% variable adjustments to further adjust the time adjusted sale for an adjusted TAS of $2,618,181.

19For Sale 4, Ms. Kim applied a negative 3% variable adjustment to further adjust the time adjusted sale for an adjusted TAS of $2,820,123.

20For Sale 5, Ms. Kim applied a negative 3% variable adjustment to further adjust the time adjusted sale for an adjusted TAS of $3,035,757.

21Ms. Kim stated that she included Sales 6 and 7 as they also back onto the same commercial property as the subject property. These sales occurred in 2017 and the time adjusted the sales back to the January 1, 2016 valuation date.

22In order to demonstrate that proximity to a commercial property does not negatively affect value, Ms. Kim referred to two sales of properties that occurred in 2017 that receive variable adjustments for proximity to the Summerhill Market. She asserts that at the time of sale, the construction to expand the parking would either have begun or the purchasers would have been aware of the anticipated construction on the site.

23Ms. Kim estimates the current value of the subject property to be $2,820,000 based on the median adjusted time adjusted sales for Sales 1-5.

Appellants’ Evidence

24Ms. Nippard is concerned that there was a “bubble” in the market for the sales of properties on St. Andrews Gardens. Furthermore, it is her opinion that her property is at a disadvantage in comparison to other properties due to its proximity to the Summerhill Market at the back of the property.

25Ms. Nippard states that MPAC’s Douglas Road properties are two streets further down and away from the Summerhill Market. Harper Avenue is also a bit further away.

26Ms. Nippard states that her opinion of current value is $2,435,000 based on the median sale prices for the properties at 74, 24 and 14 Whitehall Road and 31, 49 and 89 Ridge Road. She asserts that these properties are more comparable to the subject property based on location, square footage and lot size. She states that Whitehall Road is about 20 houses down from the subject property and is in proximity to the railway line. Ridge Road is the next street behind the railway line. She asserts that she can see the railway line from her property.

27Key points of comparison of property details for the subject property and the sales comparables are set out below. Ms. Kim stated that the sale for 24 Whitehall was excluded as this was a non-arm’s length transaction, specifically, a family sale for $14,000 in 2016.

Property	Site Area (ac.)	Effective Frontage (ft.)	Year Built (effective)	Quality	Blg Area (sq. ft.)	Renovation	Secondary Structure(s)	Variable Adjustment	TAS
30 St. Andrews Gardens (subject property)	0.11	40	1913 (2008)	7.5	2,914	“D” (2014) Plus 61 sq. ft.	Detached garage	-3% proximity to commercial
74 Whitehall Road (Property 1)	0.1	38	1935 (2001)	6.5	2,909	“C’ (2012) Plus 316 sq. ft.	Attached garage	Light traffic Proximity to hydro	2,050,018 (05/2016)
14 Whitehall Road (Property 2 & 3)	0.1	40	1935 (1982)	6.5	2,364	“B”(2008)	Attached garage	Light traffic Proximity to hydro	1,736,829 (06/2015) 1,779,558 (07/2016)
31 Ridge Road (Property 4)	0.08	44	1926 (1995)	7.0	2,440	“B” (2007 plud07 plus 361 sq. ft.) “B(1996)	N/A	Abuts ravine	2,671,614 (09/2015)
49 Ridge Road (Property 5)	0.17	40	1924 (1970)	7.0	2,917	“B”(1996)	N/A	Abuts ravine	2,464,506 (03/2015)
89 Ridge Road (Property 6)	0.21	50	1929 (2006)	8	4,428	“D”(2009) Plus 1,988 sq. ft.	N/A	Abuts ravine	3,129,647 (01/2016)

Board’s Analysis and Findings

28Under s. 44.(3)(a) of the Act, the Board must first determine “the current value of the land.” The best evidence the Board can receive of current value is an arm’s length and market-tested sale of the property on the valuation date or close to it. If, as in this case, no such transaction took place, the next best measure of current value is arm’s length and market-tested sales of comparable properties located nearby, as close as possible to the legislated valuation date of January 1, 2016.

29The Board has considered the 12 properties with sales. To enable an estimate of value for the property to be derived from suggested comparable properties, there must be sufficient elements of similarity, in terms of physical factors such as building area, land area, land frontage, age of construction, physical condition, etc. so as to enable a direct comparison to be made.

30The Board finds that the four sales on St. Andrews Gardens provide the best evidence for purposes of determining current value even though two of the sales are outside of the shoulder years to the valuation date. The 2017 sales have been time adjusted.

31The Board finds that 37 St. Andrews Gardens is slightly superior to the subject property. It is located a few doors away from the subject property and has the same frontage and a slightly larger site area. It underwent a “D” renovation in 2010 for an effective year of build of 2005 and has the same quality of construction rating of 7.5. However, it has an additional 358 sq. ft. in building area, and due to its location, it is not directly affected by proximity to the Summerhill Market. It has a TAS of $3,833,354. Therefore, the subject property’s current value should be lower.

32The Board finds that 28 St. Andrews Gardens is inferior to the subject property. It is located next door to the subject property, has the same frontage and site area and also receives a negative 3% adjustment for proximity to the Summerhill Market. However, it has 317 sq. ft. less building area, a lower quality of construction rating of 7.0, an older effective year of build of 1964 and it underwent a lesser “B’ renovation in 1990. It has a TAS of $2,737,037. The subject property’s current value should be higher.

33The Board finds that 15 St. Andrews Gardens is reasonably comparable to the subject property. It is located a few doors away from the subject property and has a slightly larger frontage at 45 feet, the same site area and is very similar in building size at 2,848 sq. ft. It underwent a “D” renovation in 2007 for an effective year of build of 2002 and has the same quality of construction rating of 7.5. However, it has an additional 358 sq. ft. in building area. Due to its location, it is not directly affected by proximity to the Summerhill Market. It has a corner lot location. It has a TAS of $2,687,379.

34The Board finds that 38 St. Andrews Gardens is reasonably comparable to the subject property. It is located a few doors away from the subject property, has the same frontage and site area and also receives a negative 3% adjustment for proximity to the Summerhill Market. It underwent two “C” renovations in 2007 for an effective year of build of 2005. However, it has a higher quality of construction rating of 8.0. It is very similar to the subject property in terms of building area at 3,089 sq. ft. It has a TAS of $3,300,849.

35As noted above, 15 and 38 St. Andrews Gardens have building areas that are very similar to that of the subject property. The average TAS value per sq. ft. for the sales for 15 and 38 St. Andrews Gardens is $997. Applying this value to the subject property’s building area of 2,914 sq. ft. results in a value of $2,905,258.

36The Board finds that 200 Douglas Road is not a comparable property. It has undergone a “D” renovation and has an effective year of build of 2010 and a quality of construction rating of 7.5. However, it has a smaller site area and frontage and a much smaller building area at 2,276 sq. ft. Also, it is not subject to the same site variable of proximity to Summerhill Market.

37The Board finds that 31 Douglas Road is not a comparable property. It has undergone a “C” renovation and has an effective year of build of 1987 but has the same quality of construction rating of 7.5. However, it has a larger site area and frontage and a much larger building area at 3,652 sq. ft. Also, it is not subject to the same site variable of proximity to Summerhill Market.

38The Board finds that 72 Harper Avenue is not a comparable property. It has a similar site area and frontage and a slightly larger building area. However, it has undergone “B” and “C” renovations and has a lower quality of construction rating of 7.0 than the subject property. Also, it is not subject to the same site variable of proximity to Summerhill Market.

39The Board finds that 74 Whitehall Road is not a comparable property. It has a similar site area and building area. However, it has undergone “C” renovations and has a lower quality of construction rating of 6.5 than the subject property and is older with an effective year of build of 2001. Also, it is not subject to the same site variable of proximity to Summerhill Market.

40The Board finds that 14 Whitehall Road is not a comparable property. It has a similar frontage and site area. However it has 550 less sq. ft. in building area. It has undergone a “B” renovation and has a lower quality of construction rating of 6.5 and is older with an effective year of build of 1982. Also, it is not subject to the same site variable of proximity to Summerhill Market.

41The Board finds that 31 Ridge Road is not a comparable property. It has a larger frontage but a smaller site area. However, it has 470 less sq. ft. in building area. It has undergone “B” renovations and has a lower quality of construction rating of 7.0 and is older with an effective year of build of 1995. Also, it is abuts a ravine whereas the subject property does not. It is not subject to the same site variable of proximity to Summerhill Market.

42The Board finds that 49 Ridge Road is not a comparable property. It has a larger site area at 0.17 acres. However, it has a similar building area. It has undergone a “B” renovation and has a lower quality of construction rating of 7.0 and is older with an effective year of build of 1970. Also, it is abuts a ravine whereas the subject property.

43The Board finds that 89 Ridge Road is not a comparable property. It has double the site area at 0.21 acres and the largest frontage. It also has the 514 more sq. ft. of building area. It has undergone a “D” renovation, has a higher quality of construction rating of 8.0 and an effective year of build of 2008. Also, it is abuts a ravine whereas the subject property does not. It is not subject to the same site variable of proximity to Summerhill Market.

44Given the Board’s findings regarding the properties on St. Andrews Gardens, and specifically about 15 and 38 St. Andrews Gardens that have building areas that are very similar to that of the subject property, the Board sets the current value of the subject property at $2,905,258 ($997 x 2,914 sq. ft.).

45The Board also finds that there is insufficient evidence to quantify any additional impact that the expansion/construction of the Summerhill Market may have on current value.

Whether there should be an equitable reduction of the current value pursuant to s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act, and, if so, what should the amount of this reduction be.

MPAC’s Evidence

46Ms. Kim relies on an Equity Analysis Report that considered the sales of 30 properties that occurred between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2016 and that are located within 0.5 kilometres of the subject property.

47In her Report, she states that the level of appraisal is established by determining the median Assessment to Sale Ratio (“ASR”) in the sales sample. She highlighted that, in this instance, the sales sample produced a median ASR of 1.004. For purposes of the equity test, MPAC takes the position that equity is achieved if the median ASR falls between 0.95 and 1.05. The median ASR of 1.004 indicates that similar properties in the vicinity have been assessed at or near their current values. Therefore, an equity adjustment is not required.

48Ms. Kim concludes that the assessment for the subject property should be confirmed at $2,802,000 for the 2017 taxation year and the deemed 2018 taxation year.

Appellants’ Evidence

49Looking at equity, Ms. Nippard estimates a value of $2,354,000 based on the average current value assessments for 74 Whitehall, 222 Glen Road, 24, 26, 40, 44, 46 and 48 St. Andrews Gardens.

50Key points of comparison of property details for the subject property and the properties are set out below.

Property	Site Area (ac.)	Effective Frontage (ft.)	Year Built (effective)	Quality	Blg Area (sq. ft.)	Renovation	Secondary Structure(s)	Variable Adjustment	CVA
30 St. Andrews Gardens (subject property)	0.11	40	1913 (2008)	7.5	2,914	“D” (2014) Plus 61 sq. ft.	Detached garage	-3% proximity to commercial	2,802,000
74 Whitehall Road (Property 1)	0.1	38	1935 (2001)	6.5	2,909	“C’ (2012) Plus 316 sq. ft.	Attached garage	Light traffic Proximity to hydro	1,946,000
222 Glenn Road (Property 2)	0.11	38	1929 (2007)		2,356	“D”(2012)	Attached garage	Light traffic	2,192,000
24 St. Andrews Gardens (Property 3)	0.11	40	1914 (1974)		3,290	“B” (2000) plus 168 sq. ft.)	Detached garage	-3% proximity to commercial	2,524,000
26 St. Andrews Gardens (Property 4)	0.11	40	1913 (1963)		2,956	“B” (1990)	Detached garage	-3% proximity to commercial	2,036,000
40 St. Andrews Gardens (Property5)	0.11	40	1912 (1999)		3,340	“C” (1961) plus 500 sq. ft. (1994) “B” (2006) Plus 313 sq. ft.	Detached garage	-3% proximity to commercial	2,749,000
44 St. Andrews Gardens (Property 6)	0.11	40	1914 (1962)		2,735	“B” (1990)	Detached garage	- proximity to multi-residential	2,405,000
46 St. Andrews Gardens (Property 7)	0.12	45	1925 (1967)		2,680	“B” (1990)	Detached garage	-proximity to multi-residential	2,286,000
48 St. Andrews Gardens (Property 8)	0.13	47.5	1914) (1963)		3,619	“B” (1990)	Detached garage	-proximity to multi-residential	2,689,000

51Ms. Nippard’s position is that the assessed value should be approximately $2,400,000 for the 2017 taxation year and deemed 2018 taxation year.

Board’s Analysis and Findings

52Section 44.(3)(b) of the Act directs that after determining current value, the Board shall 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.”

53The purpose of equitable adjustment has been described as the equitable distribution of the tax burden according to the assessed value of property owned by taxpayers as follows by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Empire Realty Co. Ltd. and Assessment Commissioner for Metropolitan Toronto et al., 1968 CanLII 183 (ON CA) at page 2:

A prime objective of municipal taxation is the equitable distribution of the burden according to the value of the property possessed by each ratepayer; in the system prevailing in Ontario, the tax levied on the ratepayer is determined by the a uniform mill rate upon the assessed value of the ratepayer's taxable property set down in the assessment roll. If equity in taxation is to be achieved, it must result from equity in assessment.

54In addressing equity in assessment, the Court, at page 6, also noted that “an assessment made at the actual value of lands and buildings…would be an unequitable assessment if all similar lands in the vicinity were assessed at some percentage of actual value substantially less than one hundred [emphasis added].”

55The term “vicinity” is not defined in the Act, but refers to the appropriate geographical area that will yield a meaningful number of comparables (see Ontario Regional Assessment Commissioner, Region No. 3 v. Graham, 1993 CanLII 8621 (ON CA) at page 6).

56The test set out in s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act, requires that the Board refer to similar lands in the vicinity. Similar property relates to the same general nature and character. Use as a point of similarity, may be, but is not necessarily determinative of similarity. In determining whether other lands are similar, the Ontario Divisional Court, in Municipal Property Assessment Corp. v. Loblaw Properties Ltd., 2017 ONSC 1299, 62 M.P.L.R. (5th) 253, 2017 CarswellOnt 2861, applied the decision of the Ontario Divisional Court in Trizec Equities Ltd. v. Ontario (Regional Assessment Commissioner, Region No. 27), [1988] O.J. No. 182, 27 O.A.C. 203, 37 M.P.L.R. 175, 8 A.C.W.S. (3d) 399. The Court stated at paragraph 23:

…All points of comparison must be considered. The Board must make a factual finding based on such a consideration. One point of similarity such as use may be, but is not necessarily, determinative. Some similarities may be overridden by other characteristics and some differences may be subordinated.

57The ASR analysis of a reasonable sample of sold properties is one method used to determine if properties in the vicinity are assessed below their current value. If other properties are assessed substantially below their current value then a reduction is required to make the assessment of the subject property equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity. The ASR is determined by dividing the assessment as returned by the sale price.

58Ms. Kim relies on an Equity Analysis Report that considered the sales of 30 properties that occurred between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2016 and that are located within 0.5 kilometres of the subject property. In this instance, the sales sample produced a median ASR of 1.004.

59The Board finds that the median ASR of 1.005 falls within MPAC’s generally acceptable standard of 0.95 and 1.05 required to establish that that the level of current values assessments of similar properties is in line with the level of sales prices in the vicinity. Therefore, an equity adjustment is not required.

60On the other hand, Ms. Nippard asserts that similar properties in the vicinity are assessed lower than the subject property, and, therefore, the current value of the subject property should be reduced to a value of $2,354,000. She bases this value on the average current value assessments for 74 Whitehall, 222 Glen Road, 24, 26, 40, 44, 46 and 48 St. Andrews Gardens. All of the assessments are lower than the subject property’s assessment as returned at $2,802,000 and the current value of $2,905,258, as determined by the Board.

61The Board must determine whether the properties proposed by the Appellant are similar to the subject property, and if so, whether their assessed value is lower than the current value of the subject property as determined by the Board.

62The Board finds the properties at 24, 26, 40, 44, 46 and 48 St. Andrews Gardens are not similar to the subject property as they differ significantly in terms of effective age. Also, the quality class is not known. In some cases they differ in terms of building area and the site variable. In any event, they are all assessed lower than the Board’s finding of current value for the subject property, as one would expect them to be.

63The Board has also considered the current value assessments for all of the properties in evidence located on St. Andrews Gardens, namely 15, 24, 26, 28, 37, 38, 40, 44, 46 and 48 St. Andrews Gardens. The properties have current value assessments that range from $2,036,000 to $3,235,000.

64The property at 37 St. Andrews Gardens has the highest current value assessment at $3,235,000. The Board has already made a finding that it considers 37 St. Andrews Gardens as a superior property to the subject property. The Board’s finding of current value for the subject property is lower.

65The property at 38 St. Andrews Gardens along with 24, 26, 28 and 40 St. Andrews Gardens are all subject to a negative 3% site variable for proximity to commercial. However, the property at 38 St. Andrews Gardens has the highest current value assessment of $3,141,000 and the Board has already made a finding that it is a reasonably comparable property to the subject property. As such, the Board finds that this property is similar. The Board’s finding of current value for the subject property of $2,905,258 is lower.

66The Board has already made a finding that the property at 15 St. Andrews Gardens is reasonably comparable to the subject property. As such, the Board finds that this property is similar. It has a current value assessment of $2,893,000. The Board’s finding of current value for the subject property is very close but slightly higher at $2,905,258.

67The Board finds the property located at 74 Whitehall Road is not similar to the subject property. The Board has already found it to be a much inferior property. It also has the lowest current value assessment of $1,946,000, and this value is lower than the Board’s finding of current value for the subject property, as one would expect it to be.

68Lastly, the Board finds the property located at 222 Glenn Road is not similar to the subject property. It has a much smaller building area at 2,356 sq. ft. and the quality of construction is not known. It is also subject to a different site variable, light traffic. It is assessed at $2,194,000 and this value is lower than the Board’s finding of current value for the subject property, as one would expect it to be.

69As noted above, the Board found the property at 15 St. Andrews Garden to be a similar property. However, s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act refers to “similar lands.” So, more than one property is required to establish that the test set out in s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act has been met. Therefore, for all of these reasons, the Board finds that the evidence before it does not support the conclusion that an equity adjustment is required under s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act.

CONCLUSION

70The Board finds that the current value of the subject property, as of the January 1, 2016 valuation date, is $2,905,258 under s. 44.(3)(a) of the Act. Furthermore, the Board finds that the evidence does not support the conclusion that the current value requires an equity adjustment under s. 44.(3)(b )of the Act.

71The assessment of the property located at 30 St. Andrews Gardens is confirmed at $2,802,000 for the 2017 and deemed 2018 taxation years.