Minchao Liu and Baoyu Liu v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2018 CanLII 60443

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: June 28, 2018

FILE NO.: WR 152392

Assessed Person(s): Minchao Liu and Baoyu Liu

Appellant(s): Minchao Liu and Baoyu Liu

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 14

Respondent(s): Town of Aurora

Property Location(s): 70 Carisbrooke Circle

Municipality(ies): Town of Aurora

Roll Number(s): 1946-000-096-00316-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3218966 and 3302430 (deemed 2018 appeal)

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

Hearing Event No.: 695872

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

Heard: April 12, 2018 in Aurora, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Minchao Liu and Baoyu Liu	Self-represented
MPAC	Albert Ng
Town of Aurora	No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY MARCELLE BOURASSA

INTRODUCTION

1Minchao (Michael) Liu and Baoyu Liu are the owners of a residential property located at 70 Carisbrooke Circle (the “subject property”) in the Belfontain Estates development in the Town of Aurora. The dwelling has 5,488 square feet (sq. ft.) of building area and is located on 0.34 acres. The Lius purchased the subject property in November 2012 for $1,484,215.

2For the 2017 taxation year under appeal, MPAC returned the assessment for the property at $2,104,000.

3The Lius appealed the assessment for the 2017 taxation year to the Assessment Review Board (“Board”). The Lius take the position that the assessment is too high in comparison to other properties in their subdivision. The subject property’s assessment has increased by 57% without any material additions and improvements. The Lius consider the property at 66 Carisbrooke Circle as most similar and it had a sale of $1,900,000. It is the Lius’ position that the subject property should be more equitably assessed at $1,800,000 in comparison to other properties in the subdivision for the 2017 taxation year.

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 to 2020, a property is valued as of the legislated valuation date of January 1, 2016. MPAC’s representative, Albert Ng, estimates the current value of the property to be $2,584,575 based on the direct comparison approach. Mr. Ng also conducted an equity study. It is his position that an equitable reduction is not required. He concludes that the assessment should be confirmed at $2,104,000 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 $2,286,000 under s. 44.(3)(a) of the Act. Furthermore, the Board finds that the evidence supports the conclusion that the current value requires an equity adjustment under s. 44.(3)(b ) of the Act and is reduced to $1,843,000.

7The assessment of the property located at 70 Carisbrooke Circle is reduced from $2,104,000 to $1,843,000 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

13Mr. Ng states that the subject property is located in the high end, low density Belfontain subdivision in Aurora with property’s ranging in size from 4,000 to over 6,000 sq. ft. A total of 74 properties were developed by the same builder.

14Mr. Ng relies on a Valuation Report. The Report provides information on the property and the sales of 11 properties in the subject property’s subdivision.

15Mr. Ng states that he conducted a Sales Ratio Trend Analysis (“SRTA”) study by plotting the sale to assessment ratios by sale month to determine the rate of change over the sales period. He considered 343 sales of vacant and/or improved land around Aurora and Richmond Hill during the period of June 2, 2014 to December 28, 2016. He determined time adjusted sale (“TAS”) prices by multiplying the monthly time adjustment factor (“TAF”) by the sale price. TAFs are used to adjust sales to the January 1, 2016 valuation date to reflect market conditions at that time. He added that the January 2016 TAF of 0.993 is close to 1. He states that he attributes the small gap as some data was from six months prior to the valuation date. Notices of Assessment for the 2017 taxation year were sent out in September 2016.

16Key points of comparison of property details for the subject property and the eleven sales comparables are set out below:

Property	Site Area (ac.)	Year Built	Quality	Blg Area (sq. ft.)	Finished Basement Area (sq. ft.)	Variable Adjustment	Garage	Sales (TAS)
70 Carisbrooke Circle (subject property)	0.34	2010	7.5	5,488	400.	+4% abuts green space	4 cars
15 Carisbrooke Circle (Property 1)	0.24	2009	7.5	5,520	87	N/A	3 cars	1,800,000 (2,395,688) 07//2014)
53 Carisbrooke Circle (Property 2)	0.27	2009	7.5	5,282	N/A.	N/A	4 cars	1,850,800 (2,007,695) (07/2015)
66 Carisbrooke Circle (Property 3)	0.29	2012	7.5	5,361	165	+4% abuts green space	4 cars	1,900,000 (2,233,166) (02/2015)
103 Carisbrooke Circle (Property 4)	0.27	2010	7.5	4,762	470	N/A	3 cars	2,210,000 (2,291,393) (10/2015)
26 Carisbrooke Circle (Property 5)	0.59	2012	7.5	5,042	112	N/A	3 cars	2,150,300 (2,262,830) (09/2015)
7 Longthorpe Court (Property 6)	0.3	2011	7.5	4,574	116	N/A	3 cars	2,600,000 (2,319,827) (09/2016)
42 Carisbrooke Court (Property 7)	0.46	2011	7.5	6,129	2,454	-10% heavy traffic	4 cars	3,300,000 (2,871,587) (11/2016)
11 Longthorpe Court (Property 8)	0.3	2011	7.5	5,711	1,668	N/A		3,266,000 (2,807,232) (12/2016)
59 Carisbrooke Court (Property 9)	0.25	2009	7.5	4,341	2,348	N/A		1,950,000 (2,083,196) (08/2015)
138 Carisbrooke Circle (Property 10)	0.3	2010	7.5	4,338	50	-10% Abuts Hydro corridor	3 cars	2,355,000 (2,049,269) (11/2016)
79 Carisbrooke Circle (Property 11)	0.26	2009	7.5	4,164	130	N/A	3 cars	2,383,000 (2,099,593 (10/2016)

17Mr. Ng considers Properties 1 to 6 as most comparable to the subject property in terms of building size.

18Mr. Ng considers Properties 7 and 8 as superior to the subject property due to their larger building size.

19Mr. Ng considers Properties 9 to 11 as inferior to the subject property due to their smaller building size.

20Mr. Ng states that the median sale price of the properties is $2,210,100 and the TAS price is $2,262,830.

21Mr. Ng states that and he applied a further adjustment factor to account for differences between the subject property and the comparable properties in terms of size and structures (Property 7 has a pool whereas the subject property does not). He provided an example of his calculations using 66 Carisbrooke Circle. He subtracted 66 Carisbrooke Circle’s CVA ($1,973,000) from the subject property’s CVA as returned ($2,104,000) with a resulting value of $131,000. He then divided this value by the subject property’s CVA as returned for a resulting 6% adjustment factor. He then applied it to 66 Carisbrooke Circle’s TAS value of $2,233,166 with the difference being $133,989. This value was added for a new adjusted TAS for 66 Carisbrooke Circle of $2,372,208. He summarized the adjustments and the resulting adjusted TAS values in his report. The median adjusted TAS value is $2,584,575.

22Mr. Ng estimates the current value of the subject property to be $2,584,575 based on the median adjusted time adjusted sales.

Appellants’ Evidence

23The Appellants expressed their concerns about MPAC’s SRTA study. In their view, the time period of June 2014 to December 2016 is not appropriate. Also, the study is not representative of their high end, low density subdivision that is still under development. They assert that most of the properties in the study sold for less than $1,000,000 and are in mature subdivisions. Also, the market was irrational during 2016 with low to medium value properties appreciating more in value than high end properties.

24The Lius state that the subject property’s basement area is unfinished except for a landing area. There have been no improvements. They referenced MLS listings for the properties included in MPAC’s evidence and additional sales to demonstrate that fully finished basements with luxury features such as home entertainment systems are a plus in the market for high end properties.

25They commented as follows on MPAC’s proposed sales comparables:

2615 Carisbrooke Circle – This property has similar square footage as the subject property. According to the MLS listing, the property has high end finishes that include a professionally finished full basement, a movie theatre, motorized blinds, a built in stereo system with 18 control panels, full landscaping and a stone driveway/patio. The Lius commented that such luxury features are a plus in the market for high end properties and they consider this property as superior to the subject property.

2753 Carisbrooke Circle – This property has similar square footage as the subject property. The Lius also consider this property as superior to the subject property as, according to the MLS listing, the property has a finished basement with a sauna.

2866 Carisbrooke Circle – They agree that this is a similar property to the subject property. They agree that the sale price should be time adjusted.

29103 Carisbrooke Circle–The Lius consider this property as superior to the subject property, as according to the MLS listing, it has a professionally finished walk out basement, a superior kitchen, full landscaping with a wraparound deck.

3026 Carisbrooke Circle – The Lius consider this property as superior to the subject property. It has nearly double the lot size. According to the MLS listing, it is fully landscaped and has a deck and a balcony.

317 Longthorpe Court – The Lius had no comment on this property.

3242 Carisbrooke Circle – The Lius consider this property as a much superior property. It has a much larger site area. According to the MLS listing, it has a professionally finished walk-out basement, over $1,000,000 in interior upgrades; it is fully landscaped with a backyard pool oasis. It is located five houses away, on the same side of the street as the subject property and yet it receives a heavy traffic adjustment.

33Mr. Ng stated that he couldn’t access MPAC’s records regarding the heavy traffic adjustment for 42 Carisbrooke Circle during the hearing.

3411 Longthorpe Court - The Lius agree that this property is much superior property. It has a much larger site area. According to the MLS listing, it has a professionally finished basement that includes a movie theatre, professionally finished landscaping, a flagstone driveway-walkway, a backyard salt water pool/spa and an outdoor kitchen

3539 and 138 Carisbrooke Circle – The Lius agree that these are inferior properties to the subject property.

3679 Carisbrooke Circle – The Lius consider this property as similar to the subject property even though it has a smaller building size. It has a professionally finished basement, heated floors, professional landscaping with an in-ground sprinkler system.

37The Lius also included two additional sales at 30 and 132 Carisbrooke Circle that they consider as superior properties. Property details are from the MLS listings.

38The property located at 30 Carisbrooke Circle is the largest model with approximately 6,200 sq. ft., a professionally finished walk out basement with heated floors, designer finishes throughout, professional landscaping, and a deck with breathtaking views. It is located on a one acre lot. It sold in November 2016 for $2,735,000 (TAS $2,379,450) (assessed lower).

39The property located at 132 Carisbrooke Circle has approximately 6,400 sq. ft., a professionally finished walk out basement, a movie theatre and gym, with heated floors, designer finishes, professional landscaping and a backyard pool. It is located on a one acre lot that backs onto an open field. It sold in November 2016 for $3,450,000 (TAS $3,001,500) (assessed lower).

Board’s Analysis and Findings

40Under 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.

41The Board has considered the thirteen 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.

42The Board finds that 66 Carisbrooke Circle is the most comparable property to the subject property based on the evidence before it and the best evidence for purposes of determining current value. It is located very close to the subject property and has 5,361 sq. ft. of building area versus the subject property at 5,488 sq. ft. and the same quality of construction rating of 7.5. It is slightly newer having been built in 2012. It is located on a slightly smaller lot of 0.29 acres versus 0.34 acres for the subject property. It shares a common site variable with the subject property as it also abuts a green space. The Lius did not produce an MLS listing for this property. It would appear based on the evidence that both properties do not have finished basements areas other than a small landing area. The property at 66 Carisbrooke Circle sold in February 2015 for $1,900,000 (TAS $2,233,166). In light of the Lius’ noted concerns regarding MPAC’s SRTA study, the Board asked them if they agreed with the time adjusted sale value. They agreed that the sale price should be adjusted. 66 Carisbrooke Circle has a TAS value per sq. ft. of $416.55. Applying this value to the subject property’s building area results in a value of $2,286,026.

43The Board finds the properties at 59, 138 and 79 Carisbrooke Circle to be inferior to the subject property. They all have smaller lot sizes and an average of 1,207 sq. ft. less building area than the subject property. It appears based on an MLS listing for 79 Carisbrooke Circle that it has a finished basement but the Board still considers it as inferior given that at 4,164 sq. ft., it has the smallest building area of all of the sales comparables in evidence.

44The Board finds the properties at 15, 53 and 103 Carisbrooke Circle to be superior properties to the subject property. They share similarities in terms of site area and building size. However the Board has taken into consideration that MLS listings indicate that they have desirable high end finishes in this high end subdivision that include professionally finished basements, some with entertainment areas or a sauna, and professional landscaping. MPAC’s data does not reflect finished basement areas. While MPAC’s data may not have captured these improvements, the market has in addition to other high end finishes that the subject property does not enjoy.

45The property at 7 Longthorpe Court has a similar site area but is 914 sq. ft. less building area than the subject property. However, it is located on an interior court location. According to the evidence, it does not appear to have a finished basement area or other amenities. Its TAS of $2,319,827 suggests otherwise. Based on the evidence before the Board, the Board finds it to be somewhat inferior to the subject property.

46The Board finds 26 Carisbrooke Circle to be a slightly superior to the subject property. It is similar in building size but has a much larger site area at 0.59 acres. Also, according to the MLS listing, it is fully landscaped and has a deck and a balcony.

47The Board finds the properties at 42 Carisbrooke Circle and 11 Longthorpe Court to be greatly superior to the subject property. The property at 42 Carisbrooke Circle has a much larger site area and the largest building size at 6,129 sq. ft. It has a much larger site area. It has a finished basement area. According to the MLS listing, it has a professionally finished walk-out basement, over $1,000,000 in interior upgrades and is fully landscaped with a backyard pool oasis. It has a TAS of $2,871,587. 11 Longthorpe Court has a slightly larger building area than the subject property. According to the MLS listing, it has a professionally finished basement that includes a movie theatre, professionally finished landscaping, a flagstone driveway-walkway, a backyard salt water pool/spa and an outdoor kitchen. It has a TAS of $ 2,807,232.

48The Board finds the properties at 30 and 132 Carisbrooke Circle to be superior to the subject property. According to the Lius, the property located at 30 Carisbrooke Circle is the largest model and according to the MLS listing it has approximately 6,200 sq. ft., a professionally finished walk out basement with heated floors, designer finishes throughout, professional landscaping, and a deck with breathtaking views. It is located on a one acre lot. It sold for TAS $2,379,450.

49According to the MLS listing for 132 Carisbrooke Circle, it has approximately 6,400 sq. ft., a professionally finished walk out basement, a movie theatre and a gym, heated floors, designer finishes, professional landscaping and a backyard pool. It is located on a one acre lot that backs onto an open field. It sold for TAS $3,001,500.

50The TAS range for the superior properties is $2,007,695 to $3,001,500 and the TAS range for the inferior properties is $2,049,269 to $2,319,827. The midpoint between the low end of the superior range and the high end of the inferior range is $2,163,761. As noted above, the Board finds 66 Carisbrooke Circle to be the most comparable property to the subject property and the best evidence for purposes of determining current value. Applying a TAS value per sq. ft. of $416.55 to the subject property’s building area results in a value of $2,286,026. This value is slightly higher that the midpoint value of $2,163,761.

51The Board sets the current value of the subject property at $2,286,000.

Whether there should be an equitable reduction of the current value pursuant to s. 44.(3)(b) of the [Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-a31/latest/rso-1990-c-a31.html), and, if so, what should the amount of this reduction be.

MPAC’s Evidence

52Mr. Ng also relies on an Equity Analysis Report that considered the sales of 30 residential properties that occurred between June 1, 2014 and December 30, 2016 and that are located within 1.0 kilometres of the subject property.

53In his Report, he states that the level of appraisal is established by determining the median Assessment to Sale Ratio (“ASR”) in the sales sample. He highlighted that, in this instance, the sales sample produced a median ASR of 0.892. 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 0.892 indicates that similar properties in the vicinity have not been assessed at or near their current values. Therefore, an equity adjustment is required.

54Mr. Ng applied the median ASR of 0.892 to the estimate of current value of $2,584,575 for a resulting equitable value of $2,305,441. This value is higher than the assessment as returned. Mr. Ng concludes that the assessment for the subject property should be confirmed at $2,104,000 for the 2017 taxation year and the deemed 2018 taxation year.

Appellants’ Evidence

55The Lius consider that the subject property is substantially over assessed in comparison to other properties in the subdivision. The subject property’s assessment has increased by 57% without any material additions and improvements. The Lius included a summary of the current value assessments (CVAs) for the 11 sales comparables. They range from $1,618,000 to $2,265,000. The properties at 30 and 132 Carisbrooke Circle that the Board determined as superior properties have CVAs of $2,072,000 and $2,059,000, respectively that are lower than the subject property’s CVA as returned of $2,104,000.

56The Lius also referenced some properties with the same model as the subject property that did not have recent sales including 22 and 30 Longthorpe Court that are assessed lower at $1,844,000 and $2,019,000, respectively. They also referenced 8 Carisbrooke Circle, the builder’s model home that is also assessed lower at $1,835,000.

57The Lius take the position that the subject property’s assessment should be increased by 35% from its 2012 CVA for a value of $1,800,000.

Board’s Analysis and Findings

58Section 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.”

59The 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.

60In 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].”

61The 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).

62The 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, [2017] O.J. No. 1010 ONSC 1299, 276 A.C.W.S. (3d) 220, 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.

63The 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.

64Mr. Ng relies on an Equity Analysis Report that considered the sales of 30 residential properties that occurred between June 1, 2014 and December 30, 2016 and that are located within 1.0 kilometres of the subject property. In this instance, the sales sample produced a median ASR of 0.892.

65The median ASR of 0.892 indicates that similar residential properties located within a vicinity of 10 kilometres of the subject property have not been assessed at or near their current values.

66The Board considered an ASR analysis using residential properties in the immediate vicinity of the Belfountain subdivision as a point of comparison. The subject property is located in the same high end, low density Belfountain subdivision. All of these residential properties are similar in age and were built by the same builder. The TAS sales of the 11 properties on Carisbrooke Circle and Longthorpe Court in the Belfontain subdivision included in MPAC’s Equity Analysis Report plus the two additional TAS sales of the properties at 30 and 132 Carisbrooke Circle result in a median ASR of 0.806. The Board finds that the median ASR of 0.806 indicates that residential properties in the Belfontain subdivision are assessed substantially below their current values. Applying the ASR of 0.806 to the subject property’s current value as determined above of $2,286,000 results in a value of $1,842,516.

67For all of these reasons, the Board finds that the evidence before it supports the conclusion that an equity adjustment is required under s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act. The current value as determined of $2,286,000 is reduced to $1,843,000 (rounded).

CONCLUSION

68The Board finds that the current value of the subject property, as of the January 1, 2016 valuation date, is $2,286,000 under s. 44.(3)(a) of the Act. Furthermore, the Board finds that the evidence supports the conclusion that the current value requires an equity adjustment under s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act and is reduced to $1,843,000.

69The assessment of the property located at 70 Carisbrooke Circle is reduced from $2,104,000 to $1,843,000 for the 2017 and deemed 2018 taxation years.

2018 DEEMED APPEAL

70An appeal for the 2017 taxation year is presently before the Board. Section 40.(26) of the 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.

71Section 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.