Oancea v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2019 CanLII 125719

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: December 30, 2019

FILE NO.: WR 162543

Assessed Person(s)/Appellant(s): Ioan Mihai Oancea, Liliana Rodica Stoenescu

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

Respondent(s): City of Toronto

Property Location(s): 20 Rivercrest Road

Municipality(ies): Toronto

Roll Number(s): 1914-081-040-04700-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3267958, 3294418, and 3353687

Taxation Year(s): 2017, 2018 and 2019

Hearing Event No.: 722695

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

Heard: September 9, 2019 in Toronto, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Liliana Stoenescu Ioan Oancea	Self-represented
MPAC	Erin Comeau
City of Toronto	No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY MARK SPRAGGETT

INTRODUCTION

1Liliana Stoenescu and Ioan Oancea (the “Appellants”) are the owners of 20 Rivercrest Road, a residential dwelling in the City of Toronto (the “Subject Property”). The Appellants are representing themselves at 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 2017, 2018 and 2019 taxation years under appeal, MPAC has assessed the current value as returned at $1,164,000 for the Subject Property. That value is apportioned 100% in the residential property class.

4The Appellants filed an appeal for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years with the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”), and she has been 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 $949,000. MPAC took the position at the hearing that its assessed value is correct.

5Pursuant to s. 40(11) of the Act, the City of Toronto 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.

6Subsection 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 not assert that an equitable reduction is required. Therefore, in this proceeding, this ground for appeal is not at issue.

8At the completion of the hearing, the Board reserved its decision. For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that for the 2017, 2018 and 2019 taxation years, the correct current value of the Subject Property is $1,164,000.

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 2017, 2018 and 2019

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

11The Subject Property is a residential dwelling located in the City of Toronto. It is a single-family detached two-storey, three bedroom house. Built in 1936, the house was renovated in 1991. The property has an effective frontage of 40.00 feet and an effective depth of 125.00 feet. The effective site area is 5,000 square feet. The topography of the land includes a steep slope. There are no sidewalks on the street. The property abuts a commercial lot. MPAC has assigned the Subject Property a quality 6.0 classification.

DISCUSSION, ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

MPAC’s Evidence

12Erin Comeau represented MPAC at the hearing and filed a Valuation Report dated May 11, 2018.

13Mr. Comeau submitted into evidence an Equity Analysis Report in addition to an MPAC Property and Sales Information document.

14Mr. Comeau testified that he relied on the Direct Comparison Approach to confirm MPAC’s opinion of current value.

15Applying the Direct Comparison Approach Mr. Comeau 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, Mr. Comeau identified ten 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	Time Adjusted Sale Price (TAS)
1	191408105002000	53 Old Mill Dr	$1,365,167
2	191408111002800	60 Humber Trail	$1,001,759
3	191408111003600	44 Humber Trail	$1,216,458
4	191408112001400	43 Humber Trail	$1,057,428
5	191408112000900	33 Humber Trail	$1,208,094
6	191408120001700	4 Brumell Ave	$1.101,224
7	191408118001100	25 Brumell Ave	$1,106,474
8	191408120001300	62 Raymond Ave	$1,084,088
9	191408120001300	62 Raymond Ave	$960,621
10	191408214004500	33 Brumell Ave	$1,106,474

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

18Mr. Comeau stated that the Subject Property’s lot size and building area are larger than the other comparable properties and therefore will have a higher value.

19Mr. Comeau stated that a 5% downward adjustment in value was made for the Subject Property, as it abuts a commercial property. A further downward adjustment in the amount of $21,000 was made to address the type of heating system.

20For the Subject Property, Mr. Comeau estimates the current value based on the sale prices of the most comparable properties to be $1,164,000.

MPAC’s Submissions

21MPAC disagrees with the Appellant’s characterization that the Subject Property is situated directly above the underground subway system.

22MPAC disagrees with the Appellants’ characterization that MPAC cherry picked the properties used in the Direct Comparison Approach analysis.

23MPAC disagrees with the Appellants’ view that it is not fair to use different time periods of property sales to compare their property. MPAC is of the view that time adjustments make it fair.

24MPAC disagrees with the Appellants’ choice of thirteen proposed comparable properties, noting that considerable factual detail about each property is absent and that the Appellants have made adjustments based on their opinion, not on facts.

25MPAC disagrees with the Appellants’ submission of abstracts of MLS (Multiple Listing Service) information, prepared by them and without any official documents to verify their opinions.

26MPAC disagrees with the Appellants’ choice of proposed comparable properties, noting that 47 Humber Trail is an estate sale and therefore not open market sale.

27MPAC disagrees with the Appellants’ choice of proposed comparable property sales, noting that none of the sales took place after 2015. MPAC is of the view that market values have increased since 2015. MPAC noted that 67 Riverview Gdns sold in 2015 according to the Appellants for $1,007,067 and subsequently sold in 2017 for $1,750,000.

28MPAC disagrees with the Appellants’ choice of proposed comparable property sales, noting that they are not time adjusted, and submits that, as property descriptions are so incomplete that it cannot be determined whether they are comparable to the Subject Property.

29MPAC disagrees with Appellants’ use of third-party studies such as the Weir Foulds documents, noting that the author of the documents is not present at the hearing to defend the documents.

30MPAC disagrees with the Appellants’ assertion that MPAC’s mass appraisal results are incorrect, noting that the mass appraisal approach is not for an individual property valuation, and that the Direct Comparison Approach is used with recent property sales to verify MPAC’s results.

Appellant’s Evidence

31Ms. Stoenescu represented herself and Mr. Oancea. She stated that they relied on documents from MPAC’s website to prepare their analysis as well as MPAC’s Valuation Report. She entered into evidence their Valuation Report and Equity Report. She stated they also relied on MPAC’s request for reconsideration (“rfr”) letter. Other documentary evidence included a third-party document by Weir Foulds “Equity In The Assessment World”.

32Ms. Stoenescu stated that they relied on thirteen property sales provided by a local real estate agent, that are within their neighborhood which she submits are considered to be comparable to the Subject Property. These properties sold in the first eight months of 2015. The properties are as follows:

Sale Number	Address	Sold Price	Year Sold
1	47 Humber Tr	$888,000	2015
2	34 Humber Tr	$929,000	2015
3	20 Riverview Gdns	$932,000	2015
4	60 Humber Tr	$949,000	2015
5	67 Riverview Gdns	$1,007,067	2015
6	38 Riverview Gdns	$1,050,000	2015
7	36 Riverview Gdns	$1,051,000	2015
8	35 Riverview Gdns	$1,070,000	2015
9	40 Riverview Gdns	$1,091,000	2015
10	27 Traymore Cres	$1,100,000	2015
11	51 Riverview Gdns	$1,129,000	2015
12	29 Halford Ave	$1,811,000	2015
13	49 Humber Tr	$1,296,000	2015

33Ms. Stoenescu stated that these properties are within 380 meters of the Subject Property, according to the Appellants’ own calculations based on the MLS coordinate information of each property.

34Ms. Stoenescu stated that they did not use lot area in their analysis, as they argued that many properties have irregular lot sizes.

35Ms. Stoenescu stated in their Valuation Report that three of the suggested comparable property sales from the table above support their position for a current value of $949,000 namely 34 Humber Trail, 47 Humber Trail and 60 Humber Trail.

Appellant’s Submissions

36The Appellants stated that they relied on MPAC’s online website documentation to develop their position,as MPAC is a government agency and, therefore, they assumed the government was advising them how to do their analysis. For this reason, they were under the impression that they could only use property sales up to 2015.They criticized MPAC for using property sales beyond 2015.

37The Appellants have two conflicting views on whether the underground subway is beneath the Subject Property. Mrs. Stoenescu is of the view that it is beneath the Subject Property, whereas Mr. Oancea admits he is not aware if it is actually beneath the property.

38The Appellants are of the view that MPAC cherry picked the property sales used as comparable properties to the Subject Property in its analysis.

39The Appellants are of the view that it is unfair to refer to property sales from different time periods, as comparable properties to the Subject Property.

40The Appellants disagreed with MPAC’s selection of comparable property sales one kilometer away from the Subject Property, noting that many other properties were available within 380 meters of the Subject Property.

41Ms. Stoenescu submits that the correct current value for the Subject Property is $949,000.

FINDINGS

42The Appellants’ evidence of thirteen comparable properties derived from a local real estate agent, lacked any detailed information from which the Board may make a finding. The three best comparable properties supporting the Appellants’ position for a lower current value were not persuasive as suitable comparable properties, particularly with one of the properties being an estate sale and not an open market sale. The Appellants were not aware of this fact, which raises concerns about the reliability of the selected comparable properties.

43The Board finds the Appellants’ lack of factual documentation on the thirteen selected comparable properties, other than their own custom tabulation, is not persuasive.

44The Board finds that the Appellants made no time adjustments to their selected comparable properties. Given the extent of uncertainty and accuracy of the Appellants’ data, the Board is not persuaded to refer to this evidence in its determination of current value.

45The best evidence of value before the Board is that submitted by MPAC in support of its analysis using the Direct Comparison Approach. The ten suggested comparable properties submitted by MPAC enable the Board to make a determination of current value.

46MPAC’s properties offered 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. Therefore, I find that they are suitable comparable properties for the purpose of conducting a comparable sales analysis. Although the Appellants disagree with Mr. Comeau’ conclusion regarding the correct current value, they did not offer any evidence or analysis to indicate that his bracketing approach was incorrectly applied. His analysis, using this bracketing approach, supports his opinion respecting the current value of the Subject Property. As this is the best evidence before the Board, the Board accepts his opinion.

47For the reasons above, the Board finds the correct current value to be $1,164,000.

DECISION

37The correct current value of the Subject Property is $1,164,000 for the 2017, 2018 and 2019 taxation years.