Peter Spiliotopoulos v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2019 CanLII 120221

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: December 13, 2019

FILE NO.: WR 162542

Assessed Person(s): Peter Spiliotopoulos, Angelik Spiliotopoulos

Appellant(s): Peter Spiliotopoulos

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

Respondent(s): City of Mississauga

Property Location(s): 5144 Elmridge Drive

Municipality(ies): City of Mississauga

Roll Number(s): 2105-040-159-09000-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3340580 and 3360166

Taxation Year(s): 2018 and 2019

Hearing Event No.: 720567

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

Heard: September 10, 2019 in Mississauga, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Peter Spiliotopoulos	Robert Baranowski
MPAC	Brandy Pitz
City of Mississauga	No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY MARK SPRAGGETT

INTRODUCTION

1Peter Spiliotopoulos (the “Appellant”) is the owner of 5144 Elmridge Drive, a residential dwelling in the City of Mississauga (the “Subject Property”). Robert Baranowski of Aftertax Paralegal Servies is acting on behalf of the owner who is absent from this hearing event.

2Pursuant to the provisions of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A. 31 (the “Act”), the assessment of land shall be based on its current value. The Act also provides that for the 2017 to 2020 taxation years, MPAC is required to assess this value as of the valuation date, January 1, 2016.

3For the 2018 and 2019 taxation years under appeal, MPAC has assessed the current value as returned at $1,371,000 for the Subject Property. That value is apportioned 100% in the residential property class.

4The Appellant filed an appeal for the 2018 taxation year with the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”), and is deemed to have brought the same appeal with respect to the Subject Property for the 2019 taxation year pursuant to s. 40(26) of the Act. It is the Appellant’s position that MPAC’s assessment of current value is too high and that the correct current value is less than $1,371,000. MPAC took the position at the hearing that its assessed value is correct.

5Pursuant to s. 40(11) of the Act, the City of Mississauga is a party to the proceeding. However, it did not advise the Board of its position on the issues raised in these appeals and nobody for the City appeared before the Board at this hearing event.

6Section 44.(3)(b) of the 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. The purpose of this provision is to fairly distribute the municipal tax burden according to the value possessed by each ratepayer.

7MPAC took the position that an equitable reduction is not required. The Appellant did assert that an equitable reduction is required under a specific scenario.

8At the completion of the hearing, the Board reserved its decision. For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years, the correct current value of the Subject Property is $1,371,000 and that an equitable reduction is not required.

RELEVANT RULES AND LEGISLATION

9The 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.

19.(1) Assessment based on current value. – The assessment of land shall be based on its current value.

19.2(1) Valuation days – Subject to subsection (5), the day as of which land is valued for a taxation year is determined as follows:

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

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.

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.

ISSUE

10The issue to be determined in this appeal is the correct current value of the Subject Property for the taxation years 2018 and 2019.

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

11The Subject Property is a 1992 built single family detached brick residential dwelling located in the City of Mississauga. Located in the Central Erin Mills/South Streetsville neighbourhood of Mississauga, it is in close proximity to a major shopping node, major highways and the Credit Valley Hospital. The Subject Property has an effective frontage of 65.05 feet and an effective depth of 142.19 feet. The effective site area is 0.21 acres. MPAC has assigned the Subject Property a quality of construction classification of 7.5.

DISCUSSION, ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

MPAC’s Evidence

12Brandy Pitz represented MPAC at the hearing and filed into evidence a Valuation Report (“Report”) and Equity Study dated April 1, 2019, both prepared by Maria Covello, a Property Valuation Analyst with MPAC.

13Ms. Covello testified that MPAC’s returned value of $1,371,000 is based on a mass appraisal conducted by MPAC using thousands of properties.

14Ms. Covello testified that a request for reconsideration of MPAC’s returned value by the owner of the property, prompted her to take a closer look at the property based on a market valuation approach using the Direct Comparison Approach. Her analysis concluded that in her opinion, the current value for the Subject Property is $1,509,000.

15Applying the Direct Comparison Approach Ms. Covello used a qualitative analysis applying a relative comparison analysis. This analysis deals with the relationships indicated by the market data without recourse to quantification.

16Relying on MPAC’s corporate database for sales information, Ms. Covello first identified six suggested comparable properties in the vicinity of the Subject Property to determine the value for the Subject Property. They are as follows:

Sale Number	Roll Number	Address	Comparability to Subject Property	Time Adjusted Sale Price (“TAS”)
1	2105-040-159-34400	4854 Forest Hill Drive	Similar	$1,591,560
2	2105-040-159-07400	5240 Elmridge Drive	Similar	$1,573,359
3	2105-040-159-47477	5302 Hilton Court	Similar	$1,581,159
4	2105-040-159-44500	5345 Forest Ridge Drive	Similar	$1,413,029
5	2105-040-159-47411	5281 Tiffany Court	Similar	$1,431,680
6	2105-040-159-18800	5079 Warrendale Gate	Similar	$1,381,932

17Ms. Covello testified that selecting sold properties that are inferior, superior and similar to the Subject Property, allows her to establish a probable range of current value by bracketing the Subject Property between the sold properties that are inferior and superior to it.

18For the Subject Property, Ms. Covello estimates the current value based on the sale prices of the most similar properties to be $1,509,000.

19MPAC is not seeking an increase in the returned value based on the Valuation Analyst’s opinion of current value and is asking the Board to confirm the current value at $1,371,000.

20MPAC testified that equity is not an issue in this instance.

MPAC’s Submissions

21MPAC disagrees with the Appellant’s characterization that being employed at MPAC is a contradiction for a Valuation Analyst to provide an opinion of current value. MPAC maintains that an opinion of current value is based on facts.

22MPAC disputes the Appellant’s decision not to enter into evidence the Statement of Issues that was circulated to all parties prior to this hearing event.

23MPAC is asking the Board to not give any weight to the Appellant’s position as the Statement of Issues was not submitted into evidence.

Appellant’s Evidence

24Robert Baranowski represented the Appellant at the hearing.

25Mr. Baranowski testified that he has decided not to enter into evidence the Statement of Issues that was previously filed and circulated to all parties prior to this hearing event, and that he will not be relying on the contents of that document.

26Mr. Baranowski testified that he has no written documentation to present.

27Mr. Baranowski stated that the Appellant is seeking a current value of $990,000 based on the previously uncontested current value of the Subject Property issued to the property owner by notice of assessment from MPAC.

28Mr. Baranowski testified that in the event the Board accepts MPAC’s returned value of $1,371,000 as the current value, then the Appellant seeks a section 44.(3)(b) adjustment using the Assessment to Sales Ratio of 0.936 resulting in a final current value of $1,283,000 rounded.

29Mr. Baranowski testified that there is no evidence to support MPAC’s returned value of $1,371,000. He further noted that only evidence adduced by MPAC is Ms. Covello’s opinion of current value, and, therefore, he asks the Board not to confirm this value as the current value.

30Mr. Baranowski testified that MPAC has not met its’ burden of proof as per section 40(17) of the Act in determining $1,371,000 as the current value.

31Mr. Baranowski stated that he accepts MPAC’s TAS.

32Mr. Baranowski testified that he does not dispute MPAC’s property sales used in their analysis.

33Mr. Baranowski testified that he accepts MPAC’s description of the Subject Property.

34Mr. Baranowski testified that he accepts MPAC’s Equity Study.

35Mr. Baranowski stated that the Appellant does not challenge MPAC’s calculation of the median square foot value from its suggested comparable properties.

Appellant’s Submissions

36The Appellant believes MPAC’s Valuation Analyst has a conflict of interest, working for MPAC and at the same time offering an opinion on current value as an independent analyst.

37The Appellant believes the Valuation Analyst is a ‘witness of opinion’ and not a “witness of fact” in determining current value as per the Act.

38The Appellant believes that all of MPAC’s evidence should not be allowed, as it does not support how MPAC arrived at current value.

FINDINGS

39The best evidence available to the Board in the determination of current value, are the six suggested comparable properties submitted by MPAC in support of its analysis using the Direct Comparison Approach. The Appellant at the last moment decided not to submit into evidence his Statement of Issues for consideration by the Board.

40MPAC’s properties offered considerable elements of comparison to the Subject Property in terms of location, neighbourhood, local amenities, type of properties, size, age, structure and sales data within a reasonable time horizon relative to the valuation date of January 1, 2016.

41The Board finds the Appellant’s testimony demonstrates support for MPAC’s comparable properties including the results of its Equity Study, notwithstanding the Appellant’s request to the Board to reject all of MPAC’s evidence. The Board is not persuaded by the Appellant’s argument that MPAC’s returned value has not been proven by any evidence and therefore has not met its onus to determine current value.

42The Board finds MPAC’s Direct Comparison Approach to determining current value from recent market sales of comparable properties to the Subject Property as reasonable and compelling. The issue raised by the Appellant that the Valuation Analyst only provided an “opinion” of current value, is not persuasive, as MPAC’s testimony made clear that the opinion is based on property sales data. The comparable properties provide a high level of comparability to the Subject Property, dispelling the notion that the opinion of current value was not fact based.

43The Board is not persuaded by the Appellant’s argument that MPAC has not met its onus. The evidence provided by MPAC demonstrates ample market activity within a recent time period and proximity to the Subject Property to persuade the Board that MPAC’s returned value is reasonable and that MPAC has met its onus through a Valuation Analyst’s review of market activity in response to a request for reconsideration.

44The Board determines that an equitable adjustment is not required in this instance. MPAC’s position is that equity is not an issue and the analysis suggest that the Subject Property is within the acceptable range. The Appellant’s position that an adjustment is warranted is without supporting evidence. Therefore the Board is not persuaded to make any adjustment, particularly given the fact that the Appellant is relying on MPAC’s Equity Study which does not support an adjustment.

45For the reasons above, the Board finds that MPAC has met its onus on establishing current value and that the returned value of $1,371,000 is reasonable.

DECISION

37The correct current value of the Subject Property is $1,371,000 for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years. No equity adjustment is required.