Grace Joubarne v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation ("MPAC") Region 03 and City of Ottawa, 2019 CanLII 22897

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: March 20, 2019

FILE NO.: WR 157042

Assessed Person(s): Grace Joubarne

Appellant(s): Grace Joubarne

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 03

Respondent(s): City of Ottawa

Property Location(s): 279 Columbus Avenue

Municipality(ies): City of Ottawa

Roll Number(s): 0614-031-202-17900-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3232070 and 3290163

Taxation Year(s): 2017 and 2018

Hearing Event No.: 697267

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

Heard: May 22, 2018 in Ottawa, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Grace Joubarne	Self-represented
MPAC	Garret Smits
City of Ottawa	No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY JOSEPH JEBREEN AND DAN WEAGANT

INTRODUCTION

1Grace Joubarne (the “Appellant”) has appealed the assessment of her property located at 279 Columbus Avenue in Ottawa, Ontario (the “Property”). The Appellant’s original position was that the correct January 1, 2016 current value of the Property is $285,000. In supplementary submissions, the Appellant stated that the current value of the Property is $260,740.

2MPAC returned an assessed value of $387,000 for the Property. However, for the hearing, MPAC submitted that the correct January 1, 2016 current value of the Property based on the sales of comparable properties is $351,000.

3The Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) must decide two things in this appeal. First, the Board must determine, based on the evidence at the hearing, the January 1, 2016 current value of the Property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years. Second, having reference to the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity, the Board must also decide if the current value needs to be reduced for the purpose of making it equitable with similar property in the vicinity.

4Subsection 40.(26) of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. A. 31 (the “Act”) states 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 did not dispose of the 2017 appeal before March 31, 2018. For that reason, this decision also applies to the 2018 taxation year.

5The Appellant has raised numerous other issues in more than 400 pages of evidence, authorities and submissions. In particular, the Appellant has filed (i) an Affidavit of Documents sworn November 24, 2017 which includes the Appellant’s Book of Documents with 31 Tabs and 203 summaries of properties, (ii) an “Appellant’s Book of Authorities and Jurisprudence” with 8 Tabs including excerpts from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Criminal Code of Canada, (iii) an “Appellant’s Supplementary Disclosure” with 1 Tab, an “Appellant’s Supplementary Book of Authorities and Jurisprudence” with 3 Tabs and an “Appellant’s Supplementary Book of Documents” with 4 Tabs, all dated April 11, 2018 and (iv) an “Appellant Reply to Respondent Response to Supplementary Submissions” dated April 20, 2018 including attached articles. In addition to current value and the equitable assessment of the Property, the Appellant raised the following:

• MPAC requested an inspection of the Property without a valid warrant, which is a violation of her human rights and in breach of the Criminal Code of Canada;

• MPAC has failed to provide proper disclosure;

• MPAC has used deceptive practices such as assessing land components twice and rezoning the Property;

• MPAC has inappropriately applied a commercial classification and income factors on a portion of the Property;

• MPAC’s assessment methodology of relying on computer models is abusive, severely flawed and unreliable – it is a breach of fundamental justice;

• MPAC ignores clear market trends;

• MPAC’s attempts to use information from inspections or sales after 2016 are abusive and irrelevant;

• MPAC has made gross misrepresentations relating to the inspection, maps, and sales data, and by redefining current value as assessed value; and

• MPAC’s assessor is biased.

DECISION

6The Board finds that the current value of the Property is $335,000. The Board further finds that a reduction in the current value is not required for the assessment to be equitable with the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity.

7Accordingly, the Board finds that the assessment of the Property is reduced from $387,000 to $335,000 in the residential property class for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

LEGISLATION

8In making its determination on these appeals, the Board must consider the relevant sections of the Act.

9Section 1 of the Act states:

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.

10Section 19.(1) of the Act states:

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

11Section 40.(1) of the Act states:

40.(1) Appeal to Assessment Review Board. Any person, including a municipality, a school board or, in the case of land in non-municipal territory, the Minister, may appeal in writing to the Assessment Review Board,

(a) on the basis that,

(i) the current value of the person’s land or another person’s land is incorrect,

(ii) he person or another person was wrongly placed on or omitted from the assessment roll,

(iii) the person or another person was wrongly placed on or omitted from the roll in respect of school support,

(iv) the classification of the person’s land or another person’s land is incorrect, or

(v) or land, portions of which are in different classes of real property, the determination of the share of the value of the land that is attributable to each class is incorrect; or

(b) on such other basis as the Minister may prescribe.

12Section 44.(3) of the 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.

What is the Current Value of the Property?

MPAC’s Evidence

13MPAC provided a valuation report to show how it arrived at the Property’s January 1, 2016 current value. The assessor, Garret Smits, used the direct comparison approach to value, which is the most common approach used by MPAC for single family dwellings like the Property. The direct comparison approach compares the sale values of properties that are comparable to the Property.

14The Property has a frontage of 50 feet and a site area of 0.13 acres. It is a corner lot and is connected to municipal water and sewage. The residential dwelling is a detached single-family bungalow built in 1954 with a total area of 854 square feet. The dwelling has two bathrooms and a basement area of 874 square feet which is finished as an apartment. There is also a 506 square foot detached garage that was built in 1954. MPAC’s evidence is that the Appellant uses the garage as her work space. The Property was renovated significantly in 1996 (the “1996 Renovations”) such that MPAC determined that the building’s effective age is 1988.

15The valuation report compared the Property with five properties that sold between June 2015 and December 2016. All five properties are located in the same immediate area as the Property, the furthest being approximately 650 metres away.

16MPAC applied a Time Adjustment Factor (“TAF”) to each comparable sale value. The TAFs used in this case were derived from a ‘price changes over time’ study that used 183 sales of residential properties in the area that took place in 2015 and 2016. A TAF for each month in the time period is applied to sales in that month to arrive at a ‘Time Adjusted Sale’ (“TAS”) value.

17Table A summarizes the characteristics of the Property and the five comparable properties used by MPAC:

TABLE A

	Property	Sale 1	Sale 2	Sale 3	Sale 4	Sale 5
Address		246 Columbus	474 Lawson	472 Newman	351 Fullerton	81 Prince Albert
Year Built/ Effective Year	1954/1988	1957/1988	1958/1958	1958/1958	1957/1957	1941/1941
Frontage (ft) / Site Area (acres)	50/0/13	42.5/0.1	50/0.12	50/0.12	50/0.11	50/0.1
Living Area (sq. ft.)	854	881	930	923	1037	1024
Basement Area (sq. ft.)	874	881	962	975	1037	696
Bathrooms	2	2	1.5	1.5	1	1.5
Secondary Structure	Detached garage	n/a	Shed	Detached/Carport	Detached garage	Pool
Sale Price ($)	N/A	336,000	320,000	349,900	375,000	385,000
TAS Price ($)		337,146	317,707	351,490	372,313	386,313
2016 CVA ($)	351,000 (Recommended)	357,000	338,000	335,000	335,000	326,000

18In his valuation report, Mr. Smits stated that Sales 1 and 2 are inferior, Sale 3 is similar, and Sales 4 and 5 are superior to the Property. Mr. Smits also explained why he believes that the comparable properties are inferior, similar, or superior to the Property.

19Using time adjustment factors that he calculated, and based on his analysis of the comparable properties, Mr. Smits’ opinion is that the Property has a value between $317,707 (see Sale 2 above) and $386,313 (see Sale 5). He estimated a value of $351,000, being the median time adjusted sale price (see Sale 3) of the five sales.

20MPAC has met its burden under subsection 40(17) of the Act. Mr. Smits clearly showed his pathway to arriving at his proposed current value of $351,000 and why, in his opinion, that value is correct.

Appellant’s Evidence

21The Appellant had issues with MPAC’s approach to deriving a current value for the Property. She submits that MPAC uses a valuation scheme in which they fabricate evidence and obfuscate their statutory responsibilities. We will address the bulk of the Appellant’s submissions further below in these reasons. In this section, we will only summarize the Appellant’s evidence and submissions regarding current value.

22The Appellant submitted eight methods for calculating the current value of the Property.

23The first method used by the Appellant starts with a value of $259,100 for the Property and then makes numerous deductions to arrive at a current value of $170,347. The starting value of $259,100 is taken from what the Appellant described as the value established by MPAC to the residential portion of the Property. The Appellant then deducts: (i) 2% of the value because of a hydro pole at the back of the Property, (ii) 9% because the Property is on a noisy intersection, (iii) $41,858 because the dwelling is 62 years old, (iv) $3,275 because one of the porches on the dwelling was removed in 2009, and (v) $15,030 since the 1996 Renovations were already accounted for in previous cycles.

24The second method is the same as the first method except that the Appellant started with MPAC’s proposed current value of $351,000. The Appellant then reduced that value by the same amounts as presented in Method 1 for a current value of $262,347.

25The third method relied on the 2012 assessment of $342,000 and then reduces that value by a negative market adjustment of 15.8% to arrive at a current value of $287,964. The Appellant purports to support the 15.8% reduction in price by reference to an article from the Canadian Real Estate Association’s website (Tab 23 in the Appellant’s Book of Documents).

26The fourth method applies the same 15.8% reduction to MPAC’s proposed current value of $351,000. Using these numbers, the Appellant calculated a current value of $295,542.

27In the fifth method, the Appellant chose 16 single-storey properties that she believed are similar in age, lot and house size and calculated the average sale price of those 16 properties to arrive at a current value of $288,000. The Appellant restricted the properties in Method 5 to those that sold prior to January 1, 2016.

28In the sixth method, the Appellant chose 9 single-storey properties that she believed are similar in age, lot and house size and calculates the average sale price of those 9 properties to arrive at a current value of $319,000. The Appellant restricted the properties to those that sold after January 1, 2016. The only difference between Method 5 and Method 6 is that the Appellant used properties that sold prior to January 1, 2016 in Method 5 and used properties that sold after January 1, 2016 in Method 6.

29The Appellant’s seventh method used 22 sales of 1.5 to two-storey properties that she believes have larger sized lots, houses and finished basements. In her view, the properties in Method 7 appear to be superior to the Property. She calculated the average sale price of these 22 properties to arrive at a current value of $296,000.

30In her original submissions, the Appellant’s position was that the current value of the Property, based on these seven methods, is $285,000. In her supplementary submissions, the Appellant advanced an eighth method for calculating current value.

31In the eighth method, the Appellant calculated the sale price per square foot of two properties. The first of the two properties is 299 Columbus Avenue which sold in March 2018 for $470,000. The Appellant submitted that 299 Columbus Avenue “…while not normally comparable property in terms of lot, size of house, property structures etc., does confirm the serious over-assessments by MPAC and its false assumptions that single family homes, such as the subject property are easy to sell and attract the high assessments attributed by MPAC. It also serves to establish the square foot price of property on the Property’s street.” The dwelling at 299 Columbus Avenue is 2,052 square feet, resulting in a sale price per square foot of $229.

32The second property cited by the Appellant is 246 Columbus Avenue. It is an 881 square foot bungalow and sold in August of 2015 for $336,000 or $381.00 per square foot of living area. This is the same as MPAC’s Sale 1.

33The Appellant calculated the average sale price per square foot of the two properties to be $305.00. She then applied that price per square foot to the 854 square feet of the Property to arrive at a current value of $260,740.

The Board’s Analysis of Current Value

34The best evidence of the current value of any property is a sale of that property on or close to the valuation day of January 1, 2016. As there is no sale of the Property close to the valuation day, the Board needs to consider the next best evidence, being the sales of comparable properties that occurred at or near the valuation day.

The Appellant’s Eight Methods For Determining Current Value

35The Appellant submitted eight methods for calculating the current value of the Property. We reject all eight methods. We review each method briefly below but we note here that the values proposed by the Appellant using the 8 methods range considerably, from $170,347 to $319,000.

36The first method used by the Appellant starts with a value of $259,100 for the Property and then makes numerous deductions to arrive at a final current value of $170,347. The value of $259,100 comes from the Appellant’s mistaken assumption that MPAC established that the Property is valued at $259,100. It is clear from MPAC’s evidence and submissions that it proposes a value of $351,000, not $259,100. Further using MPAC’s proposed current value as a starting point and then deducting only those features of the Property that are perceived to be inferior is not supportable. The Appellant provided no evidence as to the source of the adjustments she made to arrive at a value of $170,347. The Appellant does not for example justify why those deductions are made when the five comparable sales used by MPAC are affected by similar issues or may be affected by other issues. The Board rejects Method 1.

37The second method is the same as the first method except that the Appellant started with MPAC’s proposed current value of $351,000. Once again, there is no evidence of the source of the adjustments that she made to arrive at a value of $262,347. For the same reasons that Method 1 is not reliable, the Board rejects Method 2.

38The third method relies on the 2012 MPAC assessment of $342,000 and makes a negative market adjustment of 15.8% to arrive at a value of $287,964. The definition of current value in the Act refers to the sale of property. Therefore, sales evidence and not assessment evidence is necessary to determine current value.

39Further, the Appellant’s claim that sale prices of single detached homes in the $200,000 to $300,000 range in Ottawa dropped by 15.8% is incorrect. The article on the Canadian Real Estate Association’s website states that the number of sales, not the sale prices, decreased by 15.8%. We do not accept that the evidence supports a finding of fact that the Appellant’s property has decreased by 15.8%. The Board rejects Method 3.

40The fourth method applies the same 15.8% reduction to MPAC’s proposed current value of $351,000. For the reasons stated above, the Board rejects this method.

41Method 5 only relies on sales prior to January 1, 2016 and Method 6 only relies on sales after January 1, 2016. There is no reason why comparable sales should be split based on the valuation date. For that reason, we do not accept that these methods, considered separately, are appropriate calculations of current value.

42The seventh method uses, in the Appellant’s words, “invalid” sales of 1.5 to two-storey homes. MPAC argues that bungalows should not be compared to two-storey houses because the economies of scale are not the same. There are enough sales of bungalows to compare to the Property. It is not appropriate to use comparable sales with 1.5 to two-storey dwellings in this case.

43Finally, we reject the eighth method because the Appellant used only two properties and one of them is not comparable. The Board disregards 299 Columbus Avenue as an appropriate comparable property because it sold in March 2018, 26 months after the valuation day, and is a two-storey structure with over twice the living area as the Property.

44In her own submissions, the Appellant made it clear that this property was not comparable to the Property except to illustrate a “trend” of over-assessment. With 299 Columbus Avenue disqualified as a comparable sale, there is no average sale price per square foot for the Appellant to rely on.

45The Board notes that although each of the eight methods are rejected, some consideration may be made of individual properties reflected in the Appellant’s valuation methods.

Determination of Current Value

46MPAC has provided five properties that sold between 4 and 12 months of the valuation day. Due to the proximity in time of the sales of the comparable properties to the January 1, 2016 valuation day, the Board disregards the time adjustment factors derived from the study.

47The Board does not rely on Sale 5 as it is a 1.5 storey dwelling with more living area and a swimming pool, whereas the Property is a bungalow without a pool.

48In her submissions on Method 5 and Method 6, the Appellant relied on the sales of 25 properties that she submitted were comparable. MPAC disputed that these 25 sales were in fact comparable. The Board finds that properties that were sold and redeveloped, renovated, demolished, or that have outstanding permits are not appropriate comparable sales in this case. The Board also finds that properties purchased for land, under power of sale, or that are in poor condition should not be used as comparable properties. The Board further disregards any non-bungalow properties. Finally, the Board disregards any properties sold outside of the shoulder years of 2015 and 2016 as there are sufficient comparable sales in evidence that occurred within 12 months of the valuation day.

49As a result, the Board also has the following five properties from the Appellant’s evidence to consider in making its determination of current value:

	Subject	Sale 6	Sale 7	Sale 8	Sale 9	Sale 10
Address	279 Columbus	462 Wolffdale	478 Lawson	352 Spartan	216 Columbus	344 Fullerton
Year Built/ Effective Year	1954/1988	1955/1986	1958/1970	1957/1957	1954/1965	1957/1957
Site Area (acres)	0.13	0.14	0.12	0.11	0.12	0.12
Living Area (sq. ft.)	854	1201	1008	1034	1036	1073
Finished Basement (sq. ft.)	874	579	628	400	850	665
Bathrooms	2	1.5	1	1	1.5	2
Sale Price ($)	n/a	300,000	320,000	325,000	340,500	345,000
2016 CVA ($)	n/a	415,000	351,000	336,000	342,000	357,000

50Like the Property, Sales 1 to 4 from MPAC’s suggested comparable sales and Sales 6 to 10 from the Appellants’ submissions are single family detached residential bungalows. All of the comparable sales are within 1 kilometre of the Property and have similar, if not identical, lot sizes. The primary residential structures are also quite similar. All 9 properties are similar and provide a good range of current value.

51The following table summarizes our analysis of the comparable properties in evidence:

	Date Sold	Comparability	Sale Price
Sale 4	November 2016	Similar	$375,000
Sale 3	June 2015	Similar	$349,900
Sale 10	October 2016	Similar	$345,000
Sale 9	February 2015	Similar	$340,500
Sale 1	August 2015	Similar	$336,000
Sale 8	April 2015	Similar	$325,000
Sale 7	October 2015	Similar	$320,000
Sale 2	December 2016	Similar	$320,000
Sale 6	September 2016	Similar	$300,000

52The Board finds that the current value of the Property is between $300,000 and $375,000. The mean of these 9 similar properties is $334,600 ($335,000, rounded). The Board therefore finds that the correct current value of the Property is $335,000.

SHOULD THE CURRENT VALUE BE REDUCED TO MAKE IT EQUITABLE?

53Section 44(3)(b) of the Act only requires an adjustment to make the Property’s assessment equitable with similar lands in the vicinity if such an adjustment would result in a reduction of that assessment. The taxpayer bears the burden of proving that such an equitable adjustment is warranted.

54In order to reduce the amount of the current value for the purposes of equity or fairness, the Board has to reduce a correct finding to one that is incorrect. In order to do so, the Board must therefore have sufficient evidence to reduce the current value to make it equitable with similar properties in the vicinity.

55The Appellant did not submit that the evidence warrants a reduction in the assessment. To the contrary, the Appellant submitted that similar properties in the vicinity are over assessed. She pointed to examples where MPAC’s assessments are higher than sale values. Over assessment is not a situation to be addressed under s. 44(3)(b).

56MPAC submitted an equity analysis that compared sales of 30 single family dwellings with sale dates in 2015 and 2016. The parameters were further defined to include only sales that occurred within two kilometres of the Property.

57MPAC relied on a median ASR to decide if the current value of a property should be reduced to arrive at an assessment that is equitable. The median in this case is 1.025, meaning that generally speaking, similar properties in the vicinity of the Property are assessed slightly above their current values.

58The Board finds that there is no evidence to support a reduction in the current value of $335,000 to make it equitable with similar lands in the vicinity.

ISSUES RAISED BY THE APPELLANT

(i) Inspection and Violation of Human Rights

59In her submissions, the Appellant makes serious allegations against MPAC such as making false allegations which amount to tampering with evidence, being abusive, and engaging in intimidation and coercion to force her to accept violations to her human rights and breaches of the Criminal Code of Canada on search warrants.

60Regarding the illegal search warrant, the Appellant is referring to a request for inspection of the Property. In response to the request, the Appellant submitted a 15 page letter stating, among other things, that she was not given the choice to “(a) not be designated a Subject of Her Majesty and (b) not be arbitrarily classed as a property owner under the Assessment Act.” We note that at the end of this 15 page objection letter, the Appellant concludes that “A State Party representative will be permitted on my property under protest and he will be video-taped by a witness to the proceedings”.

61The Appellant alleges that the inspection in 2017 is not relevant for a determination of the January 1, 2016 current value and is a fishing expedition and violates her privacy rights, security of the person and the right to be free from unreasonable search. She characterizes the inspection as an “inspection without a search warrant”. She submits that the timing of the request for an inspection is “evidence of intimidation and an effort to generate fear”.

62MPAC is entitled under subsection 10(1) of the Act to inspect properties in Ontario for the purpose of making a proper assessment. If a person willfully obstructs or interferes with this right, MPAC may seek recourse under subsection 13(4). Also, subsection 40(18) of the Act states that the burden of proving the correctness of the current value rests with the Appellant where he or she fails or refuses to give the assessment corporation reasonable opportunity to inspect the property under section 10.

63MPAC takes the position that the inspection was denied, heavily questioned and resisted by the Appellant. We do not need to determine, based on these facts, whether the Appellant has refused or failed to give MPAC a reasonable opportunity to inspect. MPAC has not requested a reversal of the burden; instead it put forward a logical and analytical pathway to arrive at its proposed current value of $351,000.

64The Appellant’s complaints that the inspection is completely irrelevant because it was requested in 2017 for a January 1, 2016 valuation day are not well founded. MPAC may carry out an inspection after the legislated valuation day and may seek information from the owner regarding the state of the property as of the valuation day. There is nothing nefarious about MPAC’s inspection procedure in this case. The Appellant’s assumption that a 2017 inspection is irrelevant is misguided.

(ii) Disclosure

65The Appellant takes issue with the fact that MPAC did not provide disclosure that complied with the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rule”). Specifically, the Appellant cites Rule 102 which states that evidence in a written hearing must be by affidavit. MPAC subsequently swore an affidavit on April 19, 2018 and has complied with Rule 102.

66The Appellant further alleges that she is prejudiced because MPAC has not disclosed the documents or information in support of its decision on the request for reconsideration process. MPAC’s process and decisions during the request for reconsideration process are not relevant to this appeal. MPAC uses a mass appraisal system that is not relevant to a determination of current value based on the direct comparison approach. Although it can be confusing for taxpayers who engage in a request for reconsideration process, the information used to determine MPAC’s assessed value is not helpful in determining current value based on the direct comparison approach in an appeal.

67Finally, MPAC has provided a large number of documents in this appeal including over 200 comparable properties. We disagree with the Appellant’s contention that comparable sales of vacant lots are essential in this appeal and should have been disclosed. The subject property is not a vacant lot and the Appellant made no case as to the relevance of vacant land sales as an indicator of current value of the Property.

(iii) Deceptive Practices and Classification

68The Appellant claims that MPAC has engaged in deceptive practices such as assessing components of land twice, rezoning her property to include a commercial component and making false allegations of a commercial enterprise at the Property. Similarly, the Appellant has requested orders that the Property be returned to code 301 and that MPAC be barred from referring to the Property as commercial or changing the code to 303 and 304. None of these issues are relevant to a determination of current value or whether an equitable adjustment is required.

69The Board has no jurisdiction to make these orders. MPAC uses property codes in its systems, and we cannot order MPAC to use certain property codes for certain properties. More to the point however, property codes are not relevant to the Board’s determination of current value. It is the actual characteristics of the properties including the use that the properties are put to that are relevant in our analysis of current value. Further, MPAC does not have the jurisdiction to, and has not, rezoned the Property.

70In her April 20, 2018 submissions, the Appellant alleges that MPAC has deliberately used word games and has repeatedly misrepresented material factors in this appeal regarding the classification of the Property. Although MPAC submits that part of the property is used for commercial purposes, it is not seeking a tax class change for this appeal. Classification is not an issue in dispute as MPAC has conceded on this appeal that the property is in the residential property class.

71Even after MPAC advised that it is not seeking to classify a portion of the Property in the commercial property class, the Appellant continued to be under the mistaken assumption that $91,900 of MPAC’s proposed current value of $351,000 is in the commercial class. Her contention that the current value is $259,100 because MPAC has agreed to remove $91,900 from the commercial portion is not supportable. As we have found above, MPAC’s proposed current value of $351,000 is based on a comparison of other single family residential dwellings. There is no portion attributed to the commercial class. Classification is not in issue in these appeals.

(iv) Market Trends

72In her letter dated April 4, 2017, the Appellant stated that, based on actual sales, she believes that the value of the Property is $350,000. The Appellant attempted to explain why she believed that the current value was $350,000 in her April 20, 2018 reply submissions as follows:

The Respondent MPAC states that the Appellant suggested the value of her property might be $350,000 however that was in 2016 when she had no idea how MPAC operated, or what values of neighbouring properties were. In addition, since then, sales prices and sales have dropped to their lowest in 4 years according to reliable sources quoted in mainstream media.

73First, we note that her letter was in 2017, not 2016. Second, contrary to her response in 2018, in her April 4, 2017 letter, the Appellant states that her opinion of $350,000 is based on actual sales of neighbouring properties.

74The Appellant further alleges in her April 20, 2018 letter that MPAC has failed to keep abreast of the fact that housing prices have dropped significantly since 2016 and that in 2018, the drop is to the lowest sales prices in four years. These arguments are not supported by the Appellant’s own evidence.

75The Appellant presented two articles in support of her contention that housing prices have dropped. The first is a March 17, 2015 Global News article entitled “Canadian home prices to fall 40-50 per cent, financial author says”. The Appellant contends that this article shows that prices would decrease and that “an increase of $45,000 in assessment value is unconscionable”. This article however is only one author’s anticipated prediction for the entire Canadian market including Toronto and Vancouver. The article has no sales data whatsoever and more importantly has no specific information relating to Ottawa, much less the Property’s immediate area. Based on her lengthy submissions, we doubt that the Appellant would accept such evidence in determining the trend for her neighbourhood if it predicted a steep increase in prices across the country.

76The second article presented by the Appellant is from the website “betterdwelling.com”. The October 23, 2017 blog is entitled “Teranet: Canadian Real Estate Prices Drop Most in 7 years, Led By Toronto”. This article only states that house prices generally declined across the country in September 2017. It specifically mentions that Teranet’s 11 city National Composite House Price Index showed an 0.8% drop as compared to August 2017. The article does not, as the Appellant suggests, provide any proof that housing prices are at their lowest in 4 years. In fact, the article is clear that housing prices have continuously increased since January 2016. Finally, the trends in the article are of the 11 major cities in Canada and do not reflect the Property’s local market. The article contradicts the Appellant’s position in that Ottawa was not one of the five cities to experience the 0.8% drop.

77In her materials, the Appellant has also provided other evidence from the Canadian Real Estate Association and the City of Ottawa in an attempt to support her argument that housing prices of single detached homes have dropped. We have already found that this evidence does not support the Appellant’s position that sale prices have decreased by 15.8%. Further, a change in market conditions would be captured in the sale prices of the comparable properties in evidence and we have found that the current value based on those comparable sales is $335,000. There is no reason to believe that a further reduction is warranted considering the high degree of similarity between the comparable properties and the Property in terms of location, land and structures.

(v) Appellant’s Characterization of MPAC’s Evidence

78The Appellant has gone to great length to attempt to discredit MPAC’s comparable properties on the basis that there were changes of opinion from one assessor to the next or that there are sales that occurred in 2017, after the January 1, 2016 valuation date. Although discrepancies in opinions of value may be a factor in determining credibility, we have found that the properties presented are appropriate comparable sales. Also, there is nothing wrong with using sales after a valuation date. If a comparable property sold on January 15, 2016, then that is good evidence of the value of the Property on January 1, 2016. There is no principled basis for excluding sales that occur after January 1, 2016. We note that the Appellant has used sales after the January 1, 2016 valuation date to calculate current value (see Method #6).

79The Appellant disputed many of the 183 properties in MPAC’s valuation report at Appendix C. As we have found earlier, we are not relying on MPAC’s price changes over time study or the time adjustment factors. We are using the actual sales of the properties. In any event, MPAC was not presenting the 183 properties at Appendix C as comparable properties, but rather as properties that could be used to determine market trends.

80Likewise, the Appellant mistakenly assumes that MPAC is using the 30 properties used in its Equity Study to determine current value.

(vi) MPAC’s Witness is Biased

81The Appellant has alleged that Mr. Smits’ analyses is not impartial because he is an agent or employee of MPAC, which in turn depends on “ever increasing property value assessments for its revenue stream and profits, and ability to pay employees”.

82The evidence does not support a finding that Mr. Smits is biased. We have found that MPAC satisfied its burden by showing how and why its proposed current value of $351,000 could be correct. Mr. Smits’ valuation opinion was based on sales that we have accepted as comparable properties. His analysis is not biased. We also do not accept that Mr. Smits’ analysis is biased simply because he is an employee or agent of MPAC. Just as we have accepted the Appellant’s evidence and submissions on this appeal, we accept MPAC’s evidence and submissions.

CONCLUSION

83The Board finds that the current value of the Property is $335,000. The Board also finds that a reduction in the current value is not required for the assessment to be equitable with the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity.

84Accordingly, the Board finds that the assessment of the Property is reduced from $387,000 to $335,000 in the residential property class for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.