Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: July 9, 2018 FILE NO.: WR 153246

Assessed Person(s): Sylvia Altaras, Jacques Altaras Appellant(s): Sylvia Altaras, Jacques Altaras Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 09 Respondent(s): City of Toronto

Property Location(s): 322 Chaplin Crescent Municipality(ies): City of Toronto Roll Number(s): 1904-113-020-07250-0000 Appeal Number(s): 3185855 and 3298941 Taxation Year(s): 2017 and 2018 Hearing Event No.: 696176

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

Heard: May 14, 2018 in Toronto, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel+/Representative
Sylvia Altaras, Jacques Altaras	Self-represented
MPAC	Nathan Cohen
City of Toronto	No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY MARCELLE BOURASSA

INTRODUCTION

1Jacques and Sylvia Altaras (the “Appellants”) are the owners of the property located at 322 Chaplin Crescent (the “Subject Property”) in the City of Toronto. It is a two storey single family detached home located on a 0.07 acre lot with 26 ft. of frontage. It was built in 1978 and has 1,816 square feet (“sq. ft.”) of total building area with some finished basement area and a basement garage. The Subject Property receives several variable site adjustments: negative 5% for proximity to a transformer station, negative 9% for a medium traffic pattern and negative 4% for proximity to multi-residential. There is no adjustment on account of the Subject Property’s proximity to the ongoing mass transit construction project along Eglinton Avenue (Eglinton LRT Project: Chaplin Station).

2For the 2017 taxation year under appeal, MPAC returned the assessment for the Subject Property at $1,049,000.

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 (“Act”). Mr. Altaras, on behalf of the Appellants, states that for the past four years, they have experienced exceptional inconvenience due to noise, dirt, vibration, utility shut downs plus additional maintenance expenses on account of the ongoing construction work on the new Chaplin Station (Eglinton LRT Project). Their property looks like it is in the middle of a construction site. It is their position that the Subject Property is not worth $1,049,000 given its exterior appearance and surroundings and all of the inconvenience and nuisance issues. They take the position that the Subject Property’s assessment should not be increased and should remain at $723,000.

4Pursuant to the Act, the burden of proof as to the correctness of the current value of the Subject Property rests with MPAC. For the period of 2017-2020, the Subject Property is valued as of January 1, 2016. MPAC’s representative, Nathan Cohen estimates the current value of the Subject Property to be $1,049,000 based on the direct comparison approach. He conducted an equity study and determined that an equity adjustment is not required. It is his position that the assessment as returned of $1,049,000 should be confirmed 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

6The Board finds that the current value of the property, as of the January 1, 2016 valuation date, is $970,000 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 322 Chaplin Crescent is reduced from $1,049,000 to $970,000 for the 2017 and 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) 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 the period consisting of the four taxation years from 2013 to 2016, land is valued as of January 1, 2012.

4. For the period consisting of the four taxation years from 2017 to 2020, land is valued as of January 1, 2016.

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

40.(17) Burden of proof. – 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. Cohen states that the Subject Property is located north of Eglinton Avenue. It is the first property north of the future Chaplin Station of the new Eglinton LRT Project. The dwelling adjacent to the Subject Property was demolished in 2016. The Subject Property now abuts the construction site and is currently being used for parking and as a construction office. In the future, it will become a parkette adjacent to the Chaplin Station. He added that there will be no future adjustment for proximity to the Chaplin Station.

14The Board asked Mr. Cohen to check if there was an adjustment for proximity to a fire station. Mr. Cohen verified all of the adjustments and determined that the transformer station and the fire station are located on the same parcel and so there is no additional adjustment for proximity to the fire station. The adjustment will remain at negative 5%. The negative 9% for a medium traffic pattern will also remain. However, the multi-residential building is a little bit further south and would no longer warrant a negative 4% adjustment for proximity to multi-residential. MPAC will adjust its records. Mr. Cohen added that MPAC will honor a recommended value of $1,049,000. In future, the total for variable adjustments will be negative 14%.

15Key points of comparison of the Subject Property and the six sales comparables are set out Table 1 below:

Table 1

Property	Effective Site Area (acres)	Frontage (ft.)	Year Built	Renovation	Building Area (sq. ft.)	Variable Adjustment	Time Adjusted Sale (“TAS”)($)
322 Chaplin Crescent (Subject Property)	0.07	26	1978		1,816	- 5% prox. transformer -9% medium traffic -4% prox. to multi-res.	N/A
76 Castle Knock Road (Property 1)	0.08	30.1	1932	1969 B (1990)	1,834	N/A	$1,322,172 (December 2015)
36 Castle Knock Road (Property 2)	0.09	30	1934	1970 B (1990)	1,705	N/A	$1,423,195 (August 2016)
20 Kelway Boulevard (Property 3)	0.08	30	1934	1970 B (1990)	1,539	N/A	$1,355,148 (December 2015)
7A Gilgorm Road (Property 4)	0.06	19.03	1977		1,960	N/A	$1,297,429 (August 2016)
33 Castle Knock Road (Property 5)	0.07	29.92	1934	1970 B (1990)	1,950	N/A	$1,387,811 (July 2015)
171 Chaplin Crescent (Property 6)	0.07	25	1933	1970 B (1990)	1,406	Medium traffic	$1,387,040 (October 2016)
157 Chaplin Crescent (Property 7)	0.08	30	1936	1985 C (1994)	1,395	Medium traffic	$1,419,291 (August 2015)

16Mr. Cohen states that all of the sales comparables have similar small lots and building areas and are located in either homogeneous area C49 or D62. However, there is no similarity in the negative influences on value. In the absence of site variables, the Subject Property would have been assessed at $1,237,000.

17Mr. Cohen expressed the view that 7A Gilgorm Road supports a current value for the Subject Property between $1,200,000 to $1,300,000. It is located on a slightly smaller lot on the next street. It was constructed in 1977 and has a slightly larger building area.

18Mr. Cohen states that the estimated current value of$1,049,000 is based on the direct comparison approach and was generated using MPAC’s mass appraisal method which is based on a statistical multiple regression analysis. It has been adjusted for site variables.

19The Board asked Mr. Cohen to verify the key property details for the property at 1021 Spadina Road. He states that it is a two storey single family detached home located on a 0.07 acre lot with 25 ft. of frontage. It was built in 1982 and underwent a B renovation in 2016 for an effective year of build of 2004. It has 2,000 sq. ft. of total building area with 570 sq. ft. of finished basement area and a quality of construction rating of 7. It sold in November 2017 for $1,550,000 (TAS $1,243,000). Mr. Cohen states that he did not verify the 2016 current value assessment (“CVA”) for 1021 Spadina Road. However, it receives several variable site adjustments: negative 5% for proximity to a transformer station and either a negative 2% or 4% for a light traffic pattern.

Appellants’ Evidence

20Mr. Altaras states that the 2012 CVA for the Subject Property was $723,000. He received a preliminary Notice of Assessment for the 2016 CVA of $1,177,000. An amended Notice of Property Assessment was issued on December 5, 2016 for $1,049,000.

21Mr. Altaras states that they purchased the house in May 1993. The washrooms were upgraded and the interior of the house was repainted. A big rotten tree was removed from the backyard and an interlocking stone patio was installed along with a new fence. Regular maintenance has been performed including replacing the roof, furnace and air conditioner. There have been no other upgrades or renovations.

22Mr. Altaras states that for the past four years, they have experienced exceptional inconvenience due to noise, dirt, vibration, utility shut downs plus additional maintenance expenses on account of the construction work on the new Chaplin Station (Eglinton LRT Project). Their property looks like it is in the middle of a construction site. The front and back patios and exterior windows are continuously covered in construction dust and dirt.

23Since the property next door has been demolished to accommodate the extension of an existing parkette, it has been converted into a parking lot for the site workers during the construction. Working hours on the site have been extended on a daily basis from 5:30 a.m. to about 9 p.m. Work on the Chaplin Station has now been extended to 2022/23.

24Mr. Altaras’ documentary evidence also included a copy of the pre-condition survey of the Subject Property conducted by dRB Environmental Services Inc. in 2016 to document the existing conditions, visible defects and/or damage to the building interior for comparison purposes in the event of future claims resulting from the proposed work.

25Mr. Altaras also states that the fire station across the street from the Subject Property is a bigger inconvenience now. Every morning there is a drill in which the two fire trucks are parked on the driveway and inspected. It lasts about 30 minutes and is quite noisy and distracting, interfering with breakfast at their kitchen table.

26Mr. Altaras states that he went to see all of MPAC’s suggested comparables and took photographs. He asserts that two of the dwellings have been demolished and rebuilt. None of the properties are in the same situation as his own property on account of all of nuisances and inconveniences. Mr. Altaras expressed the opinion that the two properties at 157 and 171 Chaplin Crescent do not compare to the Subject Property as they are in Forest Hill. Mr. Cohen acknowledged that some of the properties may have been improved after purchase.

27Mr. Altaras takes the position that the Subject Property is not worth $1,049,000. He states that the adjacent property at 320 Chaplin Crescent was purchased by Metrolinx for $1,300,000 and was demolished in February 2016. It had been fully renovated. Mr. Altaras states that his former neighbour had offered to purchase the Subject Property for $950,000.

28Mr. Altaras also referred to the house next door at 1021 Spadina Road that was sold for $1,500,000. He produced the sale brochure with photographs for the recent listing. He states that is has been renovated and estimates that he would have to spend about $500,000 on the Subject Property to make it similar. It is also subject to some negative influences and the back yard is also dirty.

29Mr. Altaras acknowledges that once the construction is over, the Subject Property will be worth more. However, it is not worth $1,049,000 given its exterior appearance and surroundings and all of the inconveniences and nuisance issues.

Board’s Analysis and Findings

30Under 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.

31To 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.

32The Board does not find the three properties located at 76, 36 and 33 Castle Knock Road to be comparable to the Subject Property. They are fairly similar to the Subject Property in terms of frontage, site area and building size. However, they have all undergone B renovations. Also, they are not subject to any of the negative influences on value like the Subject Property.

33The Board does not find the property at 20 Kelway Boulevard to be comparable to the Subject Property. It is fairly similar to the Subject Property in terms of frontage and site area but has a smaller building size. It also underwent a B renovation. Also, it is not subject to any negative site variables like the Subject Property.

34The Board does not find the two properties at 157 and 171 Chaplin Crescent to be comparable to the Subject Property. They are fairly similar to the Subject Property in terms of frontage and site area but both have smaller building areas. Both receive negative variable adjustments for a medium traffic pattern. However, the property at 171 Chaplin Crescent underwent a B renovation and the property at 157 Chaplin Crescent underwent a C renovation. Furthermore, they are located in a different homogenous neighborhood (D62), in the Forest Hill neighbourhood.

35The Board finds the properties at 7A Gilgorm Road and 1021 Spadina Road to be the most helpful evidence in determining a current value for the Subject Property.

36The property at 7A Gilgorm is located on a slightly smaller lot with a smaller frontage of 19.03 ft. on the next street. It was constructed in 1977, has the same quality of construction rating of 6.5 and a slightly larger building area at 1,960 sq. ft. It is not subject to any negative site variables like the Subject Property. It sold in August 2016 for a TAS of $1,297,429.

37On the other hand, the property next door at 1021 Spadina Road is located on a similar 0.07 acre lot with 25 ft. of frontage. It was built in 1982 and underwent a B renovation in 2016 for an effective year of build of 2004. It has 2,000 sq. ft. of total building area with 570 sq. ft. of finished basement area and a higher quality of construction rating of 7. It receives several variable site adjustments: negative 5% for proximity to a transformer station and either a negative 2% or 4% for a light traffic pattern. It sold in November 2017 for a TAS $1,243,000.

38The Board finds the property located at 1021 Spadina Road to be a superior property to both the Subject Property and 7A Gilgorm Road given its condition, higher quality of construction and larger square footage. However, its TAS value of $1,243,000 is lower than the TAS of $1,297,429 for 7A Gilgorm Road. A combination of negative influences and the nearby ongoing LRT Chaplin Station construction appear to impact the value of 1021 Spadina Road. As a result, the Board finds that the Subject Property’s current value should be lower than $1,243,000.

39The Board finds that the Subject Property and 1021 Spadina Road share similarities in terms of lot size, frontage and total building area. In addition, 1021 Spadina Road is subject to some, albeit different, negative site variables and possibly some negative influences as a result of the nearby construction of the Eglinton LRT Project: Chaplin Station. The Board will use 1021 Spadina Road’s TAS value of $621 per sq. ft. to determine a current value for the Subject Property. Applying this value to the Subject Property’s square footage of 1,816 sq. ft. results in a value of $1,127,736.

40The Board is satisfied that MPAC has considered an adjustment for proximity to a fire station notwithstanding Mr. Altaras concern that the nuisance had worsened. Mr. Cohen verified all of the adjustments and determined that the transformer station and the fire station are located on the same parcel and so there is no additional adjustment for proximity to the fire station. Therefore, the Board finds that the adjustment should remain at negative 5%. The Subject Property receives a negative adjustment of 9% for a medium traffic pattern. At the hearing, Mr. Cohen stated that the Subject Property no longer warrants a negative 4% adjustment for proximity to multi-residential. Therefore, the total adjustment for negative site variables is 14%.

41Mr. Cohen stated that MPAC does not make an adjustment for the types of exceptional inconveniences and nuisances experienced by the Appellants due to the proximity of the Subject Property to the ongoing construction work on the new Chaplin Station (Eglinton LRT Project). The Board believes Mr. Alteras’ assertion that they have experienced (and continue to experience) exceptional inconvenience due to noise, dirt, vibration, utility shut downs plus additional maintenance expenses on account of the ongoing construction work on the new Chaplin Station (Eglinton LRT Project). The Board has considered the impact of the construction for the Chaplin Station (Eglinton LTR Project), a public work, in its determination of current value, as it considered the sale of 1021 Spadina Road that is subject to some negative influences as a result of the nearby construction work. The Board notes that Mr. Altaras’ evidence included a copy of the pre-condition survey of the Subject Property conducted by dRB Environmental Services Inc. in 2016 to document the existing conditions, visible defects and/or damage to the Subject Property’s interior for comparison purposes in the event of future claims resulting from the public work. This evidence only serves to re-inforce that the impact of construction needs to be considered. However, this is not in dispute. The issue in dispute here is the amount of an adjustment. The Board finds that there is insufficient evidence before the Board to quantify an adjustment for the exceptional inconveniences and nuisances asserted by Mr. Altaras as a result of the ongoing construction work.

42For all of these reasons, the Board will adjust the value of $1,127,736 as determined above by negative 14% and the resulting value is $969,853 or $970,000 (rounded).

43The Board sets the current value of the Subject Property at $970,000.

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

44Mr. Cohen relies on an Equity Analysis Report that considered the TASs of 30 properties, Single Family Detached (Not on Water), that occurred between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2016 within 0.835 kilometres of the Subject Property.

45In his Report, Mr. Cohen states that the level of appraisal is established by determining the median Assessment to Sale Ratio (“ASR”) in the sales sample. 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. In this case, the median ASR of 0.952 indicates that similar properties in the vicinity have been assessed at or near their current values. Therefore, an equity adjustment is not required.

Appellants’ Evidence

46Mr. Altaras takes the position that the Subject Property’s assessment should not be increased and should remain at $723,000.

47Mr. Altaras is of the opinion that the City should have offered some relief measures such as waiving municipal taxes on account of the extreme inconveniences on account of the ongoing construction work on the new Chaplin Station (Eglinton LRT Project).

Board’s Analysis and Findings

48Section 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.”

49The 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.

50In 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].”

51The 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).

52The 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] O.J. No. 1010 ONSC 1299, 276 A.C.W.S. (3d) 220, 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.

53The 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.

54Mr. Cohen relies on an Equity Analysis Report that considered the sales of 30 residential properties that occurred between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2016 within 0.835 kilometres of the Subject Property. In this instance, the sales sample produced a median ASR of 0.952.

55The Board finds that the median ASR of 0.952 falls within MPAC’s generally acceptable standard of 0.95 and 1.05 required to establish that the level of current values assessments of similar properties is in line with the level of sales prices in the vicinity. Therefore, the Board finds that any reduction to the current value as determined above is not required in order to make the assessment of the Subject Property equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity under this s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act.

56Furthermore, any request for municipal; tax relief for exceptional inconvenience due to dirt, vibration, utility shut downs plus additional maintenance expenses on account of the ongoing construction work on the new Chaplin Station (Eglinton LRT Project) is not relevant to test to be applied in determining whether there should be a reduction in equitable value.

57For 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

58The Board finds that the current value of the Subject Property, as of the January 1, 2016 valuation date, is $970,000. Furthermore, the Board finds that the evidence before it does not support the conclusion that an equitable adjustment is required under s. 44.(3)(b )of the Act.

59Accordingly, the assessment of the Subject Property is reduced from $1,049,000 to $970,000 for the 2017 and2018 taxation years.