Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE:
August 26, 2019
FILE NO.:
WR 161697
Assessed Person(s):
David Richard Wyrstiuk and Maria Tzimas
Appellant(s):
David Richard Wyrstiuk
Respondent(s):
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation(“MPAC”) Region 09
Respondent(s):
City of Toronto
Property Location(s):
22 Evelyn Avenue
Municipality(ies):
City of Toronto
Roll Number(s):
1904-012-330-03900-0000
Appeal Number(s):
3265530, 3298463 and 3350068
Taxation Year(s):
2017, 2018 and 2019
Hearing Event No.:
720664
Legislative Authority:
Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended
Heard:
July 19, 2019 in Toronto, Ontario
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Representative
David Richard Wyrstiuk
Self-represented
MPAC
Erin Comeau
City of Toronto
No one appeared
DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY ANTHONY LaREGINA
BACKGROUND
1David Wyrstiuk (the “Appellant”) is the owner of 22 Evelyn Avenue (the “subject property”), which is a single-family detached two-storey home located in the City of Toronto. The property has a total effective frontage of 33 feet and a total effective depth of 121 feet for a total effective site area of 3,993 square feet.
2The two-storey structure was built in 1925 and had a C renovation in 2008 adding 571 square feet of building area to the rear therefore giving the subject property a current quality of construction of 6.5. The total building area is 1,060 square feet on the main level, 1,013 square feet on the second floor for a total building area of 2,073 square feet. The basement has a building area of 1,047 square feet with no finished space. The two-storey home has four bedrooms, two bathrooms, one fireplace and is listed as average condition. The property also has a detached garage.
3Pursuant 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 (“current value”).
4MPAC has assessed the current value of the subject property at $1,427,000.
5The Appellant filed an appeal for the 2017 taxation year with the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”), pursuant to s. 40 of the Act. Section 40(26) of the Act provides 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 or 2018 taxation year appeals before March 31, 2019. For that reason, the Appellant is also deemed to appeal the 2018 and 2019 taxation years, and this decision will apply to the 2018 and 2019 taxation years. It is the Appellant’s position that MPAC’s assessment of current value is too high and that the correct current value is $1,250,000. At this hearing, MPAC takes the position that its assessed value is correct.
6Pursuant to s. 40.(11) of the Act, the City of Toronto is a party to this proceeding. However, it did not advise the Board of its position on the issues raised in these appeals and no one appeared at the hearing on behalf of the City of Toronto.
7Section 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.
8MPAC takes the position that an equitable reduction is not required. The Appellant has taken the position that a reduction in assessment is justified based on the average assessed value of the 7 comparable properties submitted by MPAC in support of current value.
9At the completion of the hearing, the Board reserved its decision. For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that the current value for the 2017, 2018 and 2019 taxation years is $1,455,000. Pursuant to s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act, an equitable reduction of this value is not required.
Relevant Legislation
“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:
- 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.
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.
Current value
11The first issue to be determined on this appeal is the correct current value of the subject property for the taxation years 2017, 2018 and 2019.
MPAC’s Evidence
12Erin Comeau, representing MPAC, prepared both a Valuation Report and an Equity Report respecting the subject property which he submitted into evidence.
13Mr. Comeau identified seven comparable property sales which sold between 2015 and 2016 in the vicinity of the subject property. These properties are illustrated in the following table.
Subject Property
Property 1
Property 2
Property 3
Property 4
Property 5
Property 6
Property 7
Address
22 Evelyn Avenue
299 Kennedy Avenue
70 Glendonwynne Road
507 Glenlake Avenue
338 Kennedy Avenue
326 Kennedy Avenue
336 Kennedy Avenue
50 Evelyn Avenue
Distance from Subject Property km
0
Current Value Assessment
$1,427,000
$1,645,000
$1,203,000
$1,364,000
$1,144,000
$1,278,000
$1,133,000
$1,180,000
Sale Date
Aug 2015
Aug 2016
June 2016
May 2016
July 2016
June 2016
Oct 2016
Sale Value $
1,660,000
1,420,070
1,740,000
1,320,000
1,611,000
$1,400,000
1,350,000
TAS Value $
1,792,145
1,264,653
1,596,000
1,229,352
1,455,932
$1,284,260
1,168,159
Effective Site Area Square Feet
3,993
4,200
3,600
3,100
3,390
3,332
3,300
3,600
Year Built
1925
1920
1921
1928
1921
1925
1922
1919
Modifications
C Reno 2008
D Reno 2012
B Reno 2005
C Reno 1999
B Reno 2012
C Reno 1997
B Reno 1990
B Reno 1990
Quality
6.5
7.5
6.0
6.5
6.0
6.5
6.0
6.0
Total Building Area Square Feet
2,073
1,975
1,548
2,453
1,800
1,793
1,742
1,767
Basement Square Feet
1,047
1,079
732
1,372
892
741
736
863
Finished Basement Square Feet
0
800
512
823
532
400
309
517
Abuts Variables
Prox To Educational Institution
Prox to Educational Institution
Prox to Green Space or Park
On Site Variables
Corner lot
Corner lot
TAS $/square foot
907.42
816.96
650.69
682.98
812.00
737.23
661.09
Similar/Superior/Inferior
Superior
Inferior
Similar
Inferior
Similar
Inferior
Inferior
14Mr. Comeau points out in his report that all seven properties are comparable to the subject property but in his oral testimony, he stated that 299 Kennedy Avenue is substantially superior and should not be used in support of current value of the subject property.
15Mr. Comeau demonstrated that the time adjusted sale range of the remaining six comparables is between $1,168,159 and $1,596,000 therefore estimating that the current value of the subject property should be within the time adjusted sale range.
16Mr. Comeau determined the median time adjusted sale value of the remaining six comparable properties, Properties 2 to 7, is $710.10 per square foot and applied this rate to the subject property’s building area of 2,073 square feet resulting in a current value of $1,472,000 for the subject property.
MPAC’s Submissions
17Relying on its evidence, MPAC submits that the correct current value for the 2017, 2018 and 2019 taxation years is $1,472,000.
Appellant’s Evidence
18The Appellant, Mr. Wyrstiuk, agrees with MPAC that establishing current value is based on comparable properties in the vicinity. He submits that a transformation is going on in his area where the majority of the homes have been renovated therefore impacting the value.
19Mr. Wyrstiuk argues that in establishing the total building area of a home, MPAC should be adding the finished basement to the total building area when comparing properties. He demonstrates the point by adding the finished basement space to the seven comparable properties submitted by MPAC.
Subject Property
Property 1
Property 2
Property 3
Property 4
Property 5
Property 6
Property 7
Address
22 Evelyn Avenue
299 Kennedy Avenue
70 Glendonwynne Road
507 Glenlake Avenue
338 Kennedy Avenue
326 Kennedy Avenue
336 Kennedy Avenue
50 Evelyn Avenue
TAS Value $
1,792,145
1,264,653
1,596,000
1,229,352
1,455,932
1,284,260
1,168,159
Building Area 1st & 2nd floors Square Feet
2,073
1,975
1,548
2,453
1,800
1,793
1,742
1,767
Finished Basement Square Feet
0
800
512
823
532
400
309
517
Total Finished Square Feet
2,073
2,775
2,060
3,276
2,332
2,193
2,051
2,284
20Mr. Wyrstiuk points out that the current value of his home should be $1,250,000 which is in line with the time adjusted sale value of 70 Glendonwynne Road and 336 Kennedy Avenue as their total finished areas of 2,060 and 2,051 square feet are very close to the Subject Property's total building area of 2,073 square feet.
21Mr. Wyrstiuk also demonstrates that the average time adjusted sale value of the seven comparables presented by MPAC is $1,398,664, which is also lower than the returned assessment of the subject property at $1,427,000.
22Mr. Wyrstiuk introduced the following seven comparable properties located in the vicinity of the subject property in support of current value.
Subject
Property 1
Property 2
Property 8
Property 9
Property 10
Property 15
Property 17
Address
22 Evelyn Avenue
506 Glenlake Avenue
30 Evelyn Avenue
195 Glendonwynne Road
79 Evelyn Avenue
77 Evelyn Avenue
9 Fairview Avenue
22 Glenwood Avenue
Property Description
Single Family Det
Single Family Det
Duplex
Single Family Det
Single Family Det
Single Family Det
Triplex
Single Family Det
CVA $
1,427,000
1,164,000
1,276,000
1,383,000
993,000
1,362,000
1,329,000
1,140,000
Sale Value $
1,000,000
910,000
1,300,000
780,000
977,870
970,000
1,100,275
Sale Date
July 2013
Oct 2015
Aug 2014
Jan 2012
Sept 2013
July 2015
June 2014
Eff Site Area Square Feet
3,993
2,790
3273
3478
4480
3366
3600
3600
Year built
1925
1926
1929
1921
1915
1915
1918
1917
Quality
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.0
7.0
6.5
6.0
Building Area Square Feet
2,073
1,440
2,200
2,146
1,559
1,917
1,888
1,655
Basement Area Square Feet
1,047
730
1,100
898
884
757
795
862
Finished Basement Square Feet
0
458
0
400
330
567
650
220
Total Finished Square Feet
2,073
1,898
2,200
2,546
1,889
2,484
2,538
1,875
23Mr. Wyrstiuk noted in his evidence that 30 Evelyn Avenue sold a second time for $1,830,000 in October 2015 after it underwent a complete D renovation converting it from a duplex back to a single-family home.
24Mr. Wyrstiuk believes that the properties he has presented in support of current value are the most similar to the subject property and requests that the Board consider these properties in determining the current value of the subject property.
Appellant’s Submissions
25The Appellant submits that finished basements should be included in the total living area and therefore, the current value of his home which has 2,073 square feet of building area should be in line with the time adjusted sale values of 70 Glendonwynne Road and 336 Kennedy Avenue, both have living areas of 2,060 and 2,051 similar to the subject property.
26The Appellant requests that the Board find the current value of his home to be $1,250,000 which is slightly less than the adjusted sale value of both 70 Glendownwynne Road and 336 Kennedy Avenue.
Board’s Findings
27The Board has reviewed and analysed the seven comparable property sales submitted by MPAC in support of current value and makes the following observations.
28The Board will select Properties 2, 5, 6 and 7 as the four properties most similar in order to establish the current value of the subject property. The Board is in agreement with MPAC that Property 1, 299 Kennedy Avenue, is superior and therefore should not be used to establish the current value of the subject property. The Board will also discard Properties 3 and 4, 507 Glenlake Avenue and 338 Kennedy Avenue, as they are corner lots which abut an educational institution and in the case of 507 Glenlake Avenue it also abuts greenspace. The subject property is not a corner and has no abutting variables.
29The Board has also reviewed and analyzed the seven comparable properties presented by the Appellant in support of current value and makes the following observations.
30The Appellant has not supplied time adjustment factors for 2012, 2013 and 2014 and therefore the Board will reject comparable sales of Properties 1, 6, 9, 10 and 17 which all sold during that time period. The valuation date is January 1, 2016 and the Board only has time adjustment factors in evidence for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years as submitted by MPAC.
31The Appellant has submitted two sales in 2015, Properties 2 and 15, 30 Evelyn Avenue and 9 Fairview Avenue, which can be time adjusted by applying MPAC’s time adjustment factors however, one is a duplex and the other a triplex and therefore, the Board finds that both are not sufficiently comparable to the subject property which is a single family home. Therefore, the Board will not use Properties 2 and 15 for the purposes of establishing the current value of the subject property.
32The Appellant has argued that the total finished living area should be used to compare the valuation of properties and that finished basement space should be part of the overall equation for total living space. On the other hand, MPAC has asserted that, in fact, majority of the building value should be attributed to the total building area, which includes the first and second floor and while there is value in a finished basement, it is minimal in comparison to the value of the first and second floor building area. In addition, MPAC has also taken the position that basements are lived in and used by individuals whether they are finished or not and that an unfinished basement does not mean that the area is not lived in. The Board is in agreement with MPAC that total building area should not include the finished space in a basement because the square foot of finished space in the basement does not have the same value as the finished space on the main floor or the second floor. Furthermore, when a purchaser buys a property, the purchaser also pays extra for the finished basement, and, therefore the adjusted sale value of a property includes the finished space in the basement. Therefore, the Board will consider total building area to be the total combined outside measurements for the first and second floors as provided in evidence by MPAC for all the comparable properties.
33The Appellant has also argued that the majority of the increase in value in the subject property area has occurred after January 1, 2016. The Board has received no evidence in support of this hypothesis and therefore places no weight on this allegation in its determination of current value.
34The Board is therefore left with four comparable properties as submitted by MPAC, Properties 2, 5, 6 and 7, 70 Glendonwynne Road, 326 Kennedy Avenue, 336 Kennedy Avenue and 50 Evelyn Avenue. These four properties have an adjusted sale range of $1,168,159 to $1,455,932. The Board concludes that based on the total building area of the subject property being 13 to 25% larger than all four comparable properties, it is likely that the subject property would have sold at the top end of the range or greater. In addition, the subject property underwent a 2008 C renovation, which included the addition of 571 square feet of building area at the rear of the structure which far outweighs the value attributed to the finished basements of the four comparable properties.
35Based on the best available evidence, indicates that the correct current value of the subject property is $1,455,000, the upper end of the adjusted sale range of the four comparable properties.
Whether there should be an equitable reduction of the current value pursuant to s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act, and, if so, what should the amount of this reduction be?
MPAC’s Evidence
36Mr. Comeau relies on his Equity Study showing a median Assessment to Sale Ratio (“ASR”) of 0.983 based on the arm’s length sales of 29 properties within 0.34 kilometres of the subject property. His position is that the ASR is within the reasonable range of 0.95 to 1.05 and therefore, an equity adjustment is not required.
37He concludes that MPAC is not requesting an increase in assessment and therefore, the assessment of $1,427,000 as returned should be confirmed for the 2017, 2018 and 2019 taxation years.
38The Appellant is of the opinion that the subject property is assessed too high. He proposes a lower assessed value in the range of $1,250,000. He references the same seven properties entered by MPAC and determines the average assessed values of those seven properties to be $1,278,000. He concludes that his property value should be below the average of the seven properties entered by MPAC and therefore be assessed at $1,250,000.
Board’s Analysis and Findings
39Section 44.(3)(b) of the Act directs that after determining current value, the Board “shall 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.”
40The purpose of equitable adjustment has been described as the equitable distribution of the tax burden according to the assessed value of property owned by taxpayers as follows by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Empire Realty Co. Ltd. and Assessment Commissioner for Metropolitan Toronto et al., 1968 CanLII 183 (ON CA) at page 2:
A prime objective of municipal taxation is the equitable distribution of the burden according to the value of the property possessed by each ratepayer; in the system prevailing in Ontario, the tax levied on the ratepayer is determined by a uniform mill rate upon the assessed value of the ratepayer's taxable property set down in the assessment roll. If equity in taxation is to be achieved, it must result from equity in assessment.
41In addressing equity in assessment, the Court, at page 6, also noted that “an assessment made at the actual value of lands and buildings…would be an unequitable assessment if all similar lands in the vicinity were assessed at some percentage of actual value substantially less than one hundred.” [emphasis added]
42The term “vicinity” is not defined in the Act, but refers to the appropriate geographical area that will yield a meaningful number of comparables (see Ontario Regional Assessment Commissioner, Region No. 3 v. Graham, 1993 CanLII 8621 (ON CA) at page 6).
43The test set out in s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act, requires that the Board refer to similar lands in the vicinity. Use as a point of similarity, may be, but is not necessarily determinative of similarity. In determining whether other lands are similar, the Ontario Divisional Court, in Municipal Property Assessment Corp. v. Loblaw Properties Ltd., 2017 ONSC 1299, applied the decision of the Ontario Divisional Court in Trizec Equities Ltd. v. Ontario (Regional Assessment Commissioner, Region No. 27), [1988] O.J. No. 182. The Court stated at paragraph 23:
…All points of comparison must be considered. The Board must make a factual finding based on such a consideration. One point of similarity such as use may be, but is not necessarily, determinative. Some similarities may be overridden by other characteristics and some differences may be subordinated.
44The ASR analysis of a reasonable sample of sold properties is one method used to determine if properties in the vicinity are assessed below their current value. If other properties are assessed substantially below their current value, then a reduction is required to make the assessment of the subject property equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity. The ASR is determined by dividing the assessment as returned by the time adjusted sale price.
45Mr. Comeau relies on a median ASR of 0.983 based on the sample of 29 arm’s length sales of properties in the vicinity of the subject property.
46The Board finds that the median ASR of 0.983 falls within MPAC’s generally acceptable standard of 0.95 and 1.05 required to establish that the level of current value assessments of similar properties is in line with the level of sale prices in the vicinity.
47On the other hand, the Appellant takes the position that the subject property is assessed too high. He proposes a lower assessed value to $1,250,000. He referenced the average assessments of seven comparable properties submitted by MPAC yielding an average assessed value of $1,278,000 which is lower than the assessment of the subject property.
48The Board prefers MPAC’s larger sample of 29 sales as opposed to the average assessments of the seven properties submitted by the Appellant in support of an equity argument. Furthermore, the 29 properties submitted by MPAC include five of the seven properties submitted by the Appellant in support of his equity argument.
49The Board has also considered a statistical analysis of the same 29 properties submitted by MPAC further including the two properties submitted by the Appellant that were originally omitted by MPAC. This analysis shows that the mean ASR is 0.97 further supporting MPAC’s position that no equity adjustment is required.
50For these reasons, the Board finds that the evidence before it does not support the conclusion that an equity adjustment is required under s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act.
CONCLUSION
51The Board finds that the current value of the Subject Property, as of January 1, 2016 valuation date, is $1,455,000. Furthermore, the Board finds that the evidence before it does not support the conclusion that an equitable adjustment is required under s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act.
52MPAC has not filed a notice of intention to seek a higher assessment, as required by Rule 40 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. I therefore confirm the assessment of the subject property at $1,427,000 for the 2017, 2018 and 2019 taxation years.
“Anthony LaRegina”
ANTHONY LaREGINA
MEMBER
Assessment Review Board
A constituent tribunal of Tribunals Ontario - Environment and Land Division
Website: www.elto.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248