Raymond Wayne Adams v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 7, 2019 CanLII 42132

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

May 10, 2019

FILE NO.:

WR 159844

Assessed Person(s):

Raymond Wayne Adams

Appellant(s):

Raymond Wayne Adams

Respondent(s):

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”), Region 7

Respondent(s):

City of Kawartha Lakes

Property Location(s):

4145 Highway 7

Municipality(ies):

City of Kawartha Lakes

Roll Number(s):

1651-001-008-13500-0000

Appeal Number(s):

3320595 and 3348780

Taxation Year(s):

2018 and 2019

Hearing Event No.

713366

Legislative Authority:

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

Heard:

April 9, 2019 in Lindsay, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Representative

Raymond Wayne Adams

Self-represented

MPAC

Justin Johnstone

City of Kawartha Lakes

Melita Andrews

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY JENNIFER GRIFFITH

Background

1Raymond Wayne Adams (the “Appellant”) is the owner of 4145 Highway 7 (the “Subject Property”), which is located in the City of Kawartha Lakes (the “City”).

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.

3MPAC has assessed the current value of the Subject Property at $396,000 for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years. The apportionment breakdown is as follows:

Farm (Full) $201,100

Residential (Full) $194,900

TOTAL $396,000

4The Appellant has filed appeals for taxation years 2018 and 2019 with the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”), pursuant to s. 40 of the Act. It is his position that MPAC’s assessment of current value is too high and that the correct current value is $318,000. At this hearing, MPAC takes the position that its assessed value should be $396,000 for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years.

5Pursuant to s. 40(11) of the Act, the City is a party to this proceeding. Ms. Andrews, the City’s representative, indicated that she was there to observe the hearing on the City’s behalf. She asserts no position on current value.

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 (“equitable reduction”). The purpose of this provision is to fairly distribute the municipal tax burden according to the value of the property possessed by each ratepayer. MPAC takes the position that an equitable reduction is not required. The Appellant asserts no position on equity. Therefore, equity is not at issue at this hearing.

7At the completion of the hearing, the Board reserved its decision. For the reasons that follow, the Board finds the current value is $459,000. MPAC has not served a notice of intention to seek a higher assessment, as required by Rule 40 of the Board’s Rules. Therefore, the Board will not increase the assessment and confirms the returned assessment of $396,000 for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years. The following is the apportionment breakdown for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years:

Farm (Full) $201,100

Residential (Full) $194,900

TOTAL $396,000

Relevant Legislation

8The 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.

19.(5) Farm lands and buildings - For the purposes of determining the current value of farm lands used only for farm purposes by the owner or used only for farm purposes by a tenant of the owner and buildings thereon used solely for farm purposes, including the residence of the owner or tenant and of the owner’s or tenant’s employees and their families on the farm lands,

(a) consideration shall be given to the current value of the lands and buildings for farm purposes only;

(b) consideration shall not be given to sales of lands and buildings to persons whose principal occupation is other than farming; and

(c) the Minister may, by regulation, define “farm lands” and “farm purposes”.

Issue

9The issue to be determined on this appeal is the correct current value of the Subject Property for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years.

Description of the Subject Property

10The Subject Property is land used for farming purposes and is located at 4145 Highway 7, in the City of Kawartha Lakes. The Subject Property consists of 89 acres of farm lands (10 acres are classified Soil Class 3; 27 acres as Soil Class 4; 30 acres as Soil Class 5; and 21 acres as Soil Class 6). There is also a two-storey house with a total building area of 2,978 square feet (“sq. ft.”), built in 1937 and several farm structures (barns and sheds), on the Subject Property.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

11These appeals were originally scheduled for a full hearing on December 10, 2018, Hearing 708567, in the Town of Lindsay. The hearing was adjourned to February 11, 2019 for a Motion hearing in writing, in which the Appellant was seeking an order compelling MPAC to provide him with certain documents. The Representative for the City of Kawartha Lakes was in attendance and stated that she was there to observe the hearing and did not actively participate.

12The Motion in writing was reviewed and a Disposition of the Motion was delivered by the Board on March 7, 2019 (DM 158644), Adams v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 7, 2019 CanLII 18798 (ON ARB). The request was denied.

Discussion, Analysis and Findings

MPAC’s Evidence

13Mr. Johnstone is the advocate for MPAC and Rebecca Bolton is the witness for MPAC. Mr. Johnstone called on Ms. Bolton, Property Valuation Specialist for MPAC, and she provided an overview of her 22 years of work experiences with MPAC. She states that her responsibilities include roles such as assessing properties including farm properties, reviews, sales, building permits, inspections and appearing before this Board on behalf of MPAC.

14Ms. Bolton states that the Appellant filed a Request for Reconsideration (“RfR”) for the 2017 taxation year, and Minutes of Settlement (“MOS”) was reached and the returned assessment of $416,000 was reduced to $396,000. Based on this MOS, MPAC returned the assessed value of $396,000 for the 2018 taxation year and it was rejected, which led to this appeal. Ms. Bolton states that in reviewing the Appellant’s disclosure, there appeared to be inconsistences between what was reported for 2017 appeal as compared to the 2018 appeal (e.g. renovation of the kitchen done in 1981 as opposed to 1991; roof 2010 as opposed to 1991; structure total size 3,600 sq. ft. as opposed to 2,620 sq. ft. respectively). However, the Appellant confirms that the information contained in the Subject Property’s Profile is accurate.

15Ms. Bolton continues by presenting a Valuation Report dated August 23, 2018 which she prepared in support of current value. Ms. Bolton testifies to the information contained in the report.

16Ms. Bolton testifies that she requested an inspection in 2017, 2018 and another was recently requested by Mr. Johnstone and the requests were all denied. Ms. Bolton states that she relies on MPAC’s data on file, which she presents to the Board as the Subject Property’s profile. No objections were raised.

17Ms. Bolton presents a Trend Analysis Report of 162 sales which occurred over the period of February 8, 2008 to December 22, 2016, to determine the time adjustment factors. The factors are used to time-adjust the sale prices of the suggested comparable properties used for comparison to the Subject Property, to the valuation date of January 1, 2016. She testifies that these sales of suggested comparable properties are located in the immediate and surrounding neighbourhoods, approximately 11 kilometres away from the Subject Property.

18Ms. Bolton states that the returned assessment of $396,000 of the Subject Property was based on the Cost Approach to value. Ms. Bolton explains that the improvements value is determined by the Cost Approach to value, and the site value is determined by the sales of farm lands sold to farmers with 10 or more acres in the open market. Ms. Bolton also states that outbuildings (barns, sheds etc.) have minimal values.

19Ms. Bolton explains that the farm lands are classified into six soil types ranging from best to worst. Soil Class 1 means that it is the best quality of soil; and Soil Class 6 means that it is the worst quality of soil.

20In support of current value based on the Cost Approach to value for the Subject Property, Ms. Bolton testifies that she determined the value of all improvements on the Subject Property using the Cost Approach; and the site area using sales of vacant lots in the open market.

21Value of improvements on the Subject Property—Ms. Bolton testifies that she estimates the Replacement Cost New (“RCN”) by applying any or all of MPAC’s costing programs (e.g. Automated Costing System (“ACS”); MPAC Agricultural Cost Guide and/or the Residential Cost Manuel). She also utilizes Hanscomb Limited for costing data specifically geared towards the Canadian Construction Industry and integrated it with the ACS database. Ms. Bolton states that Hanscomb Limited is relied on by MPAC and is recognized for more than 2,600 constructions components and with the building costs for 34 typical structures at three levels (low, average and high).

22Ms. Bolton testifies that she determined the depreciation value, taking into consideration all forms of depreciation (physical, functional obsolescence and external obsolescence).

23Physical depreciation—Ms. Bolton testifies that she utilizes MPAC’s age and life tables which she feels reflect the adjustment for physical depreciation accurately.

24Functional obsolescence—Ms. Bolton states that functional obsolescence relates to some defect in the existing buildings or structures that make them less valuable than a modern equivalent. That the main forms of function obsolescence typically involve building size, construction and height. She states that buildings that require an adjustment are overbuilt, or designed with a layout that makes it less efficient to operate than the modern equivalent. Ms. Bolton states that it is her opinion that the Subject Property is not overbuilt for the area in which it is located nor is its design or layout an impediment to its efficient operation.

25External obsolescence—Ms. Bolton states that external obsolescence refers to a loss in value that is as a result of factors that are external to the property itself and outside the control of the property owner. Ms. Bolton states that it is her opinion that MPAC’s adjustments as applied accurately reflect the adjustment for external obsolescence on farm outbuildings on the Subject Property.

26Based on the above applications, considerations and Cost Approach to value, Ms. Bolton determined that the current value for the Improvements of the Subject Property to be $211,696 (Total Cost New $399,168—Total depreciation $187,472).

27Current value for the site area—Ms. Bolton presents the sales of three vacant farm lands located in the same homogeneous neighbourhood as the Subject Property. They are located at Tracey’s Hill Road sold in 2015 for $202,000 (time-adjusted value $208,262); Saint Lukes Road sold in 2015 for $210,000 (time-adjusted value $217,560); and Tara Road sold in 2016 for $350,000 (time-adjusted value $341,250).

28Ms. Bolton testifies that the suggested comparable property at Tracey’s Hill Road is relatively comparable, because it has 48.08 acres with all classified as Soil Class 3; Saint Lukes Road is most comparable with 97.85 acres (70.85 acres as Soil Class 4; 27 acres as Soil Class 5); and Tara Road is inferior with 44.91 acres (14.91 acres as Soil Class 3; 27 acres as Soil Class 4; and 3 acres as Soil Class 6). This is compared to the Subject Property with 89 acres with (10 acres as Soil Class 3; 27 acres as Soil Class 4, 30 acres as Soil Class 5; and 21 acres as Soil Class 6). Based on these sales, Ms. Bolton testifies that time-adjusted sale price of $217,560 for the most comparable property at Saint Lukes Road supports the returned assessment of the site area of $185,000.

29Based on the Cost Approach to value Ms. Bolton determines the current value to be $429,000 rounded ($211,696 for improvements + $217,560), which she argues supports the returned assessment of $396,000.

30In support of current value based on open market sales (Direct Comparison Approach) Ms. Bolton presents an analysis of five sales of suggested comparable properties located in the same homogeneous neighbourhood as the Subject Property. The analysis includes both actual sales and time adjusted sales prices. Ms. Bolton testifies that she selected properties that are inferior, superior and similar to establish a range of values for comparison to the Subject Property.

31These suggested comparable properties are located at 601 Emily Park Road, sold in 2015 for $435,000 ($452,780 time-adjusted sale price); 4560 Highway 7, sold in 2014 for $432,000 ($460,735 time-adjusted sale price); 1600 Hayes Line, sold in 2014 for $460,000 ($490,598 time-adjusted sale price); 74 Hayes Line, sold in 2016 for $722,000 ($704,986 time-adjusted sale price); and 5 Acrevale Road, sold in 2012 for $320,000 ($380,674 time-adjusted sale price). The time-adjusted sale prices range from $380,674 to $704,986.

32In reviewing the above sales analysis, Ms. Bolton is of the view that the suggested comparable property at 601 Emily Park Road; 4560 Highway 7; and 5 Acrevale Road are inferior to the Subject Property because they are significantly smaller in total building area and lot size; 1600 Hayes Line is superior to the Subject Property because the soil is of superior quality and with more acreage; and 74 Hayes Line is the most comparable property to the Subject Property in total building area, lot size and with similar soil classes.

33Based on this analysis, Ms. Bolton is of the view that the time-adjusted sales price of $704,986 for the most comparable property at 74 Hayes Line supports the returned assessment of the $396,000 for the Subject Property.

MPAC’s Submissions

34MPAC submits that the correct current value for the taxation years 2018 and 2019 is $396,000, which is supported by open market sales.

35MPAC argues that further negative adjustments are not required for depreciation and for any negative impact associated with asbestos infused insulation, because the above analysis based on the Cost Approach with a value of $429,000, includes a total depreciation reduction of $187,472.

36MPAC also argues that the Appellant made no attempt to obtain the information he was seeking from MPAC which led to the motion hearing on February 11, 2019 (Hearing 710373). MPAC states that the Appellant was made aware of the access site where he could have obtained the information he was seeking. Instead, the Appellant choose not to access the information, because he was not interested in using computers.

37Finally, MPAC cited the following cases to assist the Board in its determination of current value:

(i) Murray v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region No. 05, [2017] CanLII 3794 (ON ARB) (“Murray”) regarding adjustments for defects negatively impacting the Subject Property;

(ii) Lomaga v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp. Region No. 09, [2010] O.A.R.B.D. No. 15 (“Lomaga”) regarding adjustments for individual components used in a valuation model;

(iii) Cogan v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp. Region No. 03, (July 22, 2004 – unreported) DM 32084 (“Cogan”) regarding MPAC’s Model;

(iv) Carsons' Camp Ltd. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp., [2008] O.J. No. 72, 2008 ONCA 17, 2008 CLB 743, 40 M.P.L.R. (4th) 165, 58 O.M.B.R. 292, 63 R.P.R. (4th) 163, 88 O.R. (3d) 741, 2008 CarswellOnt 74, 232 O.A.C. 297, 163 A.C.W.S. (3d) 514; and

(v) Municipal Property Assessment Corp. v. BCE Place Ltd., 2009 CanLII 92126 (ON SCDC), [2009] O.J. No. 3338, 253 O.A.C. 28, 63 O.M.B.R. 1, 69 M.P.L.R. (4th) 1, 86 R.P.R. (4th) 15, 2009 CarswellOnt 4719, 98 O.R. (3d) 581, 179 A.C.W.S. (3d) 510.

Appellant’s Evidence

38In support of his argument, the Appellant filed a 13 page document. The Appellant states that he requested information from MPAC to prepare for today’s proceedings and that he was unsuccessful. He feels that the process is unfair and that he lacks access to information that could assist him in support of the value he is seeking. He feels that he is at a disadvantage, because MPAC has access to all the information and he has none.

39The Appellant attempts to introduce the same arguments that led to the motion hearing of February 11, 2019 (Hearing 710373), and it was rejected by this Board. As stated above as background information, the arguments were fully dealt with and a decision by the Board (DM 158644) was rendered in which the request for information was dismissed.

40The Appellant testifies that the residential structure of the Subject Property is negatively impacted by asbestos infused insulation and that MPAC failed to apply a negative adjustment to the assessed value of the Subject Property. He states that it is an accepted fact with real estate agents and lawyers that the existence of carcinogens in his dwelling greatly reduces the market value and interested purchasers.

41The Appellant also argues that existence of asbestos must be disclosed to potential buyers, which he feels will undoubtedly and certainly lower the value on the open market. Therefore, the Appellant questions how much of the value truly represents open market arms-length sale by a willing buyer.

42The Appellant confirms that he personally installed the Zonolite asbestos filled insulation in his property somewhere around 1983. That many years ago he was part of a lawsuit filed in the United States of America and he received an award of $200 U.S. dollars. However, he did not remove the asbestos which he states would likely have been less expensive.

43In support of the issue of asbestos, the Appellant presents copies of two cost-to-cure estimates which he obtained from KB Insulators, in the City of Peterborough, dated August 31, 2018 in the amount of $39,465.25 for the removal and disposal of all existing aluminum siding including tentest, window flashing, related trims, asbestos and extraction of asbestos from walls and stud cavities; and KB Exteriors, in the Township of Cavan-Monaghan, dated September 4, 2018 in the amount of $111,022.50 for supply and installation of new premium aluminum (insulation backed) horizontal siding, trims and accessories to replace the items disposed of (combined total of $150,487.75).

44In respond to questions about the estimated cost to remove the asbestos and the method proposed, the Appellant states that he believes it would be less expensive to remove it externally as opposed to internally. No one was in attendance to represent KB Exteriors and KB Insulators.

45The Appellant testifies that the returned assessment (land and structures) increased in four years by 70%. He states that the land value increased by 100% and the residence increased by 50% in four years.

46The Appellant presents a 2003 news article, with the headline “Government provides $5,000 to restore a heritage barn”. The article went on to say that under the Ontario Heritage Act, buildings that are special or architecturally unique can become designated heritage structures. The article suggested that if you have and old barn on your property you should not tear it down, because the government might give you up to $5,000 to restore it to its original condition.

47In support of current value, the Appellant presents no sales. Instead, the Appellant states that he calculated that the structure of the Subject Property should be $72 per sq. ft. when compared to similar type residences and that he believes that the current value of the Subject Property should be $318,000.

48In support of his argument of current value, the Appellant presents the following six roll numbers, with corresponding value per sq. ft. for only five of the roll numbers:

1. 1651-001-003-01100 at $51 per sq. ft.

2. 1651-001-008-12200 at $46 per sq. ft.

3. 1651-001-008-19700 at $56 per sq. ft.

4. 1651-001-008-19900 at $54 per sq. ft.

5. 1651-001-008-13300 at $53 per sq. ft.

6. 1651-001-008-10201 (house built in 1995)

49Based on the above information, the average value per sq. ft. for the five roll numbers is $52 as compared to the $72 per sq. ft. stated above for the structure.

Appellant’s Submissions

50Relying on his evidence, the Appellant argues that a further reduction of $150,487.75 for the negative impact of asbestos is warranted.

51The Appellant is of the view that designated heritage barns should not be assessed.

52The Appellant is of the view that the quality of construction rating 6, should be lower for the Subject Property, because the materials and design of the structure are of a lower quality than the suggested comparable properties presented by MPAC.

53The Appellant argues that he rejected the requests for inspection of the Subject Property three times, because it is his right to do so and that he enjoys his privacy.

54The Appellant submits that the correct current value for taxation years 2018 and 2019 is $318,000.

ANALYSIS

55In regard to the Cost Approach to value for the improvements on the Subject Property, the Board did not rely on MPAC’s value of $211,696, because MPAC only provided the systems relied on but failed to provide a detailed breakdown of how they arrived at the value for each components (e.g. MPAC deducted $187,472 for depreciation and provided no specific value attributed for physical, functional and external depreciation).

56In regard to the land value, MPAC presents the sales of three vacant farm lands located in the same homogeneous neighbourhood as the Subject Property. They are located at Tracey’s Hill Road sold in 2015 for $202,000 (time-adjusted value $208,262); Saint Lukes Road sold in 2015 for $210,000 (time-adjusted value $217,560); and Tara Road sold in 2016 for $350,000 (time-adjusted value $341,250).

57An analysis of these three sales shows that the time-adjusted sale prices range from $208,262 to $341,250 and a median time-adjusted sale price of $217,560. Based on the evidence, the Board finds the best evidence to be the median sale price of $217,560.

58Based on all of the evidence in support of current value based on the Cost Approach, the Board does not rely on the Cost Approach to value, because MPAC failed to provide detailed breakdown of the values attributed to all components within the cost system that would have assisted the Board in its determination of current value. Instead, the Board relies on the sales presented into evidence.

59In regard to the five sales presented by MPAC in support of current value (Direct Comparison Approach), the Board did not rely on the sales which occurred at 4560 Highway 7, sold in 2014; 1600 Hayes Line, sold in 2014; and 5 Acrevale Road, sold in 2012, because these sale dates are too far removed from the valuation date of January 1, 2016 to provide any meaningful test of current value.

60The remaining two sales are located at 601 Emily Park Road, sold in 2015 at a time-adjusted sale price of $452,780, with a total building area of 2,264 sq. ft. and a site area of 20.62 acres (all Soil Class 4); and 74 Hayes Line, sold in 2016 at a time-adjusted sale price of $704,986, with a total building area of 2,578 sq. ft. and a total site area of 101.55 acres (37.55 acres Soil Class 4; 8 acres Soil Class 5; and 55 acres Soil Class 6). The sales range from $452,780 to $704,986.

61These two suggested comparable properties have on average a total building area of 2,421 sq. ft., year built 1903, a total site of 61.085 acres, quality of construction 6 and sold at a time-adjusted sale price of $579,000 (rounded). This is compared to the Subject Property with a total building area of 2,978 sq. ft., year built 1880, total site area of 89 acres (10 acres in Soil Class 3; 27 acres in Soil Class 4; 30 acres in Soil Class 5: and 21 acres in Soil Class 6) and assessed at $396,000.

62The analysis shows that on average the Subject Property is significantly larger in the total building area, older, larger in total site area (relatively similar Soil Class) and similar quality class. Based on the analysis, the Board finds that the Subject Property would likely have sold for less than the average sale price of $579,000 because of the issue of asbestos.

63The Board recognizes that the issue of asbestos would have a negative impact on the assessed value of the Subject Property. However, MPAC failed to address the impact of this issue on the assessed value; and the cost-to-cure estimates $150,487.75 presented into evidence by the Appellant was rejected by the Board for reasons stated below. However, the Board finds that the impact of this issue is significant, and believes that the cost-to-cure would likely be lower than $150,487.75 if it was done in the valuation year 2016. Therefore, the Board applies a cost-to-cure reduction of $120,000 to the market value to arrive at a current value of $459,000 ($579,000 - $120,000).

64In reviewing the Appellant’s evidence as it relates to the total cost-to-cure estimate of $150,487.75 from KB Insulators and KB Exteriors in August and September 2018, the Board finds that the 2018 estimated value having done more than two years after the valuation date of January 1, 2016 could not be relied on, because the estimated value most likely would have been different on the valuation day. The Board also finds that the estimates are general in nature, with no itemized costing for the quantity, cost and type of materials, labour and other related costs, and there were no signatures of professionals on the estimates. Therefore, the Board finds that there is no way to verify the reliability of the information contained in the estimates because no one from KB Insulators and KB Exteriors was in attendance to be cross-examined.

65The Board finds that the Murray case supports the Board’s finding that the cost-to-cure adjustment for asbestos is not reliable. In this case the Member stated in paragraph [36] iii that:

The Board also reviewed and considered the claim made by the Appellant in Exhibit 4 in which he argues that there are several defects affecting his property and all have negative impacts on the value of his property which were not factored into the establishment of its current value. The Board dismisses these claims mainly because they are anecdotal and were not supported by an assessment conducted by professionals who could determine the nature of the remedies required, the extent of the work to be undertaken and the cost to effect those remedies. If the Board is to make a provision for the defects that may negatively impact the value of the property, it has to do so on the basis of verifiable and credible analysis. In the absence of such evidence, the Board, as stated earlier, must dismiss this claim.

66In reviewing the Appellant argument of having to disclose the existence of asbestos to potential buyers and the negative impact on the open market value, the Board finds that even if the Appellant concerns have merit, he presents no sales in support of his argument and in support of current value. The Board finds that open market arms-length sale by a “willing” seller to a “willing” buyer represents true market value based on mutual consent of the sale price.

67In regard to the above six roll numbers presented by the Appellant, the Board rejects this evidence, because the Appellant failed to provide crucial information (types of property, assessment values, sales dates, sale prices, building sizes, lot sizes, age, quality, barns, sheds etc.) necessary to assist the Board in its determination of current value. Therefore, the Board rejects the Appellant cost per sq. ft. of $72.000, and rejects his opinion of value of $318,000.

68In regard to access to information, the Board finds that the Appellant made no effort of finding the necessary information in support of his opinion of value. It is clear from the Appellant’s evidence that MPAC provided him with the information on how to retrieve the comparable properties’ data he needed. The Board finds that even if the Appellant was not interested in computers or that he is not computer literate he seemed to have made no serious attempt to seek help from other sources to obtain the relevant documents he needed.

69In regard to the 2003 article and comments regarding possible government grants for old barns to restore them to their original condition with a Heritage designation as opposed to tearing them down, the Board finds that the Appellant presents no factual information to show that the barns on the Subject Property should not be subject to assessment valuation. In this regard, the Board relies on the open market sales evidence.

70In regard to the Appellant’s assertion that the quality of construction rating 6 is too high and should be lower, the Board finds that quality rating is not a decision of the Board, and that the decision of the Board is to determine the current value of the Subject Property for the appeals at hand.

71The Board also finds that adjustment to any components of the Subject Property’s assessment is a function of MPAC and this is supported by the Lomaga and Cogan cases:

(a) In the Lomaga case the Member stated that “The Board is very wary of adjusting individual components used in the valuation model to create an overall value and prefers to rely on the evidence of the overall value; as it did in its finding of current value”; and

(b) In the Cogan case the Member stated that “the model relied upon by MPAC is a valuation tool and not a requirement of the Assessment Act”. It is not the particular model that is to be tested on appeal, rather it is whether the current value of the property is incorrect (subsection 40(1)(a) of the Act).

72In regard to the issue that the assessment of the Subject Property increases by 70% over four years, the Board finds that assessment is not based on percentage increases from one assessment period to another. The Act clearly states that assessment is based on current value, which means the amount of money a property would realize if sold at arm’s length, by a willing seller to a willing buyer in the open-market, as of a specific valuation date. In this case, the valuation date is January 1, 2016.

DECISION

73The Board finds the current value is $459,000. MPAC has not served a notice of intention to seek a higher assessment, as required by Rule 40 of the Board’s Rules. Therefore, the Board will not increase the assessment and confirms the returned assessment of $396,000 for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years.

74The following is the apportionment breakdown:

Farm (Full) $201,100

Residential (Full) $194,900

TOTAL $396,000