Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: January 25, 2019
Assessed Person(s): Weiming Cao
Appellant(s): Weiming Cao
Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”), Region 09
Respondent(s): City of Toronto (North York)
Property Location(s): 22 Denewood Crescent
Municipality(ies): City of Toronto (North York)
Roll Number(s): 1908-083-160-00400-0000
Appeal Number(s): 3216657 and 3294554 (deemed 2018 appeal)
Taxation Year(s): 2017 and 2018 (deemed appeal)
Hearing Event No.: 696570
Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended
Heard: April 09, 2018, by teleconference call
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Representative
Weiming Cao
Daniel Attard
MPAC
Carlo Bassi
City of Toronto
No one appeared
DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY LESLIE FLEMMING
BACKGROUND
1Weiming Cao is the Appellant/Assessed person who is the owner of the property located at 22 Denewood Crescent in Toronto (North York). This single family home was purchased by the Ms. Cao for $2,510,000 in July, 2014. This is a single family detached residence not on water.
2Pursuant to the provisions of the Assessment Act (“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 day, January 1, 2016. For the 2017 and 2018 taxation years, MPAC has returned the ssessment of the Subject Property as of January 1, 2016 in the amount of $2,988,000.
3Ms. Cao, the Appellant, has appealed the 2017 assessment to the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”), pursuant to s. 40 of the Act, on the ground that that current value assessed is too high and that the correct value for the 2017 taxation year is the amount she paid for the property plus an increase of 15.94 per cent increase in value to January 1, 2016, for a total value of $2,910,000. MPAC takes the position that the assessed value as returned is correct and asks the Board to confirm the assessment at $2,988,000.
4Pursuant to s. 40(11) of the Act, the Municipality, in this case, the City of Toronto, is a party to this proceeding. However, the Municipality did not advise the Board of its position on the issues raised in these appeals, and no one from the Municipality appeared at the hearing.
5Section 44(3)(b) of the Act, directs the Board to reduce the assessed 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. In this case, MPAC determined that properties in the vicinity were being underassessed in the range of 9.6%. Therefore, MPAC decided to reduce the current value by 10% to make the assessment equitable with similar properties in the vicinity. The Appellant agreed with the reduction, although not with the current value.
6At the completion of the hearing, the Board reserved its decision. For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that the current value of the Subject Property is $3,200,000. Pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act, this value should be reduced to an assessed value of $2,892,800.
Relevant Legislation
7Section 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.
8Section 19.(1) of the Act states:
19.(1) Assessment based on current value. – The assessment of land shall be based on its current value.
9Section 19.2(1) of the Act states:
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:
- For each subsequent period consisting of four consecutive taxation years, land is valued as of January 1 of the year preceding the first of those four taxation years
10Section 40.(17) of the Act states:
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.
11Section 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