Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: September 05, 2018

FILE NO.: RD 2018M13

Assessed Persons: Rafeah Haque, Shahnawaz Haque

Appellant: Shahnawaz Haque

Respondent: Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 15

Respondent: City of Mississauga

Property Location: 398 Silverthorne Crescent

Municipality: City of Mississauga

Roll Number: 2105-040-096-10151-0000

Appeal Number: 3256564

Taxation Year: 2017

Legislative Authority: Rule 123 of the Assessment Review Board Rules of Practice and Procedure

Request for: Review of WR 150093, issued on April 13, 2018

Heard: By written submission

Parties	Representative	Submissions
Shahnawaz Haque	Self-represented	Requester
MPAC	None	Not Requested
City of Mississauga	None	Not Requested

DECISION DELIVERED BY PAUL MULDOON AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

INTRODUCTION

1Shahnawaz Haque is requesting that the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) set aside the decision of Member Weagant in WR 150093, issued on April 13, 2018 (the “Decision”). He alleges that Member Weagant made a number of errors of fact and law that would have led to a different decision.

2The Board finds that none of the issues raised by Mr. Haque are likely to have caused Member Weagant reach a different decision. The Board, therefore, dismisses Mr. Haque’s request for review of the Decision.

Background

3Mr. Haque is an owner of the property located at 398 Silverthorne Crescent in the City of Mississauga. He appealed the 2017 assessed value of the property on the basis that it was too high. MPAC had returned an assessment of $661,000 for the 2017 taxation year. Mr. Haque’s opinion was that the assessment of the property was no more than $550,000 due primarily to the poor condition of the property.

4Member Weagant reviewed the evidence presented by MPAC and found that similar property in the area was settling for between $740,000 and $820,000 near the January 1, 2016 valuation day. He accepted that Mr. Haque’s house was in worse condition than the other sales, and accepted MPAC’s suggestion that Mr. Haque’s house would sell for $73,000 less than what the sales of other properties may indicate. Member Weagant then removed $73,000 from each comparable sale prices, and calculated the average value per square foot of building area of those sales. He applied that average value to the square footage of Mr. Haque’s house, which indicated a likely value of $703,000.

5Member Weagant addressed Mr. Haque’s concerns in his equity analysis. That provision requires the Board to determine if it would be fair to assess the property at its current value. Member Weagant did not accept either of the positions advanced by Mr. Haque. First, he did not accept that the assessments of five nearby properties showed that it would be unfair to assess the property at its current value. Secondly, he rejected the argument that the increase in assessed value could be the basis for an equitable adjustment. Member Weagant therefore confirmed the returned assessment of $661,000 for the 2017 taxation year.

Rules

6Mr. Haque seeks a review of the Decision. Reviews are governed by Rules 120 through 123 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”). Rule 120 sets out the procedural requirements that must be met before a review will be considered. Those are met here. Rule 121 set outs the requirements that must be met before a review can succeed. The Board must be satisfied that one of the five clauses in Rule 121 is made out. Mr. Haque does not reference a particular clause of Rule 121 in his submissions, but all of his concerns relate to clause (b): “the Board made a significant error of law of fact such that the Board would likely have reached a different decision.”

Alleged Errors

7Mr. Haque attacks 19 specific paragraphs of the Decision. However, a review of the concerns raised with each shows that he is alleging four main errors: (1) the Board did not have good comparable sales; (2) the Board should not have accepted MPAC’s adjustment for the poor condition of the property; (3) the Board should not have relied on MPAC’s level of assessment study; and (4) the Board did not properly consider the relative increase in the assessments of similar properties.

8Member Weagant did not err in any of those areas. Even if he had, it is unlikely that the result of the Decision would have been different.

Comparable Sales

9Mr. Haque complains that the sales evidence presented by MPAC was not an “apples to apples” comparison. He says that MPAC should have looked for sales of properties in poor condition, but did not do so. He also complains that the properties MPAC used were as far as 1.4 kilometres from the property.

10It is likely true that MPAC could have provided better evidence, but that is not an error made by Member Weagant. This Board can only make decisions based on the evidence that the parties bring before the Board. The Board is a quasi-judicial tribunal modeled on the common law, in which parties are given the opportunity to put forward their best case and challenge the evidence of the other parties. Mr. Haque had the opportunity to present better sales evidence at the hearing, but did not do so.

11Mr. Haque complains that is difficult for taxpayers to collect sales information. That may be so, but the Board must work with the evidence it is provided. Mr. Haque did have access to MPAC’s AboutMyProperty website, which would have allowed him access to some market data. Any difficulty in gathering evidence may point to the need for broader reforms, but it does not show that Member Weagant made an error in the Decision. The Decision was based on the best evidence available.

Poor Condition Adjustment

12Mr. Haque complains that MPAC did not support its suggested adjustment of $73,000, yet it was still accepted by Member Weagant. It is true that the value seems to have been suggested by MPAC with little empirical backing. However, there was no other evidence available to make an adjustment for the poor condition of Mr. Haque’s property.

13Member Weagant even noted, at paragraph 31 of the Decision, that the “property has an assessment that is over $100,000 lower than is demonstrated by the sales of very similar properties.” That is, the final value determined by Member Weagant had an adjustment greater than MPAC’s suggested $73,000 adjustment. It is difficult to see how that is in error. Mr. Haque has not suggested an alternative adjustment form the sales evidence. It is always best practice to approach current value on market tested sales evidence, and Member Weagant made no error in doing so.

Level of Assessment

14Mr. Haque claims that MPAC’s level of assessment study was flawed because it did not compare his property to other properties in poor condition and because it was too technical and removed from reality.

15This Board has repeatedly held that a level of assessment study is the best evidence of fairness in assessment. Most recently, in Jay Patry Enterprises Inc. v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 05, 2019 CanLII 39629 (ON ARB), 2018 CanLII 70338 (ON ARB), at paragraph 111, this Board held that “the best evidence that there is an inequity is a statistically reliable level of assessment study.” While Mr. Haque may have difficulty understanding the significance of such a study, that does make it an error for the Board to rely on the best evidence.

16The allegation that an equity study should only be based on very similar properties, such as those that are in poor condition, is not sound in law. The Divisional Court held in Municipal Property Assessment Corporation v Loblaw Properties Limited, 2017 ONSC 1299, [2017] O.J. No.1010 paragraph 23, that all points of comparison between properties must be considered in an equity assessment. Member Weagant made no error in accepting residential property in the vicinity as comparable for equity purposes.

Increase in Value

17Mr. Haque’s final complaint is that Member Weagant did not adequately consider the amount that property assessments in the area, including his, had increased over time. Member Weagant reviewed those concerns at paragraph 23 of the Decision and rejected that argument at paragraph 36 of the Decision.

18Mr. Haque takes issue with how the Decision addressed his percentage increase, but there is no error in how Member Weagant addressed that argument. It is well settled that each valuation day is a distinct valuation problem. How the value was determined for a previous valuation day has no relevance to the question before the Board, which is what the property likely would have sold for on the current valuation day. One recent example of that proposition can be found in Russell v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation , Region 15, 2018 CanLII 65305 (ON ARB) at paragraph 7.

19Member Weagant did not make an error in declining to consider the changes in assessed value over time.

Conclusion

20The Board is not satisfied that Member Weagant made any errors of fact or law that would have led to a different decision. Mr. Haque’s request for review is denied.