Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: July 13, 2018 FILE NO.: WR 152493

Assessed Person(s): Mara Bossio Appellant(s): Mara Bossio Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 09 Respondent(s): City of Toronto Property Location(s): 2285 Lake Shore Boulevard West, Unit 1908 Municipality(ies): City of Toronto Roll Number(s): 1919-054-010-23300-0000 Appeal Number(s): 3196108 and 3294720 Taxation Year(s): 2017 and 2018 Hearing Event No.: 696675

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

Heard: April 13, 2018 in Toronto, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Mara Bossio	Self-represented
MPAC	Helene Blackburn
City of Toronto	No one appeared

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY SUBUOLA AWOLERI ON APRIL 13, 2018

INTRODUCTION

1The subject property is a residential condominium built in 1991, with a construction quality of 7.0. The building total area is 1,505 square feet (“sq. ft.”). It has two bedrooms and two and one-half bathrooms. It faces south and north giving it a good view of the Lake, for which MPAC provides a positive 2% adjustment. It has two parking spaces; one is exclusive to the unit and the other is a legally described parking space. The unit also has one exclusive locker. The subject property abuts a garbage chute of which it benefits from a $2.46 per sq. ft. negative adjustment. It also abuts the stairs for which MPAC provided no adjustment.

2For the 2017 taxation year, the current value assessment (“CVA”) was returned at $697,000. Helene Blackburn, the assessor from MPAC, initially provided the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) with an opinion of value for the subject property at $715,000, which she later changed during the hearing to $717,000 (rounded) based on the three comparable property sales in the same building as the subject property. She requests that the Board confirm her opinion of value at $717,000 (rounded).

3Mara Bossio, the Appellant submits that the assessment is too high and believes that the correct current value should be $650,000.

ISSUES

4The issues to be determined are:

i.) What is the correct current value of the subject property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years?

ii.) Is the current value as determined by the Board equitable in reference to the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity?

DECISION

5The Board finds the current value of the subject property for the 2017 taxation year to be $712,000 (rounded).

6MPAC did not file a notice of intention to seek a higher assessment in accordance to Rule 40(b) of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”). The Board confirms the assessment below the current value determined at $697,000 for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years and finds this value to be fair and equitable.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Current Value – Evidence and Analysis

7In accordance with s. 44(3)(a) the first mandate of the Board is to determine “the current value of the land.” Section 1 of the Assessment Act R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31(“Act”) defines current value 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, for the 2017 taxation year, the Board must determine what the subject property would have sold for in an arm’s length transaction on the January 1, 2016 valuation day set by the Act.

8Section 19.2(1) of the Act prescribes the valuation days, which provides:

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.

9Section 40.(17) of the Act places “the burden of proof as to the correctness of current value on MPAC.”

MPAC’s Evidence

10Helene Blackburn, MPAC’s assessor presented the Board with three comparable property sales in the same condominium building as the subject property. She testified that she chose these three comparable property sales as their square footage are all within the 10% range of the subject property’s square footage from 1,376 sq. ft. to 1,442 sq. ft. Property Sale 1 has an exclusive parking and one legally described parking as the subject property. It also abuts a garbage chute but it does not have the Lake view. Ms. Blackburn testified that in order to make it similar to the subject property she added the positive 2% adjustment which the subject property benefits from for Lake view. This provides an adjusted sale amount of $688,771. Property Sale 2 has only one parking space. Ms. Blackburn added $19,000 to its time adjusted sale price to make it similar to the subject property. She testified that she obtained this amount from the sales of parking spaces within the vicinity of the subject property. During cross-examination, Ms. Blackburn testified that a unit owner can purchase a parking space in another building and this depends on the agreement between the condominium corporations and if it is the same condominium corporation it makes the purchase easier. Property Sale 2 and Sale 3 do not abut a garbage chute. Ms. Blackburn applied the negative $2.46 per sq. ft. to the Time Adjusted sale (TAS) of Sale 2 and obtained an adjusted value of $687,679. She did the same for Sale 3 and obtained an adjusted price of $618,926.

11Details of MPAC’s opinion of value can be seen in Table 1 below:

Table 1

Sale	Sale 1	Sale 2	Sale 3
Address	2285 Lake Shore Blvd. W Suite 314	2285 Lake Shore Blvd. W Suite 913	2285 Lake Shore Blvd W Suite 1013
Sale Date	July 29, 2015	June 15, 2015	July 29, 2016
Sale Amount	$650,000	$642,500	$650,000
Adjusted Sale Amount Jan. 1, 2016	$675,266	$672,226	$622,474
Parking Space ($19,000)		$691,226
Abut. Garbage Chute (-2.46/sq.ft.)		$685,879	$618,926
View (2%)	$688,771
Final Adjusted Sale Amount	$688,771	$687,679	$618,926
Total Area (sq.ft.)	1,376	1,442	1,442
Final Adjusted sale amount/sq. ft.	$500.56	$476.89	$429.21

12Ms. Blackburn provided the median time adjusted sale amount per sq. ft. for the three sales as $476.89, applying this to the square foot of the subject property provides a current value of $717,719. The average time adjusted sale amount per sq. ft. is $468.89. Ms. Blackburn submits it provides a current value of $705,674. Ms. Blackburn submits that the correct current value of the subject property is $717,000 (rounded) and the Board should confirm her opinion of value. She further confirmed to the Board that MPAC did not file a notice of intention to seek a higher assessment, as required by Rule 40(b) of the Board’s Rules.

Appellant’s Evidence

13Ms. Bossio commenced her evidence by stating that a potential purchaser, upon reviewing the status certificate of the condominium corporation, would be prejudiced due to three factors: pending law suits against the condominium corporation, a deficient reserve fund of approximately $654,000 and the special assessment levied against the subject property.

14In her evidence she provided a list of 13 parking spaces in the subject property’s condominium building which have been listed for sale since 2008. Only three parking spaces sold in 2017 for $13,500, $14,000 and $14,000 respectively. She testified that the average of these three sales is $13,833.33. She submits that MPAC is wrong for using sales of parking spaces not in the same building as the subject property since only a unit owner in the subject property’s building can purchase a parking space in the building. She further testified that as a real estate agent she knows that a unit owner cannot purchase a parking space in another building.

15Ms. Bossio further presented sales of seven properties which she believes are comparable to the subject property. All the sales properties are units in the same condominium building as the subject property. She also provided the Multiple Listing Service (“MLS”) for the seven comparable sales properties. These listings provided an approximate square footage for the sale properties between 1,200 – 1,399 sq. ft. and the last sale, Sale 7 - 2285 Lake Shore Blvd. W, Unit 1013 (MPAC’s Sale 3), which Ms. Bossio identified as most comparable to the subject property provides a square footage between 1,600 to 1,799 sq. ft. During cross examination, Ms. Bossio admitted that listing agents are not always accurate in providing the square foot of the sales. For Sale 6 - Unit 1914, she corrected the square footage as provided in the MLS listing by the listing agent from 1,300 to 1,376 sq. ft. For Sale 7, which MPAC also used as a comparable, she submits that MPAC is wrong in providing a square foot of 1,442 sq. ft., that the correct square foot for this unit is 1,604 sq. ft. She submits that maintenance fees are paid based on the square foot of the units and the Sale 7 unit has a higher maintenance fee than the other sales, which reveals that its square foot should be larger.

16In arriving at the current value, Ms. Bossio started with MPAC’s opinion of value of $717,000 and deducted the average of the three parking unit sales in the building at $13,833.33 from MPAC’s value for parking spaces at $19,000. She provided the Board with the difference of $5,166.67, which she deducted from $717,000 and obtained the amount of $711,833. Ms. Bossio submits that the correct current value of the subject property should be $650,000. She concludes that she arrived at this amount based on the prejudice from the Condominium Corporation’s status certificate, which she was unable to quantify and approximately $28,000 on special assessment levied against the subject property.

Board’s Analysis

17The best evidence of current value is the sale of the subject property on or near the valuation date of January 1, 2016. When no such sale occurs, as in this appeal, the Board looks to the recent sale of other similar properties in the vicinity at or near the valuation date to determine current value.

18Regarding the Appellant’s evidence, the Appellant did not use the seven unit sales in arriving at her opinion for current value, she only submits that Sale 7 - 2285 Lake Shore Blvd. W, Unit 1013 (MPAC’s Sale 3), which according to her evidence sold on April 12, 2016 for $650,000 is the most comparable to the subject property. Furthermore, the Appellant did not provide the Board with quantitative market evidence for the basis of her $61,833 deduction from MPAC’s opinion of value of $717,000. According to her, this amount represents the prejudice associated with the Condominium Corporation’s status certificate and approximately $28,000 she had spent on special assessment levied against the subject property. She admitted during the hearing that she could not quantify the prejudice on the status certificate. Furthermore, the Appellant did not provide the Board with receipts of the amount she had paid as special assessment against the subject property; she only provided the Board with an approximate amount of $28,000. There is no evidence to quantify the prejudice associated with the Condominium Corporation’s status certificate. The Board cannot determine the impact (if any) of these factors on its findings on the correct current value as it cannot arbitrarily assign a negative or positive adjustment to value without quantitative evidence.

19The Board was unable to use the Appellant’s seven sales in determining current value based on a value per square foot, as this analysis would require the Board to know the precise building size for these units in order to prevent the analysis from being skewed. The Appellant admitted during cross-examination that real estate agents are not always accurate in providing the square footage of the properties on the MLS listings. The Appellant had to correct the sq. ft. for Unit 1914 as provided in the MLS listing in her evidence from 1300 sq. ft. to 1,376 sq. ft.

20MPAC presented the property details of the three sales it used in arriving at the current value of the subject property. The Board was able to compare the features of these three comparable sales to identify their similarity with the subject property. All the three sales units have the same year built as the subject property, similar unit size, same number of bedrooms, only Sale 1 unit has two bathrooms compared to Sale 2 and Sale 3 units which have two and one-half bathrooms as the subject property. The Board was able to use these three sales in its analysis of value per square foot in arriving at the correct current value of the subject property.

21The Board did not use MPAC’s evidence for the value of parking. Ms. Blackburn could not provide the Board with the market evidence which she used in arriving at $19,000 for the value of the parking. The Board prefers the evidence of the Appellant, which shows only three sales for parking units in the subject property’s building since 2008. These three sales occurred in 2017. The Board used the average sales of these three parking units at $13,833.33, rather than MPAC’s value of $19,000.

22Consequently, for property Sale 2 with only one parking unit, using MPAC’s evidence of opinion of value in Table 1 above, the Board added $13,833.33 to the TAS price of $672,226 to obtain an adjusted amount of $686,059.33. Its square foot of 1,442 sq. ft. was applied against the adjustment of(-$2.46) per sq. ft. for the abutting garbage chute, which MPAC provided as $3,547.32 and further deducting this from the adjusted TAS price of $686,059.33 provides an adjusted amount of $682,512.01. This amount was divided by its square foot of 1,442 to obtain a final adjustment per sq. ft. of $473.31. The final adjusted sale amount per sq. ft. for the three sales are Sale 1: $500.56, Sale 2: $473.31 and Sale 3: $429.21. The median final adjustment for the three sales is: $473.31 applied to the sq. ft. of the subject property of 1,505 sq. ft. provided a current value of $712,000 (rounded). The Board further considered the Appellant’s argument that MPAC provided the wrong square footage for Sale 3 - Unit 1013. Using the square foot provided by the Appellant of 1,604 sq. ft. and adjusting it with (-$2.46) per sq. ft. adjustment for abutting a garbage chute, provides the amount of $3,945.84 to be deducted from its TAS price of $622,474. This provides a revised TAS price of $618,528.16, applied against its suggested 1,604 sq. ft., results in a final adjusted sale per sq. ft. of $385.61. The median final adjusted sale per sq. ft. for the three unit sales is still $473.31 and provides the same current value of $712,000 (rounded).

23The Board determines that the correct current value of the subject is $712,000 (rounded).

Equity Analysis

24Section 44.(3)(b) mandates and 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.”

25The Assessment to Sales Ratio (“ASR”) is a tool often used to determine if a reduction in the assessment below current value is required to make an assessment equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity. The ASR is determined by dividing the assessment as returned by the TAS price.

26Ms. Blackburn presented an equity analysis of 30 residential condominium sales with sales that occurred from January 01, 2015 to December 31, 2016, all in same building as the subject property, with a median ASR of 1.095. She submits that the International Association of Assessing Officers standards, which state that the median ratio should fall between 0.90 and 1.10. If the median ratio falls within this range, this reveals that the CVA are reflective of sales prices in the vicinity. Ms. Blackburn further submits that similar properties in the vicinity have been assessed accurately and uniformly, consequently there is no need for an equity adjustment.

27The Appellant did not provide any equity evidence or argument.

28The best evidence on equity is presented by MPAC as the 30 sales used in its analysis are from the same building as the subject property. The Board finds that the evidence does not lead the Board to the conclusion that the assessment of the property should be reduced below its current value to make it equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity.

CONCLUSION

29Based on all of the evidence, the Board determines the current value to be $712,000 (rounded). However, MPAC did not file a notice of intention to seek a higher assessment, as required by Rule 40(b) of the Board’s Rules. Consequently, the Board confirms the assessment below the current value determined at $697,000 for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years and finds this value to be fair and equitable.