Sofia Giovanna Losiggio and Domenico Minnella v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 09 and City of Toronto, 2020 CanLII 103484

Tribunals Ontario Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario Assessment Review Board Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: December 24, 2020

FILE NO.: WR 167597

Assessed Person(s): Sofia Giovanna Losiggio and Domenico Minnella

Appellant(s): Sofia Giovanna Losiggio and Domenico Minnella

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 09

Respondent(s): City of Toronto

Property Location(s): 108 Playfair Avenue

Municipality(ies): City of Toronto

Roll Number(s): 1908-042-210-02400-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3392332 and 3401005

Taxation Year(s): 2019 and 2020

Hearing Event No.: 737064

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

APPEARANCES

Parties	Representative
Sofia Giovanna Losiggio and Domenico Minnella	Self-represented
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation	Gregory Tom
City of Toronto	No one appeared

HEARD: November 24, 2020 by telephone conference call

ADJUDICATOR(S): Jennifer Griffith, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1Sofia Giovanna Losiggio and Domenico Minnella (the “Appellants”) are the owners of 108 Playfair Avenue (the “Subject Property”) in the City of Toronto (the “City”) and they represented themselves at the hearing. The Appellants filed appeals for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years with the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”), pursuant to s. 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”).

2It is the Appellants’ position that the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation’s (“MPAC”) current value assessment $1,456,000 for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years is too high and that the correct current value should be in the range of $1,200,000 and $1,400,000. MPAC takes the position that the correct current value based on the most comparable properties should be $1,583,000.

3Pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act, MPAC takes the position that an equitable reduction of the current value is required. The Appellants did not assert any position on equity because they did not seem to understand the issue of equity. As the onus to demonstrate the correctness of equity rests with the Appellants and the fact that they are un-represented, the Board accepts MPAC’s position and kept equity at issue to be determined.

4Pursuant to s. 40(11) of the Act, the Municipality is a party to this proceeding; however, no one appeared on behalf of the City.

Issues for the Hearing

5At issue in this proceeding are:

1. What is the determination of the current value of the Subject Property for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years? a. Direct Comparison Approach based on sales.

2. Should there be an equitable reduction of the current value pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act, and, if so, what the amount of this reduction should be?

Result

6The Board finds the correct current value of the Subject Property is $1,498,000 for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years.

7Pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act, the Board finds that an equity reduction is required and that the equitable value is $1,399,000 ($1,498,00 x ASR of 0.934).

8The Board orders a reduction in the returned assessment from $1,456,000 to $1,399,000 for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years.

ANALYSIS

Description of the Subject Property

9The Subject Property is a two-storey residential dwelling (not on water). The Property Code is 301, with an effective site area of 0.14 acre, a total building area of 3,503 square feet (“sq. ft.”), quality of construction rating of 8 and built in 2018.

Issue 1 - What is the determination of the current value of the Subject Property for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years?

10In determining the correct current value, the Board references s.19(1) of the Act, which states that the assessment of land shall be based on its current value, which is defined as 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”. The valuation date for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years is January 1, 2016.

11For the reasons discussed below, the Board finds the correct current value is $1,498,000 for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years.

12Reviewing the following evidence presented in support of current value, the Board finds the best evidence to be six sales presented by both MPAC and the Appellants which occurred in 2015 and 2016 and time-adjusted to the valuation date of January 1, 2016. These six sales include (one sale by MPAC) located at 600 Glencairn Avenue; and five sales (by the Appellant) located at 41 and 24 Amesbury Drive, 24 Harrow Drive, 21 Hawkins Drive and 80 Brookview Drive.

13An analysis of the above six sales shows that they sold at a median sale price of $427.73 per sq. ft., and when applied to the Subject Property results in a current value of $1,498,000 rounded ($427.73 x 3,503 sq. ft. based on total building area). The Board finds the current value of $1,498,000 to be the best evidence of what a willing buyer pays to a willing selling in the open market pursuant to s. 19(1) of the Act.

MPAC’s Sales Evidence

Issue 1a – Direct Comparison Approach

14Gregory Tom, a representative for MPAC, presents a Valuation Report, dated January 7, 2020 which he prepared and testifies to the information contained in the report. MPAC testifies that an external inspection was done on January 7, 2020 and the building measurement was reviewed and found to be correct.

15In support of current value, MPAC presents the following six proposed comparable properties, which sold in 2015 and 2016. MPAC testifies that due to limited sales in the immediate neighbourhood of the Subject Property, it was forced to expand the search for similar properties in other neighbourhoods within 2.5 kilometres away. MPAC provides both the actual and time-adjusted sale prices; however, MPAC relies on the time-adjusted sale prices in its analysis, utilizing the Direct Comparison Approach to value. The following table is the analysis of the six suggested comparable properties:

MPAC’S SALES ANALYSIS

6 SUGGESTED COMPARABLE PROPERTIES	LOT SIZE (acres)	TOTAL BUILDING AREA (sq. ft.)	QUALITY OF CONSTRUCTION	YEAR BUILT	SALE DATE	SALE PRICE (time-adjusted)	SALE PRICE (per sq. ft.)
5 Rooksgrove Place	0.2	3,474	7.5	2008	2015	$1,259,113	$362.43
65 Flamborough Drive	0.16	3,683	7.5	2011	2015	$1,415,580	$384.35
1209 Glencairn Avenue	0.14	3,455	8	2003	2016	$1,511,689	$437.53
7 Fernwood Road	0.14	3,563	7.5	2002	2015	$2,252,337	$632.14
600 Glencairn Avenue	0.15	3,589	8	2015	2016	$1,832,008	$510.45
155 Hillmount Avenue	0.14	3,404	7.5	2005	2016	$1,963,810	$576.91
Average	0.155	3,528	7.66	2007	2015	$1,705,756	$483.97
Subject Property	0.14	3.503	8	2018	NIL	n/a	n/a

16Based on the above analysis MPAC believes that the best estimate of current value is $1,695,000 (rounded) which is the average sale price of ($483.97 x 3,503 sq. ft. of total building area of the Subject Property).

Appellant’s Proposed Comparable Property

17The Appellants testify that it is their view that properties located west of Dufferin Street are selling at prices significantly higher than properties like the Subject Property which is located on the east side of Dufferin Street.

18In support of current value, the Appellants present the sales of five proposed comparable properties that are located within two kilometres of the Subject Property, because there was no sale in the immediate area of the Subject Property. The following is an analysis of the five sales.

APPELLANTS’ SALES ANALYSIS

5 PROPOSED COMPARABLE PROPERTIES	LOT SIZE ("acre")	TOTAL BUILDING AREA ("sq. ft.")	YEAR BUILT	SALE PRICE	SALE DATE	SALE PRICE (time-adjusted)	TAS SALE PER sq. ft. (building area)
41 Amesbury Drive	0.15	4,080	2015	$1,400,000	2015	$1,432,164	$351.02
24 Amesbury Drive	0.14	3,172	2014	$1,555,000	2016	$1,351,545	$426.08
24 Harrow Drive	0.15	3,260	1952	$1,171,681	2015	$1,177,609	$361.22
21 Hawkins Drive	0.14	3,097	2015	$1,465,000	2016	$1,329,820	$429.38
80 Brookview Drive	0.18	3,934	2014	$1,620,000	2015	$1,735,430	$441.13
Subject Property	0.14	3,503	2018	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a

Findings on Current Value

20Reviewing the evidence presented in support of current value, the Board finds the best evidence to be six sales presented by both MPAC and the Appellant which occurred in 2015 and 2016 and time-adjusted to the valuation date of January 1, 2016. These six sales include (one sale by MPAC) located at 600 Glencairn Avenue; and five sales (by the Appellant) located at 41 and 24 Amesbury Drive, 24 Harrow Drive, 21 Hawkins Drive and 80 Brookview Drive.

21These six comparable properties have a median year built of 2015, with median total building area and lot size similar to the Subject Property, located within two kilometres of the Subject Property and sold at a median sale price of $427.73 per sq. ft. When the rate of $427.73 is applied to the Subject Property it results in a current value of $1,498,000 rounded ($427.73 x 3,503 sq. ft. based on total building area). The Board finds the current value of $1,498,000 to be the best evidence of an arm’s length transaction between a willing buyer and a willing seller pursuant to s. 19(1) of the Act.

22The remaining five sales presented by MPAC at 5 Rooksgrove Place, 65 Flamborough Drive, 1209 Glencairn Avenue, 7 Fernwood Road, and 155 Hillmount Avenue are not relied on because they have an average year built of 2006, which is significantly older than the Subject Property which was built in 2018.

Issue 2 - Should there be an equitable reduction of the current value pursuant to [s. 44(3)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-a31/latest/rso-1990-c-a31.html)(b) of the [Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-a31/latest/rso-1990-c-a31.html), and, if so, what should be the amount of this reduction?

23Section 44(3)(b) of the Act provides that “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.” In essence, the Board looks at similar lands in the vicinity to determine whether their assessed values are lower than their current values. If so, then it would be equitable to lower the assessed value of the subject property by a proportionate amount.

24MPAC presents an Equity Analysis Report in which the assessments of 30 similar comparable properties (similar in general nature, character or function as the Subject Property) are compared to their respective sale prices to determine the Assessment to Sales Ratio (“ASR”). The ASR is computed by dividing the assessed values of the property sold by its sale price.

25MPAC states that these 30 comparable properties are Property Code 301 – single family detached not on water are similar property type (Residential) , sold over the period January 1, 2015 to January 1, 2016; and located within 3.0 kilometres of the Subject Property.

26MPAC states that the analysis of the sale of these 30 comparable properties shows a Level of Appraisal (“LOA”) of 0.934. MPAC explains that the LOA measures central tendency and is the mid-point of the ASR ratios, and that the median ASR is the preferred measure to determine the LOA, because it is not affected by very low or high ratios; and a Coefficient of Dispersion (“CoD”) of 16.5. The CoD measures appraisal uniformity by determining the average percentage deviation from the median ASR.

27MPAC testifies that the International Association of Assessing Officers (“IAAO”) standards state for equity to be achieved that the LOA for all property types should fall between 0.90 – 1.10. However, MPAC’s standard is that equity is achieved if the LOA falls between 0.95 – 1.05.

28Based on this finding, MPAC’s opinion is that an equity reduction is required, and the equitable value is $1,585,000 rounded, which is the MPAC’s opinion of value times the median ASR ($1,695,000 x 0.934).

29In support of Equity, the Appellants are of the view that the Subject Property is assessed too high compared to other similar properties in the vicinity.

30The Appellants present 15 proposed comparable properties (5 Sage Avenue, 82, 80, 78, 52, 48 and 47 Glen Long Avenue, 1196, 1193 and 1051 Glencairn Avenue, 548 Glen Park, 48 Marcia, 51 and 41 North Park Drive and 21 Kinkora) which are located on the same side of Dufferin as the Subject Property to show that they are assessed lower than the Subject Property. These proposed comparable properties are not sold.

31An analysis of these 15 proposed comparable properties shows that they have a median total building area of 3750 sq. ft, a median lot size of 7397 sq. ft., a median year built 2014, and a median assessment of $1, 426,000.

Findings on Issue 2

32Based on all of the above evidence, the Board finds that MPAC presents the best evidence in support of equity, with the analysis of 30 sales of similar type properties (similar in nature, character or function) as the Subject Property, and located within 3.0 kilometres of the Subject Property. The analysis shows that these 30 sales of similar properties have an ASR of 0.934 which falls outside of MPAC standards of 0.95 – 1.05 which the Board accepts. Therefore, the Board finds that an equity reduction is required and that the equitable value is $1,399,000 rounded (current value of $1,498,000 x ASR of 0.943).

33The Board did not rely on the Appellants’ 15 proposed comparable properties because they are not market tested to determine if these assessed values reflect the correct current value. The fact that the assessed values of these 15 proposed comparable properties were determined using the same methodology as the Subject Property which is under appeal, would suggest that these returned assessment values are also incorrect.

34Based on the evidence, the Board finds the 30 comparable properties presented by MPAC which were sold and market tested to be the best evidence of equity. The Board finds the equitable value to be $1,399,000.

CONCLUSION

35The Board finds the correct current value of the Subject Property is $1,498,000 for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years.

36The Board finds that an equity reduction is required pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) and that the equitable value is $1,399,000.

ORDER

37The Board orders the reduction of the returned assessments from $1,456,000 to $1,399,000 for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years.