Steven Jon Robertson v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 3, 2020 CanLII 24877

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: March 26, 2020 FILE NO.: WR 163492

Assessed Person(s): Steven Jon Robertson Appellant(s): Steven Jon Robertson Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 3 Respondent(s): City of Ottawa

Property Location(s): 50 Clarendon Avenue Municipality(ies): City of Ottawa Roll Number(s): 0614-073-901-18900-0000 Appeal Number(s): 3381064 and 3381268 Taxation Year(s): 2018 and 2019 Hearing Event No.: 728280

Legislative Authority: Sections 34 and 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Steven Jon Robertson	Self-represented
MPAC	Makael Nur
City of Ottawa	No one appeared

HEARD: January 10, 2020 in person

ADJUDICATOR(S): Jennifer Griffith, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1Steven Jon Robertson (“Appellant”) is the owner of 50 Clarendon Avenue (the “Subject Property”), which is in the City of Ottawa.

2Pursuant 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”).

3MPAC has assessed the current value of the Subject Property at $909,000 (the original assessment of $659,000 + the supplementary assessment of $250,000) for the 2018 taxation year and at $909,000 for the 2019 taxation year.

4The Appellant has filed an appeal for taxation year 2018 and 2019 with the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”), pursuant to s. 34 and s. 40 of the Act. It is his position that MPAC’s assessment of current value is too high and that the correct current value is $659,000. At this hearing, MPAC takes the position that its assessed value should be confirmed at $909,000.

5Pursuant to s. 40(11) of the Act, the City of Ottawa (the “City”) is a party to this proceeding. However, no one appeared at the hearing on its behalf.

6Section 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. MPAC takes the position that an equitable reduction is not required. The Appellant asserts no position on equity. Therefore, equity is not at issue at this hearing.

Issues for the Hearing

7The issue(s) to be determined on this appeal is:

1. What is the correct current value of the Subject Property for the taxation years 2018 and 2019?

RESULT

8At the completion of the hearing, the Board reserved its decision. Based on the following evidence, the Board finds the current value is $909,000 for the 2018 and the 2019 taxation years. Therefore, the Board confirms the s. 34 supplementary assessment of $250,000 for the 2018 taxation year; and confirms the returned assessment of $909,000 for the 2019 taxation year.

ANALYSIS

Description of the Subject Property

9The Subject Property is described as a 1.5 storeys, single family detached dwelling, located at 50 Clarendon Avenue, in the City of Ottawa. The Subject Property was built in 1926, with a total building area of 2,780 square feet (“sq. ft.”), and a total lot size of 0.11 acres (“ac”).

Issue 1 - What is the correct current value of the Subject Property for the taxation years 2018 and 2019?

MPAC’s Evidence

10Makael Nur is the Advocate for MPAC and Amanda Gordon is the Witness for MPAC. Mr. Nur called on Amanda Gordon and she gave an overview of her 15 years of experience working for MPAC in the areas of assessment and valuation.

11Ms. Gordon presents a Valuation Report, dated September 27, 2019 (“Valuation Report”) which she prepared and testifies to the information contained in the report.

12Ms. Gordon testifies that the Appellant had taken out a permit in 2015 with the City for an addition to the Subject Property. Ms. Gordon testifies that several requests were made to have the Subject Property inspected and Mr. Robertson did not respond to any of the requests. As a result, MPAC was forced to go to the City to review the details of the issued permit and building plan taken out for the Subject Property.

13Ms. Gordon testifies that the permit revealed it was for an addition of 1,335 sq. ft. with a 623 sq. ft. of basement area, one bedroom and two full bathrooms to the Subject Property. Ms. Gordon also presents photographs of the outside of the Subject Property taken over the period 2015 through 2019 to demonstrate the different stages of completion (e.g. addition, roof, solar panels, windows etc.) and to show that a significant amount of work was done since the permit was taken out. Based on this information Ms. Gordon testifies that MPAC assigned an effective year built of 1982; and filed a Supplementary appeal with the Board for an increase of $250,000 to the existing assessment of $659,000, effective July 25, 2018.

14In support of current value, Ms. Gordon presents a sales analysis of six suggested comparable properties sold in 2015 and 2016 outside of the homogeneous area of the Subject Property. Ms. Gordon testifies that there were no sales of similar size properties in the Subject’s homogeneous area, therefore, she expanded the search to other neighbouring areas to find these six suggested comparable properties. The analysis shows both actual sale prices and time-adjusted sale prices. MPAC relied on the actual sale prices.

15These suggested comparable properties are located at 369 Avondale Avenue, sold in 2016 at a sale price of $1,050,000; 384 Hamilton Avenue South, sold in 2015 at a sale price of $900,000; 408 Huron Avenue South, sold in 2016 at a sale price of $1,078,000; 15 Larchwood Avenue, sold in 2015 at a sale price of $915,000; 87 Geneva Street, sold in 2015 at a sale price of $1,125,000; and 161 Daniel Avenue, sold in 2015 at a sale price of $1,085,000.

16Ms. Gordon testifies that the analysis of these six properties shows that the lot size ranges from 0.11 to 0.16 ac; year built from 1930 to 1968; total building area range from 2,549 to 2,735 sq. ft; quality rating 7; and sale price ranges from $900,000 to $1,125,000. This is compared to the Subject Property with a total building area of 2,780 sq. ft.; lot size of 0.11 ac; and year built 1926; and an assessment of $909,000. Based on this analysis, Ms. Gordon is of the view that the sales of these six suggested comparable properties supports the returned assessment of $909,000 for the Subject Property.

17On cross-examination, Mr. Nur submits the following:

I. That the Subject Property was not assessed as having a garage, and that the reference of a garage in his letter dated November 26, 2019 to the Appellant should have been removed, leaving only the reference of the s. 34 Supplementary assessment;

II. That the incorrect address (409 Dochart Terrace, Nepean, Ontario K2J 5N7) for the Appellant on the Schedule of Events (“SOE”) was removed and replaced with the current address at 50 Clarendon Avenue, Ottawa Ontario K1Y 0P2 on MPAC’s data base after MPAC was notified of the change; and

III. That the Phase-in value of $773,822 detailed in his letter dated November 26, 2019 has no impact on the 2012 Current Value Assessment of $561,000. Instead, the Phase-in value is a mathematical calculation that is required pursuant to s. 19.1(3) for phasing in eligible increases in current value for the January 1, 2016 current value assessment.

MPAC’s Submissions

18Relying on its evidence, MPAC submits that the correct current value for the Subject Property for taxation years 2018 and 2019 is $909,000.

19Finally, MPAC cited the following three cases to assist the Board in its determination of current value:

I. Bryfam Enterprises Inc. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp. Region No. 32, [2019] O.A.R.B.D. No. 355 (“Bryfam”);

II. Maffei v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp. Region No. 9, [2016] O.A.R.B.D. No. 60 (“Maffei”); and

III. Nitchke v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp. Region No. 2, [2013] O.A.R.B.D. No. 102 (“Nitchke”)

Appellant’s Evidence

20The Appellant, Mr. Robertson, represents himself.

21In support of his argument that the returned assessment of $909,000 is too high for the Subject Property, the Appellant presents the returned assessment of ten suggested comparable properties in the same neighbourhood and within two blocks of the Subject Property to show that they are assessed significantly lower than the Subject Property.

22These suggested comparable properties include property types (301 Single-family detached as the Subject Property; 332 Duplex; 311 Semi-detached; and 100 Vacant Land). They are located at 45 Clarendon Avenue, assessed at $639,000 and sold for $782,700 in 2018; 57 Hampton Avenue, assessed at $1,154,000; 47 Clarendon Avenue, assessed at $605,000 and sold for $549,900 in 2012; 54 Clarendon Avenue, assessed at $863,000 and sold for $982,000 in 2018; 94 Byron Avenue, Unit GRNDF, assessed at $559,000; 65 Clarendon Ave, assessed at $770,000 and sold for $999,900 in 2016; 42 Byron Avenue, assessed at 518,000 and sold for $657,500 in 2014; 48 Byron Avenue, assessed at 517,000 and sold for $600,000 in 2017; 46 Byron Avenue, assessed at 591,000; and 41 Clarendon Avenue, assessed at $865,000 and sold for $982,000 in 2017.

23An analysis of these ten suggested comparable properties shows that they have a median assessment of $622,000; median total building area of 1525 sq. ft; median lot size of 4,800 sq. ft.; and a median year built 1926. This is compared to the Subject Property with an assessment of $909,000; total building area of 2,780 sq. ft.; total lot size of 4,800 sq. ft.; and year built 1926.

24The analysis also shows that seven of these suggested comparable properties sold over the period 2012 to 2018 and reflect a median sale price of $782,700; median total building area of 1,256 sq. ft.; median lot size of 4,800 sq. ft.; and median year built 1930. This is compared to the Subject Property with an assessment of $909,000; total building area of 2,780 sq. ft.; lot size of 4,800 sq. ft.; and year built 1926.

25The Appellant submits that the renovation project which started in 2015 is on-going, it is not occupied and not signed off by the City as completed. As such, the Appellant is of the view that no value should be added to the assessed value until the project is signed off by the City and occupied.

26The Appellant also raises other issues with the reliability of MPAC’s evidence for the following reasons:

I. That MPAC’s suggested comparable properties are from different homogeneous areas to the Subject Property;

II. That MPAC filed the wrong address for the assessed person with the Board as shown on the SOE as 409 Dochart Terrace, Nepean, Ontario K2J 5N7 (previous address) instead of the current address of 50 Clarendon Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario K1Y 0P2;

III. That Mr. Nur indicated in a letter to him dated November 26, 2019 that the garage was in use in 2017. The Appellant argues that the Subject Property has no garage; and

IV. That MPAC has gone back six years and changed the 2012 CVA from $561,000 to $773,822 with no justifiable reason.

Appellant’s Submissions

27Relying on his evidence, the Appellant submits that the correct current value for taxation years 2018 to 2019 is $659,000 (which is the original returned assessed for the 2016 CVA).

Findings on Issue 1 - Current Value

28Under 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.

29An analysis of the seven property sales presented by MPAC and the Appellant which occurred in 2015 and 2016 (six sales by MPAC and one sale by the Appellant) shows that the median ranges of these seven comparable properties are similar to the Subject Property. These comparable properties have a median lot size of 0.13 ac; a building area of 2,643 sq. ft.; year built 1946; quality rating 7; and a sale price of $1,050,000. This is compared to of the Subject Property with total lot size of 0.11 ac; total building area of 2,780 sq. ft.; year built 1926; quality rating 6; and assessed at a value of $909,000.

30Based on this evidence, the Board notes that the median sale price for these 7 properties is $1,050,000 and finds that this is the best evidence of arm’s length and market-tested transactions. Although the Board has found that the evidence supports a finding that the correct current value of the Subject Property is $1,050,000 for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years, MPAC's position is that the value should be $909,000. While the Appellant has asserted that the correct current value is lower than $909,000, he certainly agrees that it should be no higher than this amount. Accepting the parties’ position on this issue, the Board, therefore, accepts that the correct current value is $909,000.

31The Board finds that the correct current value of the Subject Property is $909,000.

32The Board did not rely on the Appellant’s other sales which occurred in 2012, 2014, 2017 and 2018, because they are too far removed from the valuation date of January 1, 2016 to provide any meaningful test of current value; and the Board did not rely on the returned assessment presented by the Appellant, because the assessments are determined by the same methodology as the Subject Property, which is the subject of this appeal. Instead, the Board relies on the market-tested sales.

33Regarding the Appellant’s issue that the comparable properties presented by MPAC are from different homogeneous areas to the Subject Property, the Board notes that the evidence indicates that there are insufficient property sales in the Subject’s neighbourhood, and, consequently, it is necessary to consider property sales outside this neighbourhood are to find comparable properties to the Subject Property to decide current value.

34The Board rejects the Appellant’s argument that the current value of the Subject Property should not be increased due to the partial or full completion of the addition until the City certifies that the addition is completed. The Board adopts the analysis in Bryfam at para. 20, which states that “Its argument, that the dwelling under construction is not contemplated in legislation so it cannot be assessed, ignores the basic tenets of the Act that are set out in s. 1 and s. 3. These sections essentially say, in plain language, everything is assessable, unless the Act says it is exempt. The Act does not exempt dwellings under construction”. The Board notes that this conclusion is supported by the decision in Nitchke, at para. 40 which states that “If a property does not fall within the definition of vacant land, MPAC is statutorily bound to assess land which is defined in the Act to include “all buildings, or any part of any building…”.

35The Board finds that it is reasonable to accept MPAC’s valuation of the addition to the Subject Property, as it sets the effective building completion date at July 25, 2018, which is three years after the permit was issued. The Board finds that the Appellants presents no factual evidence (photographs and costs to cure) to show that the addition was incomplete, and he did not respond to MPAC’s requests for an inspection of the Subject Property to determine the degree of completion. This conclusion is consistent with the decision in Maffei.

36Regarding MPAC’s assertion that the Subject Property had a garage in 2017, the Board finds that although MPAC was tardy with the information contained in his letter (November 26, 2019), there are no evidentiary documents (Property Profile and Sales Analysis Report) showing that the Subject Property was assessed as having a garage for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years. Therefore, the Board accepts that MPAC's assessed value did not include the value of a garage.

37Regarding MPAC’s filing of the wrong address (409 Dochart Terrace, Nepean, Ontario K2J 5N7) for the assessed person with the Board, the Board finds that although MPAC demonstrated tardiness in their evidentiary documents, the incorrect address shown on the SOE has no negative impact on the appeals at hand. The Board finds that the appeals subject to this proceeding are for the correct property located at 50 Clarendon Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario K1Y 0P2.

38The Board rejects the Appellant’s argument that MPAC has gone back six years and changed the 2012 CVA from $561,000 to $773,822 with no justifiable reason. The Act requires that the correct current value be assessed as of the January 1, 2016 Valuation Date. Therefore, the assessed value for the previous assessment cycle is not relevant.

ORDER

39The Board finds the correct current value of the Subject Property is $909,000 for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years. Therefore, the Board confirms the returned supplementary assessment of $250,000 effective July 25, 2018; and confirms the returned assessment of $909,000 for the 2019 taxation year.