Robin Wloch v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 3, 2019 CanLII 77529

Assessment Review Board / Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: August 13, 2019 FILE NO.: WR 156643

Assessed Person(s): Robin Wloch Appellant(s): Robin Wloch Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 3 Respondent(s): City of Ottawa

Property Location(s): 1909 Springridge Drive Municipality(ies): City of Ottawa Roll Number(s): 0614-500-201-35704-0000 Appeal Number(s): 3265211, 3291958 and 3347108 Taxation Year(s): 2017, 2018 and 2019 Hearing Event No.: 703579

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

Heard: September 17, 2018 in Ottawa, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Robin Wloch	Self-represented
MPAC	Caroline Sauve
City of Ottawa	No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY JOSEPH JEBREEN

OVERVIEW

1Robin Wloch (the “Appellant”) appeals the assessment of his property located at 1909 Springridge Drive in Ottawa, Ontario (the “Property”) for the 2017 taxation year pursuant to s. 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A. 31 Act (the “Act”). He has also been deemed to have brought an appeal of the 2018 and 2019 assessments pursuant to clause 40(26)(b) of the Act because the 2017 appeal was not finally disposed of before March 31, 2019.

2MPAC returned an assessment of $495,000 but submits that the correct January 1, 2016 current value of the Property for the 2017, 2018 and 2019 taxation years, based on the direct comparison approach, is $492,000. The Appellant takes the position that the correct current value of the Property is approximately $445,000.

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, 2018 and 2019 taxation years. I further find that an equitable adjustment is not warranted on the evidence before me. The assessments are therefore reduced from $495,000 to $472,000 for the 2017, 2018 and 2019 taxation years.

BACKGROUND

4The Property under appeal is located in an urban area in the Cardinal Creek neighbourhood of the suburb of Orleans in Ottawa, Ontario. The corner lot has a frontage of 64 feet and a depth of 108 feet for a total site area of 0.17 acres. It is connected to municipal water and sewer.

5The dwelling on the Property was built in 2008 and is a 2,582 square foot detached single family two storey home with 3 bedrooms, 2.5 bathrooms, and 1 fireplace. The basement measures 1,327 square feet and is unfinished. There is an attached garage built in 2008, measuring 1,116 square feet.

6The Appellant testified that the Property is located at the intersection of Springridge Drive and Trim Road. Trim Road is a high traffic street and MPAC has made an adjustment in its assessment on account of traffic nuisance. The Appellant submitted a picture in evidence showing that his frontage is reduced because of a realignment of Trim Road. The picture shows an angled noise barrier that reduces the effective frontage. The Property is slightly sloped and abuts a utility box and public walkway.

ISSUES

7The 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 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.

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 its 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 $492,000 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	Property	Sale 1	Sale 2	Sale 3	Sale 4	Sale 5	Sale 6
Date sold		02/29/2016	11/04/2016	07/08/2015	07/25/2014	10/23/2015	08/13/2014
Sale price ($)		490,000	555,000	530,000	475,000	495,000	500,000
Time adjusted sale price ($)		488,670	544,631	535,338	490,565	497,254	515,419
Address	1909 Springridge Drive	1901 Springridge Drive	1894 Springridge Drive	1806 Springridge Drive	1876 Springridge Drive	1808 Springridge Drive	1848 Springridge Drive
Distance from Property (kilometres)		0.06	0.11	0.40	0.22	0.40	0.40
Lot area (Acres)	0.17	0.12	0.15	0.11	0.11	0.11	0.12
Frontage/Depth (feet)	64/108	50/108	60/108	43/108	43/108	43/108	50/108
Number of storeys	2	2	2	2	2	2	2
Building area (square feet)	2,582	2,560	2,668	2,514	2,547	2,420	2,764
Year built	2008	2004	2005	2007	2004	2007	2005
Quality of construction	7	7	7	7	7	7	7
Basement area (square feet)	1,327	1,355	1,385	1,157	1,254	1,108	1,302
Finished Basement area (square feet)	n/a	813	n/a	n/a	n/a	665	n/a
Secondary structure type	Attached garage	Attached garage	Attached garage; pool	Attached garage	Attached garage; pool	Attached garage	Attached garage
Secondary structure year built/area (square feet)	2008/480	2004/386	2005/582; 2009/512	2007/395	2004/389; 2006/448	2007/410	2005/392

14All of MPAC’s comparable sales are located along Springridge Drive within 0.5 kilometres of the Property. The dwellings are all single family two storey detached homes with similar years built and similar sized dwellings. Also, Sales 1, 2, 3, and 5 all sold within 1 year of the valuation date.

15Ms. Sauve opined that all six comparable sales are similar to the Property. She said that she chose properties on Springridge Drive because it is a high traffic street off Trim Road. 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 $488,670 and the time adjusted sale price of Sale 2 at $544,631. Ms. Sauve further opined that the value of the Property is likely closer to the lower end of that range because the Property is most similar to Sale 1.

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 $492,000 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 $492,000. 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 mainly relied on the purchase price of the Property. The Appellant explained that the Property was built in 2007, not 2008, and that it remained on the market until he bought the Property in May 2014 for $445,000.

21MPAC does not rely on this sale because the Appellant purchased the Property directly from the builder. I do not accept that a sale is automatically excluded solely on the basis that it is purchased from a builder.

22In this case, the Appellant purchased the Property directly from the builder and testified that the purchase price did not include appliances or any extras. Further, this is not a sale of a comparable property. It is the sale of the Property within 20 months of the valuation date. I find that the sale price of $445,000 is good evidence of the value of the Property on January 1, 2016.

23Further, both MPAC and the Appellant agreed that Sale 1 is the most comparable of the sales presented by MPAC. Sale 1 is the same model home but with a different elevation than the Property. The features of Sale 1 and the Property are very similar including the sizes of the homes. Although the lot frontage and area of Sale 1 are smaller than the Property, I accept the Appellant’s evidence that the useable portion of the Property, as a result of the steep slope on the Property and the Trim Road realignment, is similar to Sale 1 in terms of frontage and area.

24The only differences that affect value are (i) the Property has an unfinished basement whereas Sale 1 has a partially finished basement of 813 square feet and (ii) the Property is located directly on the corner of Trim Road and Springridge Drive whereas Sale 1 is located a few properties away from Trim Road. MPAC agreed that the unfinished basement and the location of the Property on the corner of Trim Road and Springridge Drive are inferior features but nevertheless concluded that Sale 1 is similar to the Property because it has a smaller lot and the dwelling is 3 to 4 years older. I find that Sale 1 is slightly superior to the Property because of the finished basement and it is not located at a busy, noisy intersection. These findings are supported by MPAC’s evidence as it attributed a negative adjustment to the value of the Property on account of its location at that intersection.

25Sale 1 sold for $490,000 on February 29, 2016, only two months away from the January 1, 2016 valuation day. Due to its high degree of similarity and its proximity to the valuation day, Sale 1 must also be considered good evidence of the current value of the Property. Nevertheless, Sale 1, which is slightly superior to the Property, provides clear supporting evidence that the Property would likely sell for less than $490,000.

26For 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.

27Based on the foregoing, I find that the current value of the Property is most likely above $445,000, being the price paid for the Property in May 2014, but below $490,000, being the sale price of Sale 1 in February 2016. The evidence does not lead me to favour either end of this range. The sale of the Property is nearly two years away from the valuation day but is the Property being valued whereas Sale1 occurred within two months of the valuation day but has the differences described above. I find that the current value of the Property is at the midpoint of the range, being $472,000 rounded.

Equity

28It is the taxpayer’s burden to prove that an equitable adjustment is required. The taxpayer did not present evidence or make submissions on equity and so I find that no adjustment is warranted.

CONCLUSION

29The current value of the Property as of January 1, 2016 is $472,000 for the 2017, 2018 and 2019 taxation years, and no equitable adjustment is warranted. The assessment is therefore reduced from $495,000 to $472,000 for the 2017, 2018 and 2019 taxation years.

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.```