Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: March 10, 2020 FILE NO.: WR 163392

Assessed Person(s): Arthur Primosch, Brigitte Budaker Appellant(s): Arthur Primosch, Brigitte Budaker Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 21, City of Kitchener Property Location(s): 296 298 Highland Road East Municipality(ies): City of Kitchener Roll Number(s): 3012-040-014-24900-0000 Appeal Number(s): 3269573, 3311083 and 3365013 Taxation Year(s): 2017, 2018 and 2019 Hearing Event No.: 724293, 726925 and 728167 Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Arthur Primosch, Brigitte Budaker	Andrew Attard
MPAC	Kyle Duncan
City of Kitchener	Greg Demacio, Amboka Wameyo

HEARD: October 17, November 22 and December 12, 2019 by telephone conference call

ADJUDICATOR: Jennifer Griffith, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1The Appellants have filed appeals for the 2017, 2018 and 2019 taxation years with the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”), pursuant to s. 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (“Act”). The Subject Property is located at 296 298 Highland Road East, in the City of Kitchener. It is a Neighbourhood Shopping Centre (Property Code 430) with a gross leasable area of 10,471 square feet (“sq. ft.”) which comprises of a total of 8,049 sq. ft. in Property Type 512 (Allied Ground Floor Inferior); and a total of 2,422 sq. ft. in Property Type 530 (Allied Variety Store).

2The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) has assessed the current value of the Subject Property at $1,842,000 for the 2017 taxation year and at $1,536,000 for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years in the Commercial Tax Class (“CT”).

3The Appellants believe that the returned assessment is too high and that the correct value should be $1,067,000 based on actual rents of the Subject Property. MPAC takes the position that the correct current value is $1,533,000 rounded based on Fair Market Rents (“FMR”). The City of Kitchener (“City”) takes the position that the current value should be $1,500,000 based on sales which occurred in the open market.

4Section 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”). MPAC takes the position that an equitable reduction is required and that the equitable value should be $1,379,000. The Appellants take the position that an equity adjustment is not required if the current value is based on actual rents of the Subject Property. The City takes the position that an equity reduction is not required.

Issues

5The issues to be determined on this appeal are:

1. The correct current value of the Subject Property for the 2017, 2018 and 2019 taxation years.
2. Whether there should be an equitable reduction of the current value of the Subject Property 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 $1,507,000 for the 2017, 2018 and 2019 taxation years.

7Pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act, the Board finds that an equity reduction is required and applied the Median ASR of 0.89 to the current value to arrive at an equitable value of $1,341,000 ($1,507,000 x 0.89). Therefore, the Board reduces the returned assessment from $1,842,000 to $1,341,000 for the 2017 taxation year; and from $1,536,000 to $1,341,000 for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years.

PRELIMINARY MATTERS – EXPERT WITNESSES QUALIFICATION

8At the commencement of the hearing Kyle Duncan, representative for MPAC raised a motion that Andrew Attard, representative for the Appellants, and Amboka Wameyo, representative for the City should not be qualified as Expert Witnesses by the Board. MPAC argues that both Mr. Attard and Ms. Wameyo have been representing their respective parties as advocate and witness throughout the appeals processes prior to this hearing. MPAC argues that qualifying Mr. Attard and Ms. Wameyo at today’s hearing as Expert Witnesses would be a conflict of interest of competing roles. In support of this argument, MPAC cited Riverbank Homes Ltd. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp., Region 16, [2019] O.A.R.B.D. No. 296 (“Riverbank”) and referenced paragraph 6.

9In response to MPAC’s motion, Mr. Attard testifies that he is not asking to be qualified as an Expert Witness and his role at today’s hearing is to continue to be the advocate and witness for the Appellants. Based on the submission of Mr. Attard, the Board accepts that he is not asking to be qualified as an Expert Witness. Therefore, the Board accepts Mr. Attard as a witness.

10In response Greg Demacio, representative for the City, objects to MPAC’s motion and argues that although Ms. Wameyo had participated in previous settlement negotiations as advocate and witness, she has the necessary qualification and work experiences to be qualified as an Expert Witness for the City. In support of his argument, Mr. Demacio referenced a copy of Ms. Wameyo’s Curriculum Vitae filed with the Board, which outlines her academic achievements and work experiences.

11Based on the submissions regarding Ms. Wameyo, the Board finds that Ms. Wameyo’s obligation as advocate and witness as representative for the City is different than the role of an Expert Witness, whose duty prevails over any obligation which the Expert may owe to any party by whom or on whose behalf the Expert is engaged. The Board finds that Ms. Wameyo has a legal obligation to represent the City’s interest and therefore, cannot be an Expert Witness whose duty is to provide expert evidence to assist the Board in its determination at the same time. The Board finds that its decision is also supported by the Riverbank case which states in paragraph 6 that an advocate, would have a fiduciary duty to faithfully represent his or her client, while in his capacity as an expert witness would have a duty to provide objective evidence to the Board. Therefore, the Board does not qualify Ms. Wameyo as an Expert Witness but accepts Ms. Wameyo as a witness.

12Mr. Duncan calls Tim Vollmar to be an Expert Witness for MPAC and he testifies to the information contains in his Curriculum Vitae filed with the Board. Mr. Vollmar testifies that he has approximately 20 years of experience in assessment dealing with residential, commercial and industrial properties. He testifies that he appeared before the Board as an Expert Witness dealing with income properties. Mr. Vollmar testifies that he has no formal education in dealing with income properties and has dealt with a few cases. He also testifies that he has no formal education in dealing with equity.

13In response to MPAC’s request to have Mr. Vollmar qualified as an Expert Witness, Mr. Attard opposed the request and argued that Mr. Vollmar has no formal education and limited experience in dealing with income properties, and no formal education in equity. The City raised no objection to the qualification.

14Based on the submissions of the parties and after reviewing the Curriculum Vitae of Mr. Vollmar, the Board finds that Mr. Vollmar has performed many tasks within the areas of assessment valuation (e.g. research, sales investigations, customer service, property inspections, request for reconsideration on behalf of MPAC, valuation of properties etc.) However, Mr. Vollmar’s Curriculum Vitae has shown that he has no formal education in assessment valuation and is currently pursuing certification as Accredited Member, Institute of Municipal Assessors (A.I.M.A). Thus, the Board finds that Mr. Vollmar’s work experience and academic background do not rise to the level of an Expert Witness with accreditation. Therefore, the Board accepts Mr. Vollmar as a witness.

ANALYSIS

Issue No. 1: The Correct Current Value of the Subject Property for the 2017, 2018 and 2019 Taxation Years

15Under s. 44(3)(a) of the Act, the Board must first determine “the current value of the land”. The best evidence the Board can receive of current value is an arm’s length and market-tested sale of the property on the valuation date or close to it.

16The Appellants believe that MPAC’s returned assessment is too high. The Appellants take the position that the correct value should be $1,067,000 based on actual rents of the Subject Property. MPAC takes the position that the correct current value is $1,533,000 rounded based on FMR. The City of Kitchener takes the position that the current value should be $1,500,000 based on sales that occurred in the open market.

17For the reasons discussed below, the Board prefers the Direct Comparison sales approach and finds the current value to be $1,507,000.

18In reviewing the evidence presented in support of current value, the Board finds the most reliable and best evidence to be the seven sales presented by the City (six of which were also presented by Mr. Attard) with a median leasable area of 9,063 sq. ft., median year built 1973 and median time-adjusted sale price per sq. ft. of $144. This is compared to the Subject Property with a total leasable space of 10,471 sq. ft., year built 1960 and assessed at $176 (rounded) per sq. ft. When the median sale price of $144 is applied to the Subject Property it results in a current value of $1,507,000 rounded ($144 x 10471 sq. ft).

19The Board rejects MPAC’s proposed current value based on FMR and the income approach because the Board finds the open-market sales to be the best indicator of current value. The Board also rejects the Appellants’ submitted current value based on actual rents, because Mr. Primosch testifies that he personally negotiated the rents at values he believes to be fair for the area to keep the units occupied. He further states that in certain circumstances he lowered the rent because of relationships amongst tenants to keep them as tenants. For these reasons the Board finds the open-market sales to be the best indicator of current value pursuant to s. 1 of the Act, which states that current value is 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. In this case, there are sales evidence of the amount of money paid by a willing seller to a willing buyer in the open market, which the Board finds to be most reliable.

Additional Property Details

20Mr. Duncan calls Tim Vollmar, witness for MPAC and Mr. Vollmar presents a Valuation Report, dated June 12, 2019 (“Valuation Report”) which he prepared and testifies to the information contained therein.

21Mr. Vollmar states that he inspected the Subject Property on May 17, 2018. He testifies that during the inspection he reviewed and confirmed amongst other things the building measurements, and as a result, the area for the Variety Store was changed from 3,322 sq. ft. to $2,422 sq. ft.; the restaurant unit was changed from 1,759 sq. ft. to $2,659 sq. ft.; and the 532 tenant (restaurant) was changed to 512 which means that it is an inferior unit type. Mr. Vollmar testifies that the correct total building area after these changes is 10,471 sq. ft. for the Subject Property which was agreed to by all parties.

Evidence in support of current value?

a) Income Approach based on Fair Market Rents (FMR)

22Mr. Vollmar testifies that he relies on the income approach to value and in support of current value he relies on Fair Market Rents (“FMR”). Mr. Vollmar testifies that there was agreement amongst the parties with MPAC’s proposed 6% vacancy allowance; 6% non-recoverable expense allowance; and a 6.5% capitalization rate. The parties concur to these percentages.

23Mr. Vollmar testifies that he analyzed income information collected through MPAC’s income and expense collection program and reviewed several key factors as size, age, tenant type, property type and location. Mr. Vollmar testifies that the analysis of the income information based on actual rents (including the Subject Property) shows that the median FMR for Allied Ground floor inferior (Unit Type 512) located in all of Kitchener is $9.65 per sq. ft. based on 65 leases; and the median FMR for Allied Variety Store (Unit Type 530) located in all of Kitchener is $14.00 per sq. ft. based on 17 leases. Mr. Vollmar testifies that he also analyzed income information based on actual rents in Kitchener Ward 4 which shows FMR for Allied Ground floor inferior (Unit Type 512) is $10.00 per sq. ft. based on 11 leases; and the median FMR for Allied Variety Store (Unit Type 530) located in Kitchener Ward 4 is $14.50 per sq. ft. based on 11 leases.

24Using the above income data, Mr. Vollmar relies on the $9.65 per sq. ft. for Unit Type 512 and the $14.50 for Unit Type 530. When these values are applied to the units at the Subject Property it results in a value $52,014 ($9.65 X 5,390 sq. ft. of Unit Type 512, Hair Salon, Cleaners, Pharmacy); a value of $25,659 ($9.65 X 2,659 sq. ft. of Unit Type 512 Restaurant); and a value of $35,119 ($14.50 X 2,422 sq. ft. of Unit Type 530 Variety Store). Based on these calculation, Mr. Vollmar testifies that the Potential Gross Income (“PGI”) for the Subject Property is $112,792 ($52,014 + $25,659 + $35,119).

25Mr. Vollmar calculates the current value by applying a 6% vacancy allowance to the PGI to arrive at a value of $106,024 ($112,792 - $6,768); a 6% non-recoverable expense allowance to arrive at a Net Operating Income (“NOI”) of $99,663 ($106,024 - $6,361); and a Capitalization Rate of 6.5% to the NOI to arrive at a current value of $1,533,000 rounded ($99,663 / 6.5%).

26Mr. Vollmar also calculates a Capitalization rate using the time-adjusted sale prices of six sales which occurred over the period 2014 through 2017. Mr. Vollmar testifies that these six sales demonstrate a median Capitalization rate of 5.59% and when this rate is applied to the NOI of $99,663, it reflects a current value of $1,782,878 (should be $1,782,880). However, MPAC states that they are seeking the current value of $1,533,000, based on the Capitalization rate of 6.5% which was agreed to by all parties.

27Mr. Attard testifies that he agrees that the income approach to value is the appropriate methodology to determine the correct current value, however, he believes that the current value should be based on the actual rents of the Subject Property.

b) Income Approach based on Actual Rents

28Mr. Attard testifies that the average actual rents for the Subject Property is $75 per sq. ft. and when applied to the total leasable area of 10,471 it results in a Gross Income of $78,532. Mr. Attard testifies that he applied a 6% vacancy allowance and a 6% non-recoverable expense allowance to the Gross Income to arrive at a NOI of $69,391. Mr. Attard testifies that he applies a Capitalization Rate of 6.5% to the NOI to arrive at a current value of $1,067,000 rounded ($69,391 / 6.5%).

29Although Mr. Attard testifies that he is relying on the income approach based on actual rents, he presents the following sales analysis of six comparable properties which occurred over the period 2014 through 2017 to show that the open-market sales support the above current value of $1,067,000 based on actual rents.

c) Direct Comparison Approach based on Sales

Direct Comparison Approach

6 COMPARABLE PROPERTIES	LEASABLE AREA (SQ. FT.)	YEAR BUILT	SALE DATES	SALE PRICE	SALE PRICE PER SQ. FT.
155 Highland Road East	6,000	1961	2014	$820,000	$137
2934 King Street	6,300	1983	2014	$1,330,000	$211
2399 Kingsway Drive	20,700	1949	2016	$2,850,000	$138
316 Lancaster Street West	16,219	1961	2017	$1,554,000	$96
153 Country Hill Drive	11,000	1977	2017	$1,950,000	$177
101 Hazelglen Drive	35,052	1973	2017	$2,900,000	$83
Median	13,610	1967		$1,752,000	$137
Subject Property	10,471	1960			Assessed at $176 per. sq. ft.

30Mr. Attard testifies that when the median sale price is applied to the Subject Property it results in a current value of $1,436,000 ($137 X 10,471 sq. ft.).

Additional Evidence

31Arthur Primosch and Bridgette Budaker, the property owners, are in attendance and Mr. Primosch was called as a witness by Mr. Attard. Mr. Primosch testifies that he had been involved in the operations of the Subject Property since 1964 when it was operated by his family. Mr. Primosch testifies that he has been personally managing the Subject Property since 2003. He testifies that he no longer lives in the Subject Property’s neighbourhood and had moved out since 1967.

32Mr. Primosch testifies that it is very difficult to attract new tenants, because the Subject Property is in an isolated, less desirable (less visibility, less traffic etc.) and not well-maintained area; whereas, other plazas 4-5 kilometers away (e.g. Mill Street) are in more desirable areas that are highly visible, with heavier traffic, lower crime, higher rents and better maintained. Mr. Primosch testifies that the Subject Property’s neighbourhood is primarily residential and most recently there were a few developments of new duplexes, high-end residential condominium and new residential home.

33Mr. Primosch testifies that he personally negotiated existing leases and new leases for units at the Subject Property instead of relying on FMR, because his focus was to keep the units occupied. He testifies that in 2014 JJ Convenient Store (newest tenant) signed a new lease at the $7.50 per sq. ft. because the rent at other locations was too high to move. Mr. Primosch testifies that to keep his tenants, he offered a 6% increase to five-year lease holders and a 10% increase to one-year lease holders, which he believes are reasonable. Mr. Primosch testifies that he also took into considerations personal relationships amongst tenants and offered lower rents to keep the units occupied.

34Finally, Mr. Attard cited the following two cases to assist the Board in its determination of current value that the best evidence is based on actual rents:

I. Donview Management Ltd v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp. Region No. 14, [2011] O.A.R.B.D. No. 254 (“Donview”) with reference to paragraph 4, 5, 20 and 27; and

II. 1906661 Ontario Inc v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp. Region No. 15, 2015 CanLII 66513 (ON ARB) (“1906661 Ontario”) with reference to paragraph 29 and paragraph 29(3). (same as Trott Holding v. MPAC [2015] File 135136 cited by Mr. Attard).

35Amboka Wameyo replaces Greg Demacio as both advocate and witness for the City, after the Board did not qualify her as an Expert Witness when the Preliminary Matters of qualification were raised.

36In support of the City’s proposed current value, Ms. Wameyo presents an analysis of the following seven sales which occurred over the period 2014 through 2017. Ms. Wameyo relies on the time adjusted sale prices. Ms. Wameyo testifies that she used a time-adjustment factor of 0.42% per month which was provided in an email on May 31, 2019, by Mr. Attard.

Direct Comparison Approach

7 COMPARABLE PROPERTIES	LOT SIZE (ACRES)	LEASABLE AREA (SQ. FT.)	YEAR BUILT	SALE DATES	TIME ADJUSTED SALE PRICE	TIME ADJ. SALE PRICE PER SQ. FT.
155-165 Highland Road East	0.69	6,000	1960	2014	$864,772	$144
2934 King Street	0.85	6,400	1983	2014	$1,413,790	$221
2399 Kingsway Drive	2.20	20,700	1949	2016	$2,838,030	$137
315-331 Lancaster Street West	1.604	16,219	1961	2017	$1,456,098	$90
153 Country Hill Drive	1.66	9,063	1977	2017	$1,843,530	$203
101 Hazelglen Drive	2.91	36,003	1973	2017	$2,692,940	$75
550–554 Highland Road West	0.65	5,100	1981	2017	$1,012,220	$198
Median	1.604	9,063	1973		$1,456,098	$144
Subject Property	1.03	10,471	1960			Assessed at $176 per. sq. ft.

37Based on the above analysis, Ms. Wameyo calculates that the current value based on the median sale price per sq. ft. to be $1,507,824 ($144 x 10,471 sq. ft. for the Subject Property) and rounded it off to $1,500,000 which she believes is reasonable.

d) Income Approach based on FMR

38Ms. Wameyo also presents an income analysis based on FMR in support of current value based on MPAC’s FMR of $9.65 for Unit Type 512; and $14.00 for Unit Type 530 (leases in Kitchener) to show that it supports the value determined by the seven sales analyzed above. Ms. Wameyo testifies that when these FMR are applied to the units at the Subject Property it results in a value $52,014 ($9.65 X 5,390 sq. ft. of Unit Type 512, Hair Salon, Cleaners, Pharmacy); a value of $25,659 ($9.65 X 2,659 sq. ft of Unit Type 512 Restaurant); and a value of $33,908 ($14.00 X 2,422 sq. ft. of Unit Type 530 Variety Store). Based on these calculation, Ms. Wameyo testifies that the Potential Gross Income (“PGI”) for the Subject Property is $111,581 ($52,014 + $25,659 + $33,908).

39Ms. Wameyo calculates the current value by applying a 6% vacancy allowance to the PGI to arrive at a value of $104,886 ($111,581 - $6,695); a 6% non-recoverable expense allowance to arrive at a Net Operating Income (“NOI”) of $98,593 ($104,886 - $6,293); and a Capitalization Rate of 6.5% to the NOI to arrive at a current value of $1,517,000 rounded ($98,593 / 6.5%).

40The City argues that the current value should be $1,500,000 based on sales evidence, because it is market tested and more reliable.

Findings on Issue No.1

41In reviewing the evidence presented in support of current value, the Board finds the most reliable and best evidence to be the seven sales presented by the City (six of which were also presented by Mr. Attard) with a median leasable area of 9,063 sq. ft., median year built 1973 and median time-adjusted sale price per sq. ft. of $144. This is compared to the Subject Property with a total leasable space of 10,471 sq. ft., year built 1960 and assessed at $176 (rounded) per sq. ft. When the median sale price of $144 is applied to the Subject Property it results in a current value of $1,507,000 rounded ($144 x 10471 sq. ft).

42The Board rejects MPAC’s proposed current value based on FMR and the income approach because the Board finds the open-market sales to be the best indicator of current value. The Board also rejects the Appellants’ submitted current value based on actual rents, because Mr. Primosch testifies that he personally negotiated the rents at values he believes to be fair for the area to keep the units occupied. He further states that in certain circumstances he lowered the rent because of relationships amongst tenants to keep them as tenants. For these reasons the Board finds the open-market sales to be the best indicator of current value pursuant to s. 1 of the Act, which states that current value is 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. In this case, there are sales evidence of the amount of money paid by a willing seller to a willing buyer in the open market, which the Board finds to be most reliable.

Issue No. 2: Whether there should 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 the amount of this reduction should be.

43Section 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”). MPAC takes the position that an equitable reduction is required. The Appellants take the position that an equity adjustment is not required if the current value is based on actual rents of the Subject Property. However, the Appellants are of the view that an equity reduction is required if current value is based on the Income Approach to value. The City takes the position that an equity reduction is not required.

44In support of equity, MPAC presents an Equity Analysis Report in which the assessments of 33 comparable properties 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 properties sold, by its sale prices.

45MPAC states that these 33 comparable properties are in the 400s series Property Code (Commercial) sold over the period January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2016 and located within the same homogeneous neighbourhood as the Subject Property and surrounding areas.

46The analysis of the sales of these 33 comparable properties shows a Level of Appraisal (“LOA”) of 0.91 and a Coefficient of Dispersion (“CoD”) of 17. Based on this finding, MPAC’s opinion is that an equity reduction is required, because the findings fall outside MPAC’s standards of 0.95 to 1.05 for the LOA and not more than 20 for the CoD.

47On cross-examination the Appellants argue that the first comparable property on the MPAC’s list of comparable properties, at Belmont Avenue West (Property Code 482) is not similar to the Subject Property (Property Code 430). The reason is that Belmont Avenue West is a parking lot, which is different than the Subject Property which is a Shopping Centre. The Appellants further state that the parking lot was also sold together with the neighbouring property at 712 Belmont Avenue. MPAC was not aware that the sale included two properties and agreed to remove the Belmont Avenue West sale from its analysis. Based on the removal of the Belmont Avenue West property, MPAC states that the revised ASR is 0.90 rounded and when applied to the current value of $1,533,000 it results in an equitable value of $1,379,000 rounded.

48The Appellants argue that an equity adjustment is not required if the current value is based on actual rents. However, Mr. Attard argues that an equity reduction is required if the current value is based on FMR.

49Mr. Attard asserts that an equity adjustment is not required if the current value is based on actual rents of the Subject Property, which he believes to be an equitable value negotiated by the property owners. However, Mr. Attard presents an equity report based on the time-adjusted sale prices of 17 comparable properties with a median ASR of 0.83 and a COD of 5.4, which he argues requires an equity reduction if the current value is based on FMR.

50On cross-examination Mr. Attard agrees to remove the comparable property at 453 Park Street off the list of comparable properties, because it was sold as vacant land (Property Code 412) which is different from the Subject Property (Property Code 430). Based on the removal of the 453 Park Street property, Mr. Attard states that the revised ASR is 0.89 based on 16 comparable properties.

51For the City, Ms. Wameyo presents an equity report based on the same seven sales she presented in support of current value. She testifies that these seven sales have an average ASR of 1.05 (median of 1.06), however, Ms. Wameyo provides no finding of COD. Based on the above findings of the average ASR, Ms. Wameyo argues that no equity reduction is required.

Findings on an Equitable Reduction

52In reviewing the equity analyses presented above, the Board finds the best evidence is the Median ASR of 0.89 presented by the Appellants and MPAC (ASR is 0.89 and rounded to 0.90) which supports an equity reduction. Therefore, the Board accepts the Median ASR of 0.89 and applies it to the current value of $1,507,000 to arrive at an equitable value of $1,341,000 rounded ($1,507,000 x 0.89).

53On the contrary, the Board rejects the City’s average ASR of 1.05 (median ASR 1.06) because it is based only on seven sales, which the Board finds to be less reliable. The reason being that the ASR findings based on larger sampling of sales by MPAC and the Appellant yielded the same result, which the Board finds more reliable.

CONCLUSION

54The Board finds the current value of the Subject Property is $1,507,000 for the 2017, 2018 and 2019 taxation years

55Pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act, the Board finds that an equity reduction is required and applied the Median ASR of 0.89 to the current value to arrive at an equitable value of $1,341,000 ($1,507,000 x 0.89). Therefore, the Board reduces the returned assessment from $1,842,000 to $1,341,000 for the 2017 taxation year; and from $1,536,000 to $1,341,000 for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years.