Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: July 03, 2018

FILE NO.: WR 148292

Assessed Person(s): Carmen Morra and Sipi Morra

Appellant(s): Carmen Morra and Sipi Morra

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

Respondent(s): City of Toronto

Property Location(s): 83 Victor Avenue

Municipality(ies): City of Toronto

Roll Number(s): 1904-075-050-04400-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3134427 and 3148489

Taxation Year(s): 2015 and 2016

Hearing Event No.: 685073

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

Heard: July 26, 2017 in Toronto, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties Counsel⁺/Representative

Carmen Morra Self-represented

MPAC Teresa Maznevski

City of Toronto No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY MARK SPRAGGETT

BACKGROUND

1The subject property, 83 Victor Avenue, is a two and three-quarter (2 3/4) storey detached single family dwelling with no parking, having a total building area of 1,723 square feet ("s. f."), located in the City of Toronto. Built in 1906, with no renovations to date and rated by MPAC as a quality 6 Classification, has an effective site area of 2,200 s. f., with an effective frontage of 20 feet and an effective lot depth of 110 feet.

2Pursuant to the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (“the Act”), MPAC is required to determine the value of the Subject Property on the valuation date, which, in this case, is January 1, 2012, the Current Value Assessment or “CVA”. For the 2015 and 2016 taxation years under appeal, MPAC has assessed the Subject Property as having a current value as returned of $735,000.

3The Appellant has appealed this assessment to the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”), pursuant to s. 40 of the Act. It is the Appellant's view that MPAC’s assessment is too high and that the correct current value as of the January 1, 2012 valuation date for both taxation years is $595,000, based on the Appellant's submission evidence.

4Section 44. (3)(b) of the Act, directs the Board to reduce the CVA of the Subject Property if similar lands in the vicinity have been assessed at a lower value (“equitable reduction”). The purpose of this provision is to fairly distribute the municipal tax burden according to the value of the property possessed by each rate payer. Neither the Appellant or MPAC asserted that an equitable reduction of the CVA is required.

5Pursuant to s. 40(11) of the Act, the Municipality, (in this case, the City of Toronto) is a party to this proceeding. However, no one from the City of Toronto appeared at the hearing.

6At the completion of the hearing, the Board reserved its decision. For the reasons that follow, the Board finds the current value of the Subject Property to be $640,000.

Relevant Legislation

7Section 1 of the Act states:

1. “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.

8Section 19.(1) of the Act states:

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

9Section 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.

10Section 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.

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.

ISSUES

12The issue to be determined in this appeal is what is the correct 2012 CVA of the Subject Property?

Discussion, Analysis and Findings

MPAC’s Evidence

13MPAC was represented by Teresa Maznevski, a Property Valuation Analyst, who also testified as a witness.

14Ms. Maznevski provided a Property Valuation Report ("Report"), of the subject property, which she prepared. The Report provides an analysis applying the Comparative Sales Approach to determine current value. The eight suggested comparable properties were located within the vicinity of the subject property.

15The Report identifies eight property sales as suggested comparables, which Ms. Maznevski states are similar to the subject property and in the same vicinity. With time adjusted sales, five of the sales are below $700,000 and, of these, three sales are in the $600,000 range. Ms. Maznevski stated the subject property should be valued in the lower range, between $639,000 and $645,000.

16The Report focused on two streets closest to the subject property location, namely Simpson Avenue and Victor Avenue. Ms. Maznevski stated that two suggested comparables, 101 Victor Avenue and 94 Simpson Avenue, are considered to be the most similar to the subject property, with time adjusted sale prices of $639,845 and $626,825 respectively. Based on her analysis, Ms. Maznevski concluded that $640,000 as a reasonable valuation for the subject property, asking the Board to confirm this value as the current value as of the January 1, 2012 valuation date.

17Ms. Maznevski stated that the 2015 CVA as returned of $735,000 factored in a -3% adjustment for the lack of parking. However, as she accepts the Appellant’s claim that the subject property is in need of renovations, Ms. Maznevski concludes that the correct current value of the subject property should be $640,000.

MPAC’s Submissions

18MPAC relies on its Report in support of its position that the correct current value is $640,000.

19MPAC disagrees with the Appellant's recommended valuation, noting that the Appellant has not presented any evidence to support his valuation of the subject property. MPAC emphasizes that six (6) of the appellant's fourteen (14) suggested comparables are part of MPAC's evidence, with the balance being semi-detached and detached dwellings.

Appellant’s Evidence

20The Appellant, Carmen Morra, owner of the subject property, was self-represented during the hearing, and she testified on her own behalf.

21Ms. Morra’s evidence included an opening letter to the Board; a letter to Treasurer of the City of Toronto; 14 property information listings from the Toronto Real Estate Board's MLS service; two pages from MPAC's Valuation Report for the subject property, addressing the assessed value as returned as well as a map depicting the location of suggested comparables; and two property information listings from the MLS service.

Appellant's Submissions

22The Appellant submits that the correct CVA for the Subject Property is $595,000 for both taxation years. The Appellant submits that the comparable properties he has provided support a lower value for the subject property.

23The Appellant submits that the properties provided in MPAC's comparable sales analysis are not comparable to the subject property, asserting that they are renovated while the subject property is not renovated. The Appellant also asserts that four of the eight suggested comparables by MPAC are in superior locations compared to the subject property.

24The Appellant stated that, in comparison to some of MPAC's suggested comparables, the subject property should be worth less where: it is a smaller house; has a smaller lot; doesn't have parking; does not have a lane; is not renovated; does not back onto a park; does not have the same number of bathrooms; does not have a family room; and is not in a good location. The Appellant maintains that these alleged deficiencies in comparison, support his position that the subject property’ CVA should be much less than the value proposed by MPAC.

25The Appellant asserts that his property, being closer to Gerrard Street, is not the same location as being close to Danforth Avenue, where many of MPAC's comparables are located. The Appellant submits that the location and the condition of the house were not taken into consideration when MPAC arrived at it assessment for the subject property.

Findings

26The best test of current value is an arm’s length and market tested sale of the subject property on the valuation day, January 1, 2012 or close to it. If no such transaction took place, the next best measure of current value is the arm’s length and market tested sale of comparable properties in the same vicinity and market, on or close to the valuation day. This measure acts as a benchmark and a gauge of the accuracy for the assessed value of the subject property and comparable properties.

27To enable an estimate of value for the subject property to be derived from a comparable property, there must be sufficient elements of similarity, in terms of physical factors such as total building area, land area, land frontage, age of construction, physical condition etc.; and in terms of neighbourhood characteristics such as access to amenities, type and nature of structures etc., so as to enable a direct comparison to be made between the comparable property and the subject property.

28Furthermore, to be indicative of both, the market and values on the valuation day, a sale of a suggested comparable property should occur close to the valuation day.

29Regarding the Appellant's submissions, the Board finds that it can give little weight to the fourteen Toronto Real Estate Board's Multiple Listing Service ("MLS") property descriptions provided, for the following two reasons: (1) they are heavily marked with hand-written commentary unsubstantiated by any expert witness or professional/official documentation, and (2) each MLS property detail page is authored by a real estate salesperson who did not testify in this proceeding. Consequently, the Appellant’s evidence does not provide clarity on the substantive content of each property detail page.

30The Board finds three of the submitted MLS property detail pages are for semi-detached properties, which are not the same property type as the detached subject property. Six of the properties are also suggested comparables used by MPAC in its analysis.

31Upon review of the Appellant's evidence and submissions, the Board finds the Appellant has not made a persuasive case to support his position that the assessed current value should be $595,000. The Board finds that his evidence does not demonstrate how the Appellant arrived at this value. The Board also finds the Appellant's hand-written notes not only lack clarity, but are based on unsubstantiated facts. His submissions, instead, rely on uncorroborated information. Consequently, the Board finds no coherent analysis in the Appellant's submission evidence from which it may make a determination of current value. For these reasons, the Board is unable to give any significant weight to the Appellant’s evidence.

32The Appellant argues that his 2008 assessment was incorrectly determined and has never been corrected, thus impacting each subsequent year's assessment value. The Board has an appeal for the 2013 to 2016 assessment cycle and finds no basis in the Act to review or make any association with a previous assessment cycle.

33The Appellant submits that his house is in need of in excess of $200,000 of repairs. However the Board finds that he provided no evidence to support this submission. The Board is aware that MPAC factored in the condition of the property in its revision of the assessed value as returned from $735,000 to $640,000. It is worth noting that neither party provided the Board any analysis to establish how the issue of repairs factored into the valuation of the subject property.

34The Appellant submits that MPAC’s analysis is based on renovated properties that are superior to the subject property, and, therefore, are not comparable to the subject property. The Board finds that the Appellant has not adduced any evidence or analysis to support this assertion. Therefore, the Board does not accept this submission.

35The Appellant refers to the location of MPAC's suggested comparables, asserting that "some are in superior location, minutes from Withrow Park and Danforth. Most are renovated, bigger lots, parking, additions etc." The Board finds no evidence to support the Appellant’s submission that the Board may attribute a quantitative value to location, to parks, to parking, additions and lot sizes. The Appellant states "that most professional realtors would know this". However, the Board notes that he adduced no expert evidence to support his assertions. For this reason, the Board does not accept this submission.

36In considering MPAC's evidence, the Board finds that the eight suggested comparables are similar to the subject property particularly in terms of vicinity and type, mostly having the same quality classification of 6.0, with variations in lot sizes, total building area, degree of renovation and number of storeys.

37Of the eight suggested comparables, the Board finds two properties, 101 Victor Avenue and 94 Simpson Avenue to be the most similar to the subject, having similar lot frontages, limited renovations as reflected in the effective year built of 1933 and 1962 respectively, the same quality classification and within very close proximity to the subject property. While similar, the subject property is a quarter storey larger and approximately 300 s. f. bigger in house size than 94 Simpson Avenue. For 101 Victor Avenue, the subject property is not only on the same street, but is a half storey larger. These differences in favour of the subject property suggest its value will be higher than the two comparables.

38For these reasons, the Board is persuaded that MPAC's comparable sales analysis is the best evidence available on which the Board can make a determination of current value for the subject property. It should be noted that six of MPAC's eight properties were also selected by the Appellant as part of his fourteen comparables.

39On review of the evidence provided by the Appellant and MPAC, the Board finds the CVA as returned of $735,000 requires a downward adjustment as proposed by MPAC, resulting in a recommended current value of $640,000. Therefore, the Board finds the CVA of the subject property as of January 1, 2012 is $640,000.

CONCLUSION

40The correct current value of the Subject Property is $640,000 for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.