Grant v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2018 CanLII 76059

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: August 09, 2018

FILE NO.: WR 152243

Assessed Person(s): Jacquelin Mary Teresa Grant Gordon Sinclair Grant

Appellant(s): Gordon Grant

Respondent(s): City of Orillia

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 16

Property Location(s): 40 Museum Drive, Unit 415

Municipality(ies): City of Orillia

Roll Number(s): 4352-010-105-09319-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3237910 and 3308562 (deemed 2018 appeal)

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

Hearing Event No. 695364

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

Heard: March 21, 2018 in Orillia, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Gordon Sinclair Grant	Self-represented
MPAC	Joan Manley
City of Orillia	No one appeared

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY VINCENT STABILE ON MARCH 21, 2018

INTRODUCTION

1The subject property is a two-storey condominium residential unit with a total building area of 1,700 square feet (sq. ft.) 1,100 sq. ft. on the first and 600 sq. ft. on the second floor. It also has 395 sq. ft. of finished basement area. The unit has other units to either side thereby reducing visibility and air flow, unlike end units in the same condominium complex.

2Gordon Grant, the “Appellant” purchased the property in August 2007 for $245,000.

3MPAC returned the assessment for the January 1, 2016 valuation date at $332,000. Following an inspection in November 2017, MPAC updated the data on the subject property and recommended a reduction to $315,000 using the revised data and the Direct Comparison Approach.

4The Appellant agreed with the approach to value but submits that MPAC has failed to take into consideration the size, finished areas and location of the subject property in comparison to other units in the complex.

5The Appellant submitted that the assessment should be $300,000.

ISSUE

6The issue to be determined, therefore, was the correct current value of the property for the 2017 taxation year.

DECISION

7The Board determined the correct current value for the 2017 taxation year was $305,000. The Board further determined that no further adjustment for equity was warranted.

EVIDENCE

MPAC

8The returned assessment for the 2017 taxation year for $332,000. However, after the assessment was returned, MPAC did a site visit and determined that data originally used for the assessment should be changed resulting in a reduced assessment of $315,000. The assessor, Joan Manley, filed a Valuation Report proposing an assessment of $315,000 as of January 1, 2016 (Valuation Day) using the Direct Comparison Approach. She proposed the sales of six (6) comparable properties, all described as ‘similar with loft or similar in square footage’, with a range of values of $304,029 to $343,786, time adjusted.

9Upon review of the data, it was clear that comparable Properties 5 and 6 had no loft. Further, comparable Property 4 was in a different condominium complex.

Appellant

10Mr. Grant challenged MPAC’s evidence based on his personal knowledge of the comparable properties used by MPAC. The assessor also had personal knowledge of the properties and acknowledged the distinct differences between what was referred to as “40 Museum Drive” and “10 Museum Drive” Condominium Complexes.

11The assessor also confirmed that comparable Properties 4, 5 and 6 did not have a loft, however had been included in her analysis due to lack of sales of models similar to the subject property in the same condominium complex as the subject property.

12Mr. Grant successfully challenged Properties 4, 5 and 6 of the comparable properties relied upon by MPAC.

13Mr. Grant proposed to rely on MPAC’s three (3) remaining sales. Those three unit sales were from the same complex and all had a loft. The range of value was $310,455 to $343,796.

14The parties agreed that the most comparable sale was Unit 405, except that it was 28 square feet larger. That unit sold for $310,455 or $179.40 per sq. ft.

LEGISLATION

15Section 44.(3)(a) of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.A.31 (“Act”) requires the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) to “determine the current value of the land.” Current value is defined in s. 1 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, I must determine what the subject property would have sold for in an arm’s length transaction on the relevant valuation day, set pursuant to s. 19.3 of the Act, as January 1, 2016 for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

16Once the current value has been determined, s. 44.(3)(b) requires that the Board “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” but only if that adjustment would result in a reduction of the assessment.

ANALYSIS

17Mr. Grant had direct and reliable knowledge of all comparable units relied upon by MPAC. His Request for Reconsideration and subsequent inspection of the subject property resulted in rectification of data and a recommendation for a reduction in the assessment from $332,000 to $315,000.

18The Appellant requested a reduction to $300,000 but acknowledged that the best comparable sale was Unit 405.

19The Board accepted that Unit 405 was 28 square feet larger than the subject. The Board finds that a larger unit, within the same complex, with similar finishes and location would sell for a higher price. This unit is in the same condominium complex and has similar restrictions as to view and air flow as the subject property. The Board finds that in assessing such similar properties, it is reasonable to determine value based on the value per square foot.

20Applying $179.40 per square foot to the subject property, being 1,700 sq. ft. results in a value of $304,980 or $305,000 rounded.

21The Board determines $305,000 to be the correct current value for the 2017 taxation year.

EQUITY

22The only evidence received on the issue of equity was from MPAC. The Appellant did not make any submissions about equity to the Board.

23The evidence consisted of an Assessment to Sales Ratio Study (ASR) of thirty (30) properties resulting in a median of 0.967.

24The assessor stated that equity was achieved if the median ASR falls between 0.95 and 1.05. Although some flaws were noted in the entire study, this was the best evidence available. Accordingly, the Board accepted the evidence of the assessor on the issue of equity.

CONCLUSION

25The Board determined that the correct current value for the 2017 taxation year and deemed 2018 tax year was $305,000 (rounded). Further, that no reduction for equity was warranted.

2018 DEEMED APPEAL

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

27Section 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.