Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: February 14, 2019

FILE NO.: WR 146796

Assessed Person(s): Christine Musial, Andrew Musial

Appellant(s): Christine Musial, Andrew Musial

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 09

Respondent(s): City of Toronto

Property Location(s): 2 Kevi Lane

Municipality(ies): City of Toronto

Roll Number(s): 1919-035-260-00150-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3143164, 3143162, 3129837 and 3149349

Taxation Year(s): 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016

Hearing Event No.: 644367

Legislative Authority: Section 323.(1) City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A, and Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended

Heard: December 1, 2016 in Toronto, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Andrew Musial, Christine Musial	Self-represented
MPAC	Maria Cheung, Kristie Reis, Adriana Kim
City of Toronto	Georgia Tanner

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY MARK SPRAGGETT

REASONS

Background

1Andrew Musial and Christine Musial are the owners of 2 Kevi Lane (the “Subject Property”) a two and a half storey detached house with a detached garage. The backyard of the Subject Property overlooks a ravine that is not part of the Subject Property.

2On July 8, 2013, a severe rain storm event negatively impacted the ravine abutting the Subject Property, resulting in embankment erosion, destabilizing a portion of the Subject Property’s rear lot, causing that portion to become unusable for gardening and normal outdoor use. The storm event damaged a chain link fence, a retaining wall as well as stairs entering into the ravine from the Subject Property.

3Christine and Andrew Musial (“Applicants”) filed an application with the City of Toronto (“Respondent”) for a reduction of property taxes, as per s. 323, City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11 (“City of Toronto Act”) for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years. City Council decided at its February 22, 2016 meeting not to reduce their taxes. The Respondent asserts that the normal use of the land has not been affected from the storm’s impact.

4Christine and Andrew Musial then filed an appeal with the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) challenging the decision of City Council, seeking a reduction in taxes to reflect the damage to their property.

5Christine and Andrew Musial (“Appellants”), also filed with the Board, an appeal, pursuant to s. 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (“Assessment Act”). MPAC has assessed the value of the Subject Property for the taxation years 2015 and 2016 as $1,384,000. The Appellants maintain that this assessment is too high and that it does not take into account the damage to their property from the storm event. The Appellants submit that the correct current value of the Subject Property is $784,000.

6At the completion of the hearing, the Board reserved its decision. For the reasons that follow, the Board finds the Applicants are not entitled to tax relief pursuant to s. 323.(1) of the City of Toronto Act, and finds the decision of City Council to be correct. Furthermore, in the matter of the Appellant’s s. 40 appeal, the Board finds the correct current value of the Subject Property is $1,384,000.

Relevant Legislation

7Section 323.(1) of the City of Toronto Act provides:

323.(1) Cancellation, reduction, refund of taxes. – Upon application to the city treasurer made in accordance with this section, the City may cancel, reduce or refund all or part of taxes levied on land in the year in respect of which the application is made if,

(h) repairs or renovations to the land prevented the normal use of the land for a period of at least three months during the year.

8Section 1 of the Assessment Act states:

1. “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 Assessment 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 Assessment 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 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.

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

40.(17) 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 Assessment 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.

ISSUES

Issue 1: Municipal Application for Tax Relief

13The Board must make a determination whether the Subject Property qualifies as per s. 323.(1) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 a cancellation, reduction or refund of all or part of the taxes levied for the 2013 to 2014 taxation years. According to s. 323.(1)(h) of the City of Toronto Act, if repairs or renovations prevent the normal use of the land for at least three months during the year, there may be grounds for a tax adjustment.

Issue 2: What is the correct Current Value of the Subject Property?

14The second issue before the Board pursuant to the Assessment Act is the determination of current value for the taxation years 2015 and 2016 as of the January 1, 2012 valuation date for the Subject Property.

Description of the Subject Property

15Located in Toronto, the Subject Property is a two and a half storey detached house with a detached garage. It has a quality classification of 7.5. Built in 1980, the house has a total building area of 4,802 square feet, an effective site area of 17,865 square feet, including an effective frontage and depth of 80 feet and 183.58 feet respectively. The backyard of the Subject Property overlooks a ravine of Mimico Creek, managed by the Toronto Regional Conservation Authority (“TRCA”) that is not part of the Subject Property.

Discussion, Analysis and Findings

Issue 1: Municipal Application for Tax Relief

Applicant's Evidence

16Christine Musial and Andrew Musial were in attendance at the Board’s hearing. They represented themselves as the Applicants.

17The Applicants entered into evidence a comprehensive binder consisting of many photos of the Subject Property and neighbouring structures, depicting the impact the storm event had on their property and abutting ravine lands. Other documents included press releases about the storm, News Bulletins, third party assessment articles/reports on the storm event and its’ impact in the neighbourhood, various correspondences with local public officials, including MPAC.

18The Applicants stated that for 2013 and 2014, they continued to reside in their house, and that the storm event did not prevent them from continuing to do so. They indicated that they could not use a section of the lot at the back of the property abutting the ravine that was damaged by the storm. They also stated they were unable to access the ravine from their property, as the storm event damaged the retaining wall and staircase leading into the ravine. They expressed their opinion evidence that they cannot sell their property without taking a significant loss, given the condition of their property.

19The Applicants further stated they have been waiting three years for the Respondent and the TRCA to repair the damage caused to their property and surrounding ravine lands.

20Photos were presented showing the debris of damaged retaining wall structures, a damaged chain link fence and a damaged stairway leading into the ravine.

21The Applicants stated that all repairs to their lands and the ravine lands abutting their property fall under the jurisdiction of the TRCA. They indicated that, as owners, they were not allowed to do their own repairs.

22The Applicants indicated that, on two occasions, some temporary repairs were done in terms of fencing. They stated that the TRCA came out to assist in setting up temporary fencing, consisting of wire fencing and posts. They further stated that it took them an estimated two days to complete the temporary fencing repairs each time.

23The Applicants submitted a Report No. Fl2010-16 prepared by Paul Gravelle from the Township of Oro-Medonte, dated October 13, 2010, addressed to Council, to support their position for a reduction in taxes. The Report states that the owner of the Subject Property, made an application for tax reduction if repairs or renovations to the land prevented the normal use of the land for a period of at least three months during the year. The subject structure apparently experienced significant ice and water damage.

24The Applicants indicated that MPAC had determined that the damage incurred warranted a 40% reduction of the assessed value of the structure for the period in question. In this instance, the structure had considerable damage that affected market value. According to the owner the structure was not habitable.

25The Applicants stated that, according to MPAC, the structure still had market value. They stated that MPAC estimated, excluding labour costs, material repairs at $195,000. The property was assessed at $635,000 prior to the damage incident.

26For MPAC to arrive at this conclusion, it reviewed the owner supplied engineer’s report, itemized cost to cure from a third party construction firm, and details related to the insurance claim payout.

27Based on MPAC’s recommendations, the Township of Oro-Medonte processed a reduction of taxes for the said period in the amount of $1,577.11, reflecting the 40% reduction in assessed value of $635,000 (includes land and structure) to $441,140.

28With the aid of photos, the Applicants illustrated where the storm damage occurred on their property as well as in the ravine itself, including the embankment damage from soil erosion due to the storm waters.

29The Applicants provided extensive documentation including photos before the storm event and after the event, illustrated examples of slope failure, highlighting the storm event’s impact in the neighbourhood. These photos illustrated other nearby properties with damage to the ravine embankments, showing damaged City fencing, temporary fencing, fallen trees and damaged retaining walls.

30The Applicants provided a variety of third party technical studies addressing slope stability and erosion risk assessment due to the 2013 storm damage, encompassing a large area where the storm had impacted. Some photos depicted contractors creating bore holes to assess soil stability etc., including on the Subject Property.

31A comprehensive slope stability and erosion risk assessment report conducted by a geotechnical company, Terraprobe Inc., for the TRCA, was included in the Appellants' evidence. The study addressed the areas affected by the storm event, and also made reference to the Subject Property. In the report the authors state that the risk to the Subject Property dwelling is considered low, given the distance from the rear of the house to the point of the escarpment failure is 11.4 metres.

32The Applicants believe the loss of enjoyment of their garden and land is a major concern.

Applicant's Submissions

33The Applicants believe that the normal use of the land should not simply address their residing on the property, but also include the ability to sell their property without prejudice or stigma in the market place because of the damage from the storm event. They ask that the Board grant a reduction in taxes to reflect the time period they have and continue to endure the damage to their property.

Respondent’s Evidence

34Georgia Tanner, acting for the City of Toronto, asked MPAC to provide an overview of the Subject Property in regards to the storm event. The City of Toronto relies on MPAC’s evidence to provide the assessed value of the property and any recommended changes.

35Maria Cheung represented MPAC in addition to being the Property Valuation Specialist.

36Ms. Cheung submitted into evidence her Valuation Report for the Subject Property, a Property Profile document of the Subject Property, a Market Analysis document for the Subject Property, photos of the Subject Property, a copy of Minutes of Settlement (“MOS”) document, and an Equity Analysis document of the Subject Property.

37Ms. Cheung visited the Subject Property on September 16, 2013, two months after the storm event. She did not enter the ravine lands, as they are not part of the Subject Property’s lands. She indicated that the Subject Property lands lost approximately 15 feet at the end of the lot abutting the ravine, reducing that section of the land from a depth of 95.14 feet to 80 feet. She stated that 1,614.59 sq. ft. of lands are affected by the storm event on the Subject Property.

38Ms. Cheung also stated that the assessment of the Subject Property’s land for the 2013 to 2016 taxation years does not include that portion of the lands that were damaged. Ms. Cheung stated that MPAC has excluded the value of the affected land portions from the total assessed value, in light of the storm event’s impact to the property.

39Ms. Cheung stated that in 2013 a Request for Reconsideration (“RFR”) was made by the owners, for a reduction of the then CVA of $1,687,000. Upon review, a reduction was granted, reducing the assessed value to $1,384,000, representing a $58,000 reduction for the lands damaged by the storm and an additional $245,000 to reflect loss in market value.

40Ms. Cheung states that the MOS were signed and are still in effect to reflect these changes.

Respondent’s Submissions

41The Respondent asserts that MPAC adjusted an amount in excess of 2,000 sq. ft. of land presumed affected by the storm, (even though it was only 1,614.59 sq. ft.), for the purposes of determining the reduced assessed value of the Subject Property.

42The Respondent argues that no tax relief is needed, because the Applicants continue to reside on the property that no major repairs were done, and the minor temporary fence repairs that were made, did not hinder the use of the property. The Respondent argues that the request for tax relief does not meet the provisions of the City of Toronto Act.

43The Respondent submitted a case authority to the Board for consideration, as context to support its decision:

Chrysler Canada Ltd. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp. Region No. 15 IN THE MATTER OF Sections 357.(7) and 364.(14) of the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, c. 25, as amended, and IN THE MATTER OF appeals with respect to taxation year 2003 on premises known municipally as 2000 Williams Parkway East Between Chrysler Canada Limited, Applicant/Appellant, and The City of Brampton, Respondent, [2008] O.A.R.B.D. No. 263, 61 O.M.B.R. 57

44The Respondent directed the Board’s attention to the submission regarding the issue of what is meant by the “normal use of the land” and whether “normal use of the land” was prevented and if so, for what period of time was the “normal use of the land” prevented.

45A further clarification was highlighted by the Respondent, noting that the Board member in that case found that definition of “normal use of the land” is meant to encompass more than a basic functional ability. The Board member stated that “normal use of the land” will require an assessment of the activity that took place on the land prior to the repairs or renovation and the activity that was intended to take place on the land after the repairs or renovation.

46In that instance the Board posed three defining questions:

(i) What is the primary use (function) of the land?

(ii) What was the “normal use of the lands” prior to the shutdown?

(iii) What was the intended “normal use of the lands” after repair or renovation?

47In this instance the Respondent argues that the normal use of the land was never interrupted, that the Applicants always resided on the property as their residence.

48The Respondent also referred to a section in the case, indicating that a tax refund can only be possible if taxes were levied in the first place. This reference is in defense of the Respondent’s argument that MPAC has exempted from its assessment of the value of the Subject Property, that portion of the lands that were damaged, as well as accounting for a loss of market value. In so doing, the Respondent argues that in effect no taxes were collected for the damaged lands and therefore no tax refund is applicable.

49The Respondent also emphasizes that s. 323(1)(h) requires that repairs or renovations to the land prevented the normal use of the land for a period of at least three months during the year. The Respondent further emphasizes that the Applicants continued to live in the house, and, therefore, normal use was not prevented.

Board Findings on Issue 1: Municipal Application for Tax Relief

50The issue in this instance before the Board, requires clarification of what constitutes “normal use of the land”, both, prior to and after the storm event’s impact on the Applicants’ daily activities on the property, as s. 323.(1)(h) requires that the repairs or renovations must prevent the normal use of the land.

51Based on the evidence from the Applicants, the primary activity was residential in nature, mostly associated with the residential structure. Before and after the storm event, they continued to reside and live in their house. There is no indication that they left the property vacant at any point before, on or after the storm event. Therefore, the Board finds that the primary use of the lands, or intent of the lands, to be residential in nature and that no interruption of the residential use of the lands occurred as a result of the storm event. The Board finds the negative impact on the land, however unfortunate, is incidental to the primary use of the property.

52Another aspect of the Applicants' use and enjoyment of the property was the seasonal use of the back yard for gardening and socializing, as well as venturing into the abutting ravine lands by way of a set of stairs at the end of their property. The storm event impacted negatively their ability to continue using part of their lands as well as venturing into the ravine lands. The Board finds their concerns regarding the recreational use of the land is valid. The Board, however, finds that the primary activity of the land was not affected. The Board finds that, although there has been some curtailment of the use of their backyard, it does not prevent them from carrying on with the normal use of the lands.

53While it is true that the Applicants have been unable to venture into the ravine lands of Mimico Creek after the storm event, the Board notes those ravine lands are not part of the Subject Property and therefore does not consider such activities to be directly associated with the Subject Property’s assessed value, tax issue or current value determination.

54The Board finds that the adjustments in assessed value made by MPAC, omitting the portion of the damaged lands from its assessment, pending repair, to be a reasonable approach. The Board finds that MPAC’s adjustment in the assessed value for loss of market value to the property as a whole is also a reasonable approach to address the temporary loss of the enjoyment of parts of the land. In view of these adjustments, and the finding that the normal use of the lands has not been interrupted, the Board finds no persuasive grounds for tax relief, particularly when no tax has been levied on damaged lands exempt from assessment by MPAC.

55Regarding the Applicant’s argument that they are unable to sell the Subject Property in its present condition, there is no evidence to demonstrate that they were trying to sell the property. The Board finds no reasonable explanation to support the notion that the ability to sell a property should be considered a “normal use of the land”. The Board finds the act of selling is about change of ownership, not about use. The Board similarly finds that there is no evidence to indicate that they were prevented from selling their property. For these reasons, the Board is not persuaded to consider the ability to sell as part of normal use of the land.

56The Applicants referenced in their submissions a prior case in the Township of Oro-Medonte, to support their request for a reduction in taxes. The Board finds in that instance, the structure was seriously damaged from water and ice, preventing the property from being occupied for habitation. This is not the situation here. Their house has not been affected from the storm event. They have continued to live in the structure, and have made normal use of the land. Therefore, the Board finds that the Appellants have provided insufficient evidence, to support their request for tax relief.

57In conclusion, the Board finds that the Subject Property does not qualify, pursuant to s. 323.(1)(h) of the City of Toronto Act, for a reduction of all or part of taxes levied for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years.

Issue 2: What is the correct current value of the Subject Property

Background

58For the 2013 – 2016 assessment cycle, MPAC has assessed the Subject Property’s current value at $1,687,000 as of the January 1, 2012 valuation date. Taking into account the negative impact of the storm event, MPAC has reduced the assessed value to $1,384,000 for the same period. It is MPAC’s position that the assessment value for the taxation years 2015 and 2016 as of the January 1, 2012 valuation date is $1,384,000.

59The Appellants have filed an appeal pursuant to s. 40 of the Assessment Act, challenging MPAC’s assessment for the taxation years 2015 and 2016, arguing that it is too high in light of the damage to the property from the storm event of 2013. They argue that the damage to the Subject Property from the storm event of 2013 remains and continues to affect the use of their lands and significantly impact on the value of their property. They are asking the Board to reduce their property’s assessed value from $1,384,000 to $784,000.

60Section 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, directs the Board to reduce the current value of the Subject Property if similar lands in the vicinity have been assessed at a lower value (“equitable reduction”). The purpose of this provision is to fairly distribute of the municipal tax burden according to the value of the property possessed by each ratepayer.

61MPAC’s position is that Equity is not an issue in this appeal. The Appellant did not assert that an equitable reduction is required, although at the hearing, upon being asked by the Board member if they were relying on this ground, they replied that they would address it during their presentation. However, they did not do so. Therefore, in this proceeding, this ground for appeal is not in issue.

62Pursuant to s. 40(11) of the Assessment Act, the Municipality, in this case, the City of Toronto, is a party to this proceeding. However, while present at the hearing, the municipality chose to observe and not participate in this appeal.

MPAC’s Evidence

63Ms. Cheung, a Property Valuation Specialist represented MPAC as well as being a witness for this appeal.

MPAC’s Evidence

64Ms. Cheung submitted into evidence a Valuation Report for the Subject Property, addressing the property’s assessments for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years. She also entered into evidence, a Property Profile document of the Subject Property, a Market Analysis document for the Subject Property, photos of the Subject Property, a copy of MOS document, and an Equity Analysis document of the Subject Property.

65Ms. Cheung stated that she visited the Subject Property on September 16, 2013 and noted the erosion effects on the land, as a result of the July 2013 storm event’s impact on the property. MPAC subsequently adjusted the 2013 CVA of $1,687,000 to $1,384,000.

66Ms. Cheung stated that MOS were signed on November 1, 2013 by all parties to accept this change in assessment. Ms. Cheung stated that this valuation has remained throughout the taxation years 2014, 2015 and 2016. However, the latter two years are now under appeal to address the unresolved matters relating to the storm event.

67The Valuation Report provided an analysis applying the Direct Comparison Approach to four suggested comparable properties that sold sometime between January 2011 and December 2012, located within the vicinity of the Subject Property.

68Ms. Cheung provided four ravine properties as suggested properties purportedly having elements of comparability to the Subject Property. She indicated that she is not aware if any of the suggested properties are subject to storm damage.

69Ms. Cheung states in her Valuation Report, that two of the properties are considered to be relatively comparable to the Subject Property, namely 16 York Ridge Road and 58 Ravencrest Drive. The remaining two are considered to be either inferior or superior to the Subject Property. She considers 58 Ravencrest Drive, located on the other side of the ravine of the Subject Property, to be the best suggested property given its location, having a sale date near the valuation date and requiring minimal time adjustments.

70Ms. Cheung expressed her opinion that, with minor adjustments for differences in age and building size, the current value of the Subject Property should have a similar market value as the time adjusted sale price of this suggested property, namely $1,468,000 rounded. She expressed her conclusion that, on the basis of the Reports’ analysis, the correct current value of the Subject Property is $1,384,000.

MPAC’s Submissions

71MPAC argues that its assessed value as returned for taxation years 2015 and 2016 is correct and takes into account the erosion damage through adjustments.

72MPAC disagrees with the Appellants’ opinion that two of the suggested comparable properties are located far away from the Subject Property. MPAC argues that all suggested comparable properties are located within the broad vicinity of the Subject Property.

73MPAC disagrees with the Appellants’ assertion that it is use of pre-flood property information did not represent the post-flood conditions. MPAC maintains that pre-flood property information is related to property sale prices and assessments prior to the flood damage occurring.

74MPAC argues that it has made the appropriate adjustments, factoring in the damaged portion of the lands and loss in market value at the time the MOS were signed by all parties.

Appellant's Evidence

75The Appellants appeared as self-represented Appellants to this hearing. They rely on the same binder of documents filed in support of their appeal to the Board regarding the application to the City of Toronto for tax relief. They referred to a variety of photos illustrating the damage to the Subject Property lands, specifically a corner of the lot abutting a ravine that was subject to the effects of a storm event.

76The Appellant’s referenced the Slope Stability & Erosion Risk Assessment study conducted by Terraprobe Geotechnical, which refers to the Subject Property suggesting remedial measures with estimates from $100,000 to $200,000 to address the damaged area of the lot.

77The Appellants have calculated the ‘cost to cure’ to be between $600,000 and $1,000,000, referring to third party studies as a guideline.

78The Appellants state that MPAC's assessed value is incorrect because it does not take into account the damages associated with the storm event of 2013 that continues to be left in a state of disrepair throughout 2015 and 2016. They are asking the Board to reduce MPAC's assessed value by an additional $600,000 to a value of $784,000.

Appellant's Submissions

79The Appellants argue that MPAC’s suggested comparable properties are not comparable to the Subject Property post-flood, with damage due to the storm event. They also argue that some of the suggested comparable properties are far from the Subject Property and not suited for comparison purposes.

80The Appellant’s referred to technical reports from their submissions, putting emphasis on the severity of the damage in the broadly affected areas.

81The Appellants are seeking $600,000 reduction in CVA, to reflect their inability to sell the property and the loss of enjoyment of parts of the lands of the Subject Property.

82The Appellants believe that 276 properties were affected by the storm event, although they acknowledge that they could not find any sales information for these properties, nor values factoring in the damage from the storm event.

83The Appellants assert that MPAC’s $303,000 assessment reduction to adjust for the damaged land, including lost market value, isn’t sufficient to restore the property to its prior storm status.

Board Findings

84The Board has reviewed the Appellants’ evidence, noting the many visual photographs of the storm event’s impact not only on the Subject Property but adjacent lands as well. The Board has reviewed the various third party documents and extracts from technical reports provided by the Appellants regarding the issues of ‘cost to cure’, timelines for third party engagement to repair the damage for a broad catchment area affecting many properties.

85The Board notes that none of the representatives/authors of these technical reports were present at the hearing for cross-examination or for the Board to ask questions and/or seek clarification specific to the Appellants’ property concerns in this instance. The Board finds much of the submission documentation is media coverage of the storm event's impact and ongoing issues of attending to repairing the damage resulting from the storm, solicitation to public office officials, without focus on the Subject Property in particular.

86The Board finds the Appellants have not provided any persuasive evidence or analysis to support their position that the assessed value should be reduced by $600,000. The Board notes that the Appellants did not provide any suggested comparable properties to demonstrate the impact in property valuations by the storm event in question. The Appellants admitted they could not find any properties with post-flood sales history, nor any properties with costs of repairs factored into their sales.

87The Board finds the technical studies submitted by the Appellants regarding the cost to repair (cure) the storm damage, are too vague and broad in scope. They address a vast area affected by the storm event, including conservation lands, a myriad of water courses, ravines and the collateral damage associated with residential properties among other property types. For this reason, the Board finds the costing estimates to be vague at best in regards to any issues dealing with the specific damage to the Subject Property.

88The Board finds that the Appellants’ reference to the Terraprobe Slope Stability Study, particularly the estimate for remedial work on the Subject Property’s affected land, lacks clarity. The estimated range from $100,000 to $200,000 provides insufficient specific details respecting costing. The Board notes the same study gave a low risk assessment to the Subject Property in respect of the dwelling being affected by potential slope instability, as the distance of the house from the damaged area at the end of the lot, minimized any concerns.

89The Board finds that the downward adjustments made by MPAC to the Subject Property’s assessed value, which was confirmed by MOS executed by all parties, is an acceptable approach to quantify the reduction of the assessed value of the Subject Property due to the impacts of the storm damage.

90The Appellants argue that the Board should not accept MPAC’s suggested comparable properties, alleging that these properties are located too far from the Subject Property. The Board finds no evidence to support this assertion. The Appellants have not provided any alternative properties for the Board to consider in its determination of current value.

91For the above reasons, the Board finds that the correct current value for the Subject Property is $1,384,000 for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

CONCLUSION

92The Board finds that the Subject Property does not qualify, pursuant to s. 323.(1)(h) of the City of Toronto Act for a reduction of all or part of taxes levied for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years.

93In the matter of the s. 40 appeals, the Board finds that the correct current value of the Subject Property is $1,384,000 for taxation years 2015 and 2016.