Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: March 19, 2019

FILE NO.: WR 155542

Assessed Person(s): James Thomson McKenzie and Dora Sandra McKenzie

Appellant(s): James McKenzie

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”), Region 3

Respondent(s): City of Ottawa

Property Location(s): 611 Chenier Way

Municipality(ies): City of Ottawa

Roll Number(s): 0614-500-303-23900-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3260558 and 3289554

Taxation Year(s): 2017 and 2018

Hearing Event No.: 703076

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

Heard: August 22, 2018 in Ottawa, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
James McKenzie	Self-represented
MPAC	Caroline Sauve
City of Ottawa	No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY JOSEPH JEBREEN

OVERVIEW

1James McKenzie (the “Appellant”) appeals the assessment of his property located at 611 Chenier Way in Ottawa, Ontario (the “Property”). MPAC returned an assessment of $484,000 but submits that the correct January 1, 2016 current value of the Property based on the direct comparison approach is $477,000. The Appellant takes the position that the correct current value of the Property is between $440,000 and $450,000.

2However, the bulk of the Appellant’s evidence and submissions are based in equity. The Appellant alleges that MPAC has not treated him fairly because similar and superior properties in his neighbourhood are assessed far below his Property. He believes that the assessment for the Property should be reduced because of this unfairness. MPAC’s position is that similar properties in the vicinity are assessed at or near their current values, and so no equitable adjustment is required.

3For the reasons that follow, I find that the current value of the Property as of January 1, 2016 is $472,000 for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years. I further find that an equitable adjustment to 93% of the Property’s current value is warranted for the 2017 taxation year. The assessment is therefore reduced from $484,000 to $439,000 for the 2017 taxation year and from $479,000 to $472,000 for the 2018 taxation year.

BACKGROUND

4The Property under appeal is located in an urban area in the Fallingbrook neighbourhood of the suburb of Orleans in Ottawa, Ontario. The lot has a frontage of 42 feet and a depth of 101 feet for a total site area of 0.1 acres. It is connected to municipal water and sewer.

5The dwelling on the Property is a 2,691 square foot detached single family two storey home with 4 bedrooms, 2.5 bathrooms, and 2 fireplaces. The Appellant explained that his dwelling is a Roxborough model home which is the same model as many other dwellings in his neighbourhood. It was built in 1986 but, due to some interior and exterior renovations, MPAC has assigned the Property an effective age of 2002. The Appellant is the original owner and has renovated the Property extensively since he purchased it in 1986. These renovations include updated kitchen and bathrooms, crown molding, new floors and furnace, as well as exterior renovations such as new windows and roof. The basement measures 1,183 square feet, of which 443 square feet are finished as a recreational room. There is an attached garage built in 1986, measuring 480 square feet.

ISSUES

6The first issue to decide is the current value of the Property. In other words, I must determine what the Property would have sold for in an arm’s length transaction on January 1, 2016. Once the current value has been determined, clause 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, RSO 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”) requires that I “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” but only if that adjustment would result in a reduction of the assessment.

7In addition to the 2017 taxation year appeal, the 2018 taxation year appeal is also before me because, pursuant to subsection 44(26) of the Act, a 2018 appeal is deemed to have been filed if the 2017 taxation year appeal was not finally disposed of before March 31, 2018.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

Current Value

8Subsection 40(17) of the Act states that MPAC has the burden of proving “the correctness of the current value of the land.” As this Assessment Review Board (“Board”) found in Jay Patry Enterprises Inc. v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 05, 2019 CanLII 39629 (ON ARB), 2018 CanLII 70338 (ON ARB) (“Patry Enterprises”) at paragraph 21, the burden is around “current value” and not the assessment. That is, MPAC is not required to prove the correctness of their returned assessment. It is required to prove the correctness of “the amount of money the fee simple, if unencumbered, would realize if sold at arm’s length from a willing seller to a willing buyer.”

9Patry Enterprises summarizes the procedure to follow in an appeal where current value is at issue, at paragraph 40:

…first look at MPAC’s evidence on its own and make a determination as to whether it can prove its suggested current value on a balance of probabilities. If MPAC meets its burden, the Board should review all of the evidence before it and determine the current value of the property. However, if MPAC has not met its burden, the taxpayer’s evidence must be analyzed to see if it is capable of proving that a particular current value is more likely than not. If there is insufficient evidence in the record that is capable of proving current value, the Board should fix the assessment at the last uncontested assessed value.

10I will follow that procedure here.

Can MPAC’s evidence prove its suggested current value?

11As stated in Patry Enterprises at paragraph 23, in order for MPAC to meet its burden, MPAC’s evidence “must show how the current value MPAC is proposing is arrived at and why that value is correct. Without this bare minimum, the Board cannot possibly determine if MPAC’s proposed current value is correct.”

12Caroline Sauve, MPAC’s representative submitted a Valuation Report to establish an opinion of current value. As with most residential properties, MPAC relies on the direct comparison approach to prove its suggested current value of $477,000 for the Property.

13To satisfy its burden when using the direct comparison approach, MPAC cannot simply present any properties. It must review the market data and select properties that are in fact comparable. In her Valuation Report, Ms. Sauve relies on six comparable properties in her current value analysis as summarized in the table below:

Feature	Subject Property	Sale 1	Sale 2	Sale 3	Sale 4	Sale 5	Sale 6
Date sold	-	07/08/2015	06/27/2016	10/13/2016	07/28/2016	11/07/2016	04/02/2015
Sale price ($)	-	460,000	471,000	480,000	477,900	485,000	512,500
Time adjusted sale price ($)	-	457,756	473,319	483,952	480,253	488,993	508,898
Address	611 Chenier Way	1698 Caminiti Crescent	1717 Cara Crescent	852 Montcrest Drive	609 Falwyn Crescent	610 Falwyn Crescent	1606 Proulx Drive
Distance from Property (kilometres)	-	0.42	0.41	1.7	1.4	1.4	0.78
Lot area (Acres)	0.1	0.11	0.11	0.13	0.12	0.1	0.13
Frontage/Depth (feet)	42/101	50/100	40/120	55/101	39/136	37/121	50/114
Number of storeys	2	2	2	2	2	2	2
Building area (square feet)	2,691	2,522	2,525	2,510	2,547	2,547	2,906
Year built	1986	1986	1986	1988	1985	1986	1985
Effective year built	2002	1998	2004	2005	2001	2004	2002
Quality of construction	6.5	6.5	6.5	6.5	6.5	6.5	6.5
Basement area (square feet)	1,183	1,311	1,140	1,240	1,387	1,387	1,449
Finished Basement area (square feet)	443	524	525	n/a	555	837	n/a
Secondary structure type	Attached garage	Attached garage	Attached garage	Attached garage; pool	Attached garage	Attached garage	Attached garage
Secondary structure year built/area	1986/480	1986/400	1986/480	1988/480; 2013/512	1985/480	1986/480	1985/480

14All of MPAC’s comparable sales are located in the Fallingbrook neighbourhood within 1.7 kilometres of the Property. The dwellings are all single family two storey detached homes with similar years built and all of them have been renovated with the same quality of construction. Also, all of the properties sold within 1 year of the valuation date.

15Ms. Sauve opined that all six comparable sales are similar to the Property. She believes that extensively renovated homes in this area are selling for higher prices than non-renovated or lightly renovated ones. Ms. Sauve also explained why she believes that the comparable properties are similar, as opposed to inferior or superior. As detailed further below, I disagree with some of Ms. Sauve’s opinions regarding whether a particular comparable sale is similar. However, this is not considered in determining whether MPAC has met its burden.

16Using time adjustment factors that she calculated, and based on her analysis of the comparable properties, Ms. Sauve’s opinion is that the price of the Property must be between the time adjusted sale price of Sale 1 at $457,756 and the time adjusted sale price of Sale 6 at $508,898. Ms. Sauve concluded that the correct current value of the Property is within this range and, specifically, $477,000.

17With this evidence, I find that MPAC has met its burden. Ms. Sauve clearly showed her pathway to arriving at the proposed current value of $477,000 and why, in her opinion, that value is correct. That is what is required as a minimum.

18I note that I am not making a finding that the correct January 1, 2016 current value is $477,000. Rather, at this stage of the analysis, I am simply finding that MPAC’s evidence, if believed, can prove its proposed current value.

What is the correct current value of the property?

19Following the framework in Patry Enterprises, if MPAC has met its burden, I must then determine current value based on all of the evidence before me.

20In response to MPAC’s evidence on current value, the Appellant tendered eight comparable properties into evidence, however only six of them sold. He also submitted three 2017 listings of properties from his neighbourhood. I will address this evidence after analyzing MPAC’s six comparable sales. The details of MPAC’s sales are summarized in the table at paragraph [13] above.

21I agree with Ms. Sauve that Sales 1, 2, 4, and 5 are all similar to the Property such that any differences in features are either minor or are offset. All four sales have similar or slightly larger lots and basements. However, the Property’s dwelling is larger than all dwellings located on the four sales by 144 to 169 square feet. All four sales and the Property have identical or similar attached garages. I accept Ms. Sauve’s evidence that MPAC inspected all of the comparable sales in early 2018 and that the dwellings are similar in terms of renovations and quality of construction.

22Sale 3 is superior to the Property in that it has a pool and a larger lot. The dwelling is also two years newer and the 2015 renovations are more recent than the renovations on the Property. The dwelling on Sale 3 is inferior in that it is 181 square feet smaller and the basement, although slightly larger, is unfinished. I find that overall this Property is slightly superior because of the combined increase on current value from the pool, the larger lot, the newer dwelling, and more recent renovations. These features are not offset by the smaller size of the dwelling and the unfinished basement.

23Sale 6 is also superior to the Property because it has a larger lot, the dwelling is 215 square feet larger, and the basement is 266 square feet larger. The only inferior feature is that the basement is unfinished. A significant superior feature is that this property has no rear neighbours and abuts green space. This feature combined with the other superior features make Sale 6 superior to the Property.

24As previously mentioned, the Appellant also introduced six sales into evidence. Their characteristics are compared in the table below:

Feature	Subject Property	Sale 7	Sale 8	Sale 9	Sale 10	Sale 11	Sale 12
Date sold	-	09/01/2017	02/01/2017	09/01/2017	08/01/2014	09/01/2017	10/01/2017
Address	611 Chenier Way	685 Apollo Way	617 Chenier Way	572 Wilkie Dr	1735 Cara Cres	618 Chenier Way	658 Apollo Way
Sale Price ($)	-	430,000	428,000	470,500	470,000	417,500	428,000
Frontage/Depth (feet)	42/101	40/100	42/101	40/100	40/120	50/100	40/100
Number of storeys	2	2	2	2	2	2	2
Building area (sq feet)	2,691	2,691	2,691	2,691	2,691	2,496	2,691
Year built	1986	1985	1986	1986	1986	1987	1985
Quality of construction	6.5	6.5	6.5	6.5	6.5	6.5	6.5
Basement area (square feet)	1,183	1,183	1,183	1,183	1,183	1,226	1,183
Finished Basement area (square feet)	591	592	887	n/a	n/a	114	n/a

25The Appellant submits that these six sales are more comparable than those presented by MPAC. His evidence is that Sales 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12 are more comparable than MPAC’s sales because they have the same lot sizes and same size buildings. Sales 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12 have the same Roxborough model dwelling as the Property. The only difference in the data is that some have an unfinished basement and others have partially finished basements. Sale 11 is similar to Sale 1 from MPAC’s comparable properties in that the lot is larger but the house is smaller.

26In reply to this evidence, and in cross-examination, Ms. Sauve stated that the properties relied on by the Appellant are not in as good condition and were not renovated to the same extent as the Property. She submitted that the different degrees of renovations account for the differences in sales prices. However, after reviewing the evidence regarding renovations to Sales 9 and 10, Ms. Sauve agreed that Sales 9 and 10 are good comparable sales. I find that Sales 9 and 10 are the best two comparable sales in evidence in terms of lots and dwellings.

27Sale 8 sold 13 months from the valuation day but the evidence establishes that the only renovations to the dwelling are a new roof, new floors, and renovated bathroom. I consider Sale 8 to be slightly inferior to the Property. All other sales presented by the Appellant are 17 to 21 months away from the valuation day. Sales that occur further away from the valuation day are less indicative of current value. Based on the sale dates being 20 or more months away from the valuation day, and the lower quality renovations of Sales 7, 11, and 12, I do not consider them to be as helpful in a determination of current value in this case. However, based on the high degree of comparability of Sales 9 and 10, including the renovations, I will include them in my analysis despite the dates of sale.

28The following table summarizes my analysis of the comparable properties in evidence:

Property	Date Sold	Comparability	Sale Price
Sale 6	April 2015	Superior	$512,500
Sale 3	October 2016	Slightly superior	$480,000
Sale 5	November 2016	Similar	$485,000
Sale 4	July 2016	Similar	$477,900
Sale 2	June 2016	Similar	$471,000
Sale 1	July 2015	Similar	$460,000
Sale 9	September 2017	Similar	$470,500
Sale 10	August 2014	Similar	$470,000
Sale 8	February 2017	Slightly inferior	$428,000

29For reasons given in previous decisions¹, I do not accept the time adjustment study presented by MPAC and I do not adjust the sale prices with MPAC’s proposed time adjustment factors.

30Based on the foregoing analysis, the current value of the Property is likely to be in the range of $460,000 to $485,000, being the range of sales prices of the similar properties. I do not favour either end of this range because some properties are more similar in terms of physical features (Sales 9 and 10) while others are closer to the valuation day. The midpoint of the range is $472,500, the median of the six similar sales is $470,750 and the mean is $472,400. These values are separated by less than $2,000 and so I find that the current value of the Property is approximately $472,000.

Equity

31Section 44(3)(b) of the Act requires me to consider whether an equitable adjustment to the current value is required:

44(3) For 2009 and subsequent taxation years, in determining the value at which any land shall be assessed, the Board shall,

(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.

32Ms. Sauve submits that the proper test for “similar lands in the vicinity” for equity purposes is that the properties only need to be of the same general nature, character or function as the Property. This is not the correct test for determining similar lands in the vicinity.

33In Municipal Property Assessment Corporation v Loblaw Properties Limited, 2017 ONSC 1299 (“Loblaw”), the Divisional Court specifically considered whether the test of “the same general nature, character or function” was approved by the Supreme Court of Canada in Ontario (Regional Assessment Commissioner v. Downtown Oshawa Property Owners, [1978] 2 SCR 1030, 1978 CanLII 36 (SCC) (“Downtown Oshawa”). The Divisional Court found, at paragraph 22, that the Supreme Court of Canada in Downtown Oshawa did not adopt the test of the “the same general nature, character or function” as set out by the Court of Appeal in that case. Rather, the Supreme Court of Canada referred to “many points of comparison” in determining whether properties were similar. The Divisional Court further found, at paragraph 26, that the Downtown Oshawa Decision “does not decide the appropriate test”.

34The Divisional Court in Loblaw confirmed, at paragraph 25, that the “the proper approach to be taken to determining what are “similar lands in the vicinity” is… that all points of comparison must be considered.”

35The Divisional Court further found, at paragraph 25, that a single point of similarity, such as use, is not necessarily determinative of what “similar lands in the vicinity” are.

36In the analysis on current value above, I only used comparable sales of single family detached two storey dwellings within approximately 2 kilometres of the Property. I find that the points of comparison that must be considered for similar lands in the vicinity are:

a. Properties with single family detached two storey dwellings; and

b. Within 2 kilometres of the Property.

37I note that it is the taxpayer’s burden to prove that an equitable adjustment is required. The majority of the Appellant’s evidence in this appeal related to the unfairness of his assessment as compared to other properties in his neighbourhood. He submitted that I am to have reference to the value at which similar lands in the vicinity are assessed and that sale prices of those similar lands are not necessary to show that the Property is inequitably assessed. To that end, the Appellant produced two charts which he says prove that similar lands in the vicinity are assessed much lower than his Property.

38In his first chart, the Appellant compiled a list of all 32 Roxborough model properties from his neighbourhood along with their 2017 assessments. The Appellant cites MPAC’s major factors in determining assessments as being location, age, size, and quality of construction. His evidence is that all Roxborough homes are built around 1985-1986 in his neighbourhood and are about 2,700 square feet in size. The lot sizes are all similar and range from 40-50 feet by approximately 100 feet. He states that the dwellings on these properties are the same or similar to the dwelling on the Property.

39The assessments of the 32 properties range from $410,000 to $473,000. The average of the assessments is $430,000. The Property is assessed at $484,000 and the Appellant questions how he could be assessed $54,000 higher when the properties are generally the same and some are even superior.

40The Appellant’s second chart listed the 2017 assessments of all properties on his street, Chenier Way, into two sections. The first section lists the odd numbered properties, which have 40 foot frontages, and the second section lists the even numbered properties, which have 50 foot frontages. The Property is an odd numbered property and has a 40 foot frontage. The average 2016 assessment of the odd numbered properties is $408,000 and the average 2016 assessment of the even numbered properties is $442,000. The Appellant again questions how he could be assessed so much higher than homes that are similar to his but with larger frontages.

41I note that the Appellant’s submissions, if accepted, would only apply to the 2017 taxation year. As detailed below, MPAC inspected the neighouring properties in 2018 and increased the assessments for the 2018 taxation year.

42The Board generally accepts assessment to sale ratios as evidence regarding equity. That does not mean that assessment to sale ratios are the only type of evidence that may be used to establish whether or not a particular property is equitably assessed. Using assessment to sale ratios minimizes the likelihood that lower assessments are due to differences in the properties such as age, condition, size, or location. Nevertheless, I am prepared to accept the Appellant’s evidence that his Property is inequitably assessed for the following reasons.

43First, the Appellant has established that his Property has the highest assessment of all Roxborough homes in his neighbourhood despite some properties being similar or superior to the Property. He has testified that many of the other properties are similar or the same in age, condition, and size. I do not intend to describe the dozens of properties in the Appellant’s two charts but he or Ms. Sauve gave specific personal knowledge of some of the properties including 572 Wilkie Drive and 1735 Cara Crescent (see Sales 9 and 10 above at paragraph 24).

44In cross-examination, the Appellant confirmed that Sale 9 had the same upgrades and renovations as the Property. These renovations are confirmed in a May 2017 real estate listing of Sale 9 that the Appellant introduced into evidence. Ms. Sauve confirmed that Sale 10 has similar renovations to the Property. She further agreed that both Sales 9 and 10 were good comparable properties. Yet, the assessments originally returned for the January 1, 2016 valuation day for Sales 9 and 10 were assessed at $434,000 and $431,000 respectively, or about $50,000 below the Property’s assessment.

45Further, all other Roxborough-model properties with 40 foot frontages on Chenier Way were originally assessed between $410,000 and $420,000 for the January 1, 2016 valuation day. Even the Roxborough-model property on Chenier Way that has a 50 foot frontage was only assessed at $429,000. The Property could be the highest quality and best renovated property in the neighbourhood but that has certainly not been shown to be the case as is evident with Sales 9 and 10. I accept the Appellant’s evidence that other properties in his neighbourhood are either (i) similarly renovated with similar lots and dwellings but were originally assessed considerably lower, or (ii) are superior in that they have larger lots and larger homes and/or back onto greenspace but were originally assessed either slightly below or similar to the Property.

46Finally, the assessment to sale ratios available in evidence support the Appellant’s submission that similar properties in the vicinity are under assessed for the 2017 taxation year. In its current value evidence, MPAC submitted two charts of the same six comparable properties. The first chart gave the details of comparable Sales 1 to 6 with the assessments as of the return of the roll in 2017. The second chart showed the same details except that the assessments were updated after inspections of the comparable sales were carried out in 2018. The table below shows MPAC’s sales with both the 2017 assessment as at the return of the roll and the 2018 adjusted assessments after inspections:

Property	2017 Assessment at Return of Roll	2018 Adjusted Assessment
Sale 1	$429,000	$467,000
Sale 2	$415,000	$467,000
Sale 3	$445,000	$481,000
Sale 4	$429,000	$476,000
Sale 5	$429,000	$480,000
Sale 6	$388,000	$534,000

47What is clear from the above table is that MPAC made significant increases to the assessments in 2018. The question is what is the proper assessment to use when determining whether the Property is equitably assessed as compared to similar lands in the vicinity?

48In its equity report, MPAC selected 30 properties which satisfy all points of comparison and so are similar lands in the vicinity of the Property. Only Sales 1 and 2 of MPAC’s six comparable sales are included in those 30 properties. I do not see how properties could be comparable sales in a current value analysis but would not be included as similar lands in the vicinity in an equity analysis. This in itself is a reason to doubt the reliability of the equity analysis as it may not contain a complete listing of similar lands in the vicinity that satisfy the points of comparison.

49However, I have another concern about the assessments used in MPAC’s equity report. The assessment values used for Sales 1 and 2 in the equity analysis are the 2018 adjusted assessments, not the 2017 assessments originally returned for the January 1, 2016 valuation day.

50The 2018 adjusted assessments are appropriate to show that equity has been achieved for the 2018 taxation year. However, I find that it is not appropriate for MPAC to use the 2018 adjusted assessments to show that the Property is equitably assessed for the 2017 taxation year.

51In my view, equity, like current value, should be determined for each tax year. If the assessments do not change in a four year cycle, then the equity analysis will be the same for the four years. However, if, as here, MPAC changes assessments part way through a four year cycle, then the equitable inquiry may result in different findings for different tax years.

52It is not reasonable to use the adjusted assessments in 2018 to show that the Property is equitably assessed for the 2017 taxations year. Using adjusted assessments after MPAC carried out inspections of the comparable properties in 2018 defeats the purpose of determining whether an equitable adjustment was warranted for the January 1, 2016 assessments in the 2017 taxation year. Thus, I find that the proper assessments to use in an equity analysis for the 2017 taxation year are the 2017 assessments as at the return of the roll.

53I do not rely on the equity study presented by MPAC for two reasons. First, only two of MPAC’s six comparable sales were used in the equity study, and so, I am not confident that all properties satisfying the points of comparison have been included in the study. Second, I do not know whether the 2017 original assessments or the 2018 adjusted assessments were used for the remaining 30 properties in the study.

54Notwithstanding the above, I have the data from the 12 comparable sales in evidence, and the timing of those assessments is clear. The 2017 assessments, the 2018 assessments, where available, sale prices, and ratios of these 12 properties are included in the table below:

Property Number	2017 Assessment	2018 Assessment	Sale Price	2017 Assessment to Sale Ratio	2018 Assessment to Sale Ratio
Sale 6	$388,000	$534,000	$512,500	0.757073	1.041951
Sale 2	$415,000	$467,000	$471,000	0.881104	0.991507
Sale 5	$429,000	$480,000	$485,000	0.884536	0.989691
Sale 4	$429,000	$476,000	$477,900	0.897677	0.996024
Sale 10	$431,000	-	$470,000	0.917021	-
Sale 9	$434,000	-	$470,500	0.922423	-
Sale 3	$445,000	$481,000	$480,000	0.927083	1.002083
Sale 1	$429,000	$467,000	$460,000	0.932609	1.015217
Sale 12	$415,000	-	$428,000	0.969626	-
Sale 8	$416,000	-	$428,000	0.971963	-
Sale 11	$430,000	-	$417,500	1.02994	-
Sale 7	$473,000	-	$430,000	1.1	-

55For the 2017 taxation year, using these 12 properties, the mean assessment to sale ratio is 0.933 and the median is 0.925. Both measures of central tendency fall outside of MPAC’s target range of 0.95 to 1.05. The 95% confidence interval of the median is 0.895 to 0.955 which means that the true median of the population based on this sample is likely below the acceptable range. The coefficient of dispersion for the median is 6.1, which falls within the acceptable range of 5.0 to 15.0 for single family residential properties in older or more heterogeneous areas.

56The level of appraisal as indicated by the mean ratio of 0.933 is outside MPAC’s target of 0.95 to 1.05 and suggests that properties in the vicinity are under-assessed. Further, the standard deviation from the mean is 0.084 and the 95% confidence interval is 0.902 to 0.963 which means that the true mean of the population based on this sample is likely to be below the acceptable range.

57Based on the evidence before me, similar property in the vicinity is assessed at approximately 93% of its current value for the 2017 taxation year. Therefore, I reduce the current value of $472,000 to $439,000 for the 2017 taxation year.

58Although there are only six available properties in evidence for the 2018 taxation year, the assessment to sale ratios indicate that the Property is equitably assessed as compared to similar properties in the vicinity. The mean assessment to sale ratio is 1.01 and the median is 1.00. Both measures of central tendency fall within MPAC’s target range of 0.95 to 1.05. Indeed, both the mean and the median suggest that the neighbouring properties are assessed at, or very slightly above, their current value. Therefore, no reduction in the current value of the Property is warranted for the 2018 taxation year.

CONCLUSION

59The current value of the Property as of January 1, 2016 is $472,000 for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years. However, an equitable adjustment of 93% is warranted for the 2017 taxation. The assessment is therefore reduced from $484,000 to $439,000 for the 2017 taxation year and from $479,000 to $472,000 for the 2018 taxation year.

Footnotes

1. 1See Bernier v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 2, 2018 CanLII 107728 (ON ARB) at paras 47-55; Patrick v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 02, 2019 CanLII 7194 (ON ARB) at paras 31-37; Patrick v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 02, 2019 CanLII 7196 (ON ARB) at paras 30-36.