Tribunals Ontario

Assessment Review Board

ISSUE DATE: December 24, 2020 FILE NO.: WR 167644

Assessed Person(s): Angelo Di Paola and Ida Di Paola Appellant(s): Angelo Di Paola and Ida Di Paola Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 15 Respondent(s): City of Brampton

Property Location(s): 19 Bowman Avenue Municipality(ies): City of Brampton Roll Number(s): 2110-120-002-35900-0000 Appeal Number(s): 3381572 and 3404795 Taxation Year(s): 2019 and 2020

Hearing Event No.: 735569 Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Angelo Di Paola and Ida Paola	Pasquale Di Paola
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation	Curtis Nielsen - Advocate Olivia Medieros - Witness
City of Brampton	James Lee

HEARD: October 30, 2020 by video conference

ADJUDICATOR: Anthony LaRegina, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1Angelo and Ida Di Paola (the “Appellants”) filed appeals for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years with the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) regarding their property located at 19 Bowman Avenue in the City of Brampton (“City”). It is the Appellants’ position that the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation’s (“MPAC”) current value assessment is too high and that the correct current value assessment should be $755,200. At this hearing, MPAC and the City have taken the position that the current value assessment should be confirmed at $1,184,000.

Issues for the Hearing

2At issue in this proceeding is:

1. a determination of the current value of the subject property; and
2. whether an equity reduction in the current value should be made to compensate for the assessment of similar lands in the vicinity.

Result

3The Board finds that the current value of the subject property for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years is $1,145,000. Pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (“Act”), no further equitable reduction is required to the current value to compensate for the assessment of similar lands in the vicinity.

Description of Subject Property

4The subject property is a single-family detached residence (not on water) located at 19 Bowman Avenue in the City of Brampton. The actual and effective site area is 2.03 acres. The structure is a one-storey Bungalow with quality 7 construction built in 1987 with a total building area of 3,600 square feet on the main floor and 4,178 square feet in the basement which has no finished space. The home is in average condition and has 4 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, 1 fireplace and air conditioning. This property also has an attached garage with a building area of 720 square feet.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

Issue 1 – Current Value

5The first issue to be determined on this appeal is the correct current value of the subject property for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years. Pursuant to s. 19(1) of 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”). As defined in the Act, “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.” Which translates into the market value of the subject property as of January 1, 2016.

6In order to determine the market value MPAC and the City have utilized the direct sales comparison approach and submitted into evidence the sale of comparable properties in the vicinity of the subject property. The comparable properties rarely sell on the valuation day of January 1, 2016 and therefore their sale values are time adjusted to greater or reduced values depending on whether the date of the sale occurred before or after the valuation day. According to the time adjusted evidence submitted by MPAC there was a 30.76% increase in market value over a 23-month period starting January 5, 2015. MPAC created a time adjustment factor table by month covering the same period and applied these values to time adjust the comparable sales which it provided in evidence.

MPAC’s Comparable Properties

7The Board has reviewed and analysed the three suggested comparable property sales and the two vacant land sales, sold between 2015 and 2016 in the vicinity of the subject property submitted by MPAC (see Table 1 below).

Table 1 - MPAC’s Comparable Property Sales

	Subject Property	Property 1	Property 2	Property 3	Property 4	Property 5
Address	19 Bowman Avenue	9 Farina Drive	1 Rae Avenue	27 Glenbrook Blvd	6 Cheval Court	34 Rose Garden Drive
Distance from Subject km’s		1.465	1.8629	1.9351	1.3257	1.6277
Current Value Assessment $	1,184,000	1,198,000	1,183,000	1,254,000	1,127,000	710,000
Sale Date		June 2016	Nov 2016	May 2016	Sept 2015	May 2015
Sale Value $		1,550,000	1,220,000	1,160,000	1,165,000	1,250,000
TAS Value $		1,457,113	1,241,585	1,102,497	1,214,257	1,369,003
Property Code and Description	(301) Single Family Detached	(301) Single Family Detached	(301) Single Family Detached	(301) Single Family Detached	(100) Vacant Residential Land	(100) Vacant Residential Land
Actual/Effective Yr. Built	1987	1998	1987	1983
Quality	7	7	7	7
Effective Site Area Acres	2.03	2.04	2.0	2.29	2.07	2.14
Total Building Area Square Feet/First Floor	3,600	3,018	3,581	3,298
Basement Area S.F.	4,178	3,111	3,739	3,639
Finished Basement Area S.F.	0	2,644	1,850	3,275
Full Storeys	1	1	1	1
Bedrooms	4	3	4	5
Baths	2.0	2.5	2.5	3.0
Fireplaces	1	1	1	2
MPAC’s Opinion of Comparability		Similar	Similar	Similar	Not Similar	Not Similar

8In order to determine current value as of January 1, 2016 Olivia Medieros, witness for MPAC, determined the time adjusted sale value per square foot for each of the three sales to be $482.81, $346.71 and $334.39. Applying the median value of $346.71 to the building area of the subject property of 3,600 square feet, Ms. Medieros determined that the current value should be $1,248,000 rounded.

9Ms. Medieros also entered two vacant land sales of similar size to the subject property located within two kilometers of the subject property with time adjusted sale values of $1,214,257 and $1,369,003. Ms. Medieros concluded that the current value of $1,248,000 for the subject property pretty much represents the land value alone and is therefore very reasonable.

10During cross-examination Pasquale Di Paola, representing the Appellants, asked Ms. Medieros if she considered the desirability of the location when selecting MPAC’s comparable property sales. Ms. Medieros answered that she picked the sales because they were similar in lot size and building area as well as being located within a two-kilometer radius of the subject property. When confronted by Mr. Di Paola that all the comparable property sales, including the vacant lots, are located within a 400-meter radius in the southwest corner two kilometers away from the subject property, which he considers “the Rosedale of Brampton”, Ms. Medieros acknowledged that she was not aware of any difference in desirability between the two locations.

City’s Comparable Properties

11James Lee, representing the City of Brampton, submitted seven property sales which all occurred in 2015 itemized as follows (see Table 2 below).

Table 2 - Municipality’s Comparable Property Sales

Address	Year Built	Lot Size S.F.	Building Size S.F.	Sale Date 2015	Sale Price $	TAS Value $	TAS Per S.F. Lot	TAS Per S.F. Building
18 Lucinda Court	1988	85,813	4,272	July	1,325,000	1,415,100	16.49	331.25
44 Bellini Avenue	1991	87,556	3,878	February	1,149,000	1,308,711	14.95	337.47
10 Blue Jay Avenue	1990	87,556	2,643	February	1,370,000	1,560,430	17.82	590.40
21 Bowman Avenue	1992	88,427	5,027	October	1,320,000	1,359,600	15.38	270.46
34 Fenton Way	1986	87,556	3,857	October	1,170,000	1,205,100	13.76	312.44
10 Grafton Crescent	1981	85,378	3,442	November	1,120,000	1,140,160	13.35	331.25
3 Grafton Crescent	1987	89,298	2,220	February	975,000	1,110,525	12.44	500.24
Mean							14.88	381.93
Median							14.95	331.25

12The City of Brampton has taken the position that the current value of the subject property should be $1,192,860 based on the median sale value per square foot of building area at $331.35 applied to 3,600 square feet of living area for the subject property.

Appellants’ Evidence of Current Value

13Mr. Di Paolo has entered no evidence of comparable sales to support the current value of the subject property.

14Mr. Di Paola has taken the position that MPAC selected its comparable sales from a 400-meter radius located in the southwest area of the entire two-kilometer radius around the subject property. Mr. Di Paola submits that the small pocket which Ms. Medieros studied and selected the comparable property sales from is, according to his real estate agent, becoming the Rosedale of Brampton. In fact, he states that 9 Farina Drive and 1 Rae Avenue are both located next to gated monster homes of much higher values and therefore, this has become a much more desirable area as compared to Bowman Avenue which, according to Mr. Di Paola, is a very humble area. Mr. Di Paola submits that the comparable property sales submitted by MPAC are superior properties with finished basements as compared to the subject property which has no finished basement. Mr. Di Paola has received verbal quotes of $200,000 to finish the 3,600 square feet of space in the basement, including a kitchen and bathroom. Mr. Di Paola believes that the market value of that basement would be 20% greater than the cost translating into $240,000. Applying time adjustment factors would bring the value of the basement finishes to $192,000 as of January 1, 2016.

15Mr. Di Paola also submits that the neighbour located at 15 Bowman Avenue runs a construction company out of his home. This is a major nuisance to the neighbours as he parks construction equipment and trucks in the driveway. He has also built a separate driveway and a gravel pad in the backyard. Furthermore, 14 Bowman Avenue which is located across the street consistently parks four vehicles on the front lawn. Mr. Di Paola submits that these nuisances are also taking away from the desirability of the street and reducing the value of the subject property.

16Mr. Di Paola estimates that the difference between the more desirable southwest portion of the two-kilometer radius, where all of MPAC’s comparable property sales are located, and the nuisances which are located on Bowman Avenue represent a negative 20% in overall value to the subject property. Applying this to the returned value of $1,184,000 results in a value of $947,200. Mr. Di Paola also requests a further reduction of $192,000 to compensate for the fact that the subject property lacks a finished basement. This results in a requested current value for the subject property of $755,200.

Findings on Issue 1 - Current Value

17In support of establishing a current value for the subject property, the Board will rely on three of the five comparable property sales submitted by MPAC located within the two-kilometer radius from the subject property. MPAC has identified these three properties as being the most similar property sales in the vicinity of the subject property.

18The Board is of the opinion that the first property, 9 Farina Drive, is not similar to the subject property. 9 Farina Drive was built in 1998 and therefore, is more than 10 years newer and has almost 20% less building area than the subject property. Furthermore, according to Mr. Di Paola, the property is superior with a newly finished basement which he claims has a much greater value than the $21,000 applied by MPAC.

19Based on the evidence submitted by MPAC the Board finds that the two most similar comparable properties to the subject property are property sales 2 and 3, 1 Rae Avenue and 27 Glenbrook Boulevard, with time adjusted sale values of $1,241,585 and $1,102,497. These two comparable sales have similar building areas, lot sizes, quality of construction, condition, and year built.

20The Board has analysed the seven comparable sales submitted by the City. Mr. Lee has not provided any evidence on the distance between the subject property and the comparable sales, no evidence on the quality of construction, as well as other features of the comparable properties and therefore, the Board does not have sufficient detail to determine comparability between the subject property and the seven comparable sales. The Board did analyse the sale of 21 Bowman Avenue, located next door to the subject property, and found that this property is five years newer, is a two-storey, and has 5,027 square feet as compared to the subject property which is a one-storey with 3,600 square feet of building area. Furthermore, Mr. Di Paola also confirmed that this property underwent major renovations and therefore is superior to the subject property.

21Regarding Mr. Di Paola’s claims that the subject property is located on a less desirable street because of nuisances on the street and the fact that Bowman Avenue is less desirable then the southwest portion of the two-kilometer radius where MPAC’s comparable sales are located, Mr. Di Paola didn’t produced any quantitative market evidence to support his estimated claims of reduced value attributed to these factors. The Board has no quantitative evidence to adjust for locational desirability between the subject property and the comparable property sales submitted by MPAC as well as nuisances on Bowman Avenue.

22The Board will also reject Mr. Di Paola’s argument to further reduce the value of the subject property by $192,000 to compensate for the fact the subject property has no finished basement. Mr. Di Paola did not provide any quotes other than verbal or contractor proposals to support his estimated cost for finishing the basement and therefore, the Board has no means of making a finished basement adjustment of $192,000.

23In support of current value, the Board will rely on the mid-point of the time adjusted sale range of the two best comparable sales, 1 Rae Avenue and 27 Glenbrook Boulevard, submitted by MPAC between $1,102,497 and $1,241,585 resulting in a value of $1,172,041. The Board will make a further downward adjustment of $26,715 for the fact that both 1 Rae Avenue and 27 Glenbrook Boulevard have finished basements as compared to the subject property with no finished basement. This is the average value attributed by MPAC for the finished basements in 1 Rae Avenue and 27 Glenbrook Boulevard.

24The Board finds the current value of 19 Bowman Avenue to be $1,145,326 rounded to $1,145,000 for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years.

Issue 2 – Equitable Reduction in Assessed Value

25Section 44(3)(b) 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.”

26The Assessment to Sales Ratio (“ASR”) of a sample of sold properties is a tool often used to determine if a property in the vicinity is assessed below its current value. If other properties are assessed below their current value, a reduction in the assessment below current value is required to make the assessment equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity. The ASR is determined by comparing the assessment as returned to the time adjusted sale price, expressed as a mathematical ratio.

27Ms. Medieros presented an equity analysis of 30 property sales of single-family detached not on water, property code 301 that occurred from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2016 located within two kilometres of the subject property, resulting in a median ASR of 0.992 with a Coefficient of Dispersion (“COD”) of 8.7. Ms. Medieros submits that MPAC’s standards indicate that for residential property, the median ASR should fall between 0.95 and 1.05 and the COD should be less than 15. If the median ratio falls within this range, this reveals that the current value assessments are reflective of sales prices in the vicinity and therefore, no further adjustment is required. In this case the median ASR falls within the range at 0.992 and the COD is 8.7. Therefore, Ms. Medieros recommends no further downward adjustment is required to the current value of the subject property.

28Mr. Lee presented a second equity study of 70 single-family detached not on water residential property sales in the vicinity of the subject property between January 1, 2015 and June 30, 2016 which resulted in a median ASR of 0.97 and a COD of 5.98, both within the reasonable range of 0.95 to 1.05 ASR and under 15 for the COD. Based on the results of the City’s equity study Mr. Lee recommends no further equity adjustment.

29Mr. Di Paola points out that in MPAC`s equity evidence the four homes which sold on Bowman Avenue are assessed 5% to 11% higher than their adjusted sale values. Based on the sale of these properties Mr. Di Paola requests an additional 11% equity adjustment to the current value of the subject property to compensate for the assessments of similar properties on Bowman Avenue.

Findings on Issue 2 - Equitable Reduction in Assessed Value

30The Board finds that MPAC’s evidence of 30 property sales and the 70 property sales supplied by the City resulting in ASRs of 0.992 and 0.97 to be the best evidence in support of equity. This represents a broader and therefore, a more reliable sample of equity in comparison to the four sales of homes on Bowman Avenue. Furthermore, MPAC’s equity study also includes the four sales on Bowman Avenue referenced by the Appellants. These sales are all time adjusted and the resulting ASRs are within the acceptable range of 0.95 to 1.05. For all the above reasons the Board will reject the equity argument made by the Appellants in favour of the equity studies presented by MPAC and the City.

31The Board finds that based on MPAC’s and the City’s equity studies which resulted in ASRs of 0.99 and 0.97 no additional downward adjustment is warranted to the current value of the subject property to ensure that the assessment is equitable with the assessment of similar properties in the vicinity.

CONCLUSION

32The Board finds that the correct current value of the subject property is $1,145,000 for the 2019 and 2,020 taxation years. Furthermore, the Board finds that no equitable reduction is required under s. 44(3)(b) of the Act.

ORDER

33The Board orders the reduction of the assessment of the subject property from $1,184,000 to $1,145,000 for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years.