Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: July 03, 2018
Assessed Person(s): Michael Christian Conradi and Kristin Lynne Taylor
Appellant(s): Michael Christian Conradi and Kristin Lynne Taylor
Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 09
Respondent(s): City of Toronto
Property Location(s): 33 Fern Avenue
Municipality(ies): City of Toronto
Roll Number(s): 1904-023-160-02900-0000
Appeal Number(s): 3266271 and 3294902 (deemed 2018 appeal)
Taxation Year(s): 2017 and 2018 (deemed appeal)
Hearing Event No.: 700164
Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended
Heard: June 4, 2018 in Toronto, Ontario
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Representative |
|---|---|
| Michael Christian Conradi and Kristin Lynne Taylor | M. Conradi |
| MPAC | D. Kang and B. Lorriman |
| City of Toronto | No one appeared |
DECISION DELIVERED BY MARCELLE BOURASSA ON JUNE 4, 2018
INTRODUCTION
1Michael Christian Conradi and Kristin Lynne Taylor (the “Appellants”) are the owners of the property located at 33 Fern Avenue (the “subject property”) in the Parkdale area of the City of Toronto. It is a two-storey freehold townhouse located on a 0.05 acre lot. It has 1,368 square feet (sq. ft.) of total building area, a detached garage and a basement with 408 sq. ft. of finished area. The subject property was originally built in 1885 and underwent a “C” renovation in 2003 to upgrade the wiring and renovate the basement area and a “B” renovation in 2014 to renovate the kitchen. It has an effective year of build of 2005. MPAC has assigned it a quality of construction rating of 6.0.
2For the 2017 taxation year under appeal, MPAC returned the assessment for the subject property at $993,000, based on 1,368 sq. ft. of total building area.
3The Appellants appealed the assessment for the 2017 taxation year to the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”), pursuant to s. 40 of the Assessment Act R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (“Act”). Mr. Conradi, on behalf of the Appellants, takes the position that the subject property is assessed too high. He is of the opinion that the subject property had a current value of about $887,000 to $922,000 based on the actual sales of six comparable properties. He asserts that the subject property is inequitably assessed in relation to similar properties