Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: January 13, 2020
Assessed Person(s): Christine Douglas
Appellant(s): Christine Douglas
Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 09
Respondent(s): City of Toronto
Property Location(s): 106 Elmhurst Avenue
Municipality(ies): City of Toronto
Roll Number(s): 1908-072-130-01600-0000
Appeal Number(s): 3375967
Taxation Year(s): 2019
Hearing Event No.: 726892
Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended
Heard: November 29, 2019 by telephone conference call
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Representative |
|---|---|
| Christine Douglas | Self-represented |
| MPAC | Hassen Fereg |
| City of Toronto | No one appeared |
DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY JENNIFER GRIFFITH
BACKGROUND
1Christine Douglas (the “Appellant”) is the owner of 106 Elmhurst Avenue (the “Subject Property”), which is in the City of Toronto.
2MPAC has assessed the current value of the Subject Property at $977,000 for the 2019 taxation year.
3The Appellant has filed an appeal for the 2019 taxation year with the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”), pursuant to s. 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (“Act”). It is the Appellant’s position that MPAC’s assessment of current value is too high. The Appellant takes the position that the correct value should be $721,529. At this hearing, MPAC takes the position that the correct current value is $1,333,000 for the 2019 taxation year.
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”). 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 required and that the equitable value should be $1,202,000. The Appellant did not assert that an equitable reduction is required. Therefore, in this proceeding, this ground for appeal is not in issue.
5At the completion of the hearing, the Board reserves its decision. Based on the following evidence, the Board finds the correct current value of the Subject Property is $1,280,000 for the 2019 taxation year. However, MPAC has not served a notice of intention to seek a higher assessment, as required by Rule 40 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”). Given that MPAC is not seeking an increase for the 2019 taxation year, the Board will not increase the assessment.
6The assessment is therefore confirmed at $977,000 for the 2019 taxation year.
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.
8Section 19(1) of the Act states:
19.(1) Assessment based on current value. – The assessment of land shall be based on its current value.
9Section 19.2(1) of the Act states:
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 the period consisting of the four taxation years from 2013 to 2016, land is valued as of January 1, 2012.
For the period consisting of the four taxation years from 2017 to 2020, land is valued as of January 1, 2016.
10Section 40(17) of the Act states:
40.(17) Burden of Proof - 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.
11Section 44(3) of the Act states:
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.
ISSUES
12The issues to be determined on this appeal is what is the correct current value of the Subject Property for the 2019 taxation year.
Description of the Subject Property
13The Subject Property is a single-family residential detached dwelling (not on water), located at 106 Elmhurst Avenue, in the City of Toronto. The Subject Property was built in 1925, with a total building area of 1,325 square feet (“sq. ft.”), and a total lot size of 0.09 acre.
DISCUSSION, ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
The Correct Current Value of the Subject Property for the 2019 Taxation Year
MPAC’s Evidence
14Hassen Fereg, MPAC’s assessor presents a Valuation Report, dated August 14, 2019 (“Valuation Report”) which he prepared and testifies to the information contained therein.
15Mr. Fereg states that he conducted a partial inspection of the Subject Property on August 2, 2019, because he was not allowed to conduct a full inspection by the Appellant. He testifies that the partial inspection only included the exterior and basement areas of the Subject Property. Mr. Fereg states that during the inspection he verified and confirmed the building measurements, and classification of the Subject Property. He also testifies that he reviewed the sales and property data of the suggested comparable properties used in his report.
16Mr. Fereg testifies that the assessment was returned at $1,029,000 for the Subject Property, based on the valuation date of January 1, 2016. He testifies that the appellant filed a Request for Reconsideration (“RfR”) with MPAC for the 2017 taxation year and the returned assessment was reduced from $1,029,000 to $977,000 (reflecting a reduction of $52,000). Mr. Fereg states that the condition of the Subject Property was changed to a lower rating (from average to fair condition); the value attributed to the basement was removed and changed to $0 because of water issues; and a reduction of $11,000 was given for issue of mold. Mr. Fereg states that during the inspection on August 2, 2019, he found nothing that would have warranted a further reduction to the already reduced value of $977,000. Mr. Fereg also testifies that the Appellant did not contest the returned value of $977,000 for the 2018 taxation year and did not file an RfR with MPAC for that taxation year.
17In support of current value, Mr. Fereg relies on the Direct Comparison Approach to Value and presents an analysis of the sales of six suggested comparable properties which occurred in 2015 and 2016. He states that all six suggested comparable properties are in the same homogeneous neighbourhood and are located relatively close to the Subject Property.
18Mr. Fereg states that these six suggested comparable properties are located at 107 Elmhurst Avenue, sold in 2015 at a time-adjusted sale price of $1,230,677; 82 Burnsdale Avenue, sold in 2016 at a time-adjusted sale price of $1,235,481; 203 Harlandale Avenue, sold in 2016 at a time-adjusted sale price of $1,224,966; 217 Elmhurst Avenue, sold in 2015 at a time-adjusted sale price of $1,095,513; 5 Addington Avenue, sold in 2016 at a time-adjusted sale price of $1,102,517; and 278 Burnett Avenue, sold in 2016 at a time-adjusted sale price of $1,101,493.
19Mr. Fereg states that these six suggested properties have lot sizes ranging from 0.1 to 0.15 acre; sale prices ranging from $1,095,513 to $1,235,481, total building area ranging from 846 sq. ft. to 1,304 sq. ft.; year built from 1951 to 1979 (effective year based on renovation/addition from 1957 to 1990); and of the same quality of construction. Mr. Fereg submits based on the sales of the most similar suggested comparable properties, it is his view that the current value should be $1,333,000.
20On cross-examination Mr. Fereg argues that the current value of $1,333,000 determined by sales in the open-market supports the returned assessment of $977,000.
21Mr. Fereg states that MPAC does not assess such things as fence, backyard, deck, trees, maintenance of yard, driveway and air condition.
22Mr. Fereg argues that the list of expenses presented by the Appellant is not reliable because there are several contractors retained for the same issues and within a close timeline at significant costs; and yet, the Appellant argues that the problem is not fixed, and the condition of the Subject Property remains the same.
MPAC’s Submissions
23Based on the above evidence, MPAC argues that the current value is $1,333,000. However, MPAC states that returned assessment of $977,000 should be confirmed, because they are not seeking an increase in the assessment.
Appellant’s Evidence
24The Appellant presents no sales evidence in support of current value.
25The Appellant testifies that the condition of the Subject Property is negatively impacted by flooding caused by illegally installed down pipes at the neighbouring property at 108 Elmhurst Avenue, whenever it rains.
26The Appellant cites issues associated with flooding as mold in the basement, soil erosion, damage to the garage, driveway, retaining wall, catch basin, interlocking brick, trees and lawn. The Appellant states that these issues have been on-going since 2014 and continues when it rains. To demonstrate these issues, the Appellant presents photographs for the period 2014 to 2019.
27The Appellant states that she hired two contractors in 2016 to remove the mold and excavate around the Subject Property to waterproof it to resolve the flooding issues. She claims that the contractors did not do a good job because the mold came back; and in October 2019 she hired a third contractor who removed mold twice and was supposed to come back to finish the job. The Appellant states that the contractor has not returned, and the negative impact of flooding continues every time it rains.
28The Appellant further states that because of the excavation, her newly built deck had to be removed; the air condition unit had to be disconnected; plants and shrubs around the house had to be removed; and the lawn was badly damaged.
29The Appellant cites other issues caused by the owners of 108 Elmhurst Avenue. The Appellant claims that although she involved the police and the City of Toronto (“City”) she was unsuccessful in getting the problems resolved. The Appellant presents a property standards document entitled “TORONTO MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 629, PROPERTY STANDARDS” and highlighted what she claims are violations of the standards by the owners of the neighouring property. The following are the other issues raised by the Appellant:
I. Risks of break and enter (security): The Appellant testifies that the property owners had planted trees along the property line that were overhanging very close to her bedroom window. She states that although the trees were removed, they were replaced with a wooden eight feet fence (as shown in 2017 photographs) which poses the same risks. The Appellant claims that the neighbours encroached on her property when the wooden fence was installed inside of their property line;
II. Nuisances of noise, dust, and illegal parking (blocking the Subject Property’s driveway), caused by on-going renovations over the period 2015 through 2017 at the neighbouring property;
III. Damages to the Subject Property: The Appellant testifies that she had installed a chain-linked fence between the neighouring property and that the property owners damaged the fence by pushing and bending it away from its original position (2017 photographs);
IV. Lack of enjoyment of her property: The Appellant testifies that she is unable to enjoy her property because the excavation is incomplete. She testifies that amongst other things, the air condition and the security alarm pad are still disconnected, the deck has not been replaced, the lawn and garden are still destroyed, and water continues to sip through the retaining walls, garage etc. whenever it rains; and
V. Chronic pain and stress: The Appellant testifies that since 2014 she is unable to work, and because of all the issues stated she continues to experience health problems and incur lots of financial expenditures.
30In support of the financial expenditures associated with the above issues, the Appellant presents a detailed spreadsheet (Dates, Items and Amounts) which she prepared, outlining expenses she incurred over the period 2011 to 2019 to the sum of $255,471.18. The Appellant also presents a detailed spreadsheet outlining expenses in the amount of $134,911.50 which she estimates would be required for future remediation of the continued problems.
31Based on expenses paid to date of $255,471.18, the Appellant argues that the current value should be $721,529 rounded (returned assessment of $977,000 - $225,471.18 of total expenses).
Appellant’s Submissions
32Based on the above evidence, the Appellant submits that the correct current value should be $721,529.
Findings on Current Value for the 2019 taxation year
33Under 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.
34For the reasons discussed below, the Board finds the current value is $1,280,000.
35Regarding the six sales presented by MPAC in support of current value with sale prices ranging from $1,095,513 to $1,235,481, the Board finds that the best evidence is the average sale price of $1,005.58 per sq. ft. of the three sales in the same homogeneous area at 82 Burnsdale Avenue; 217 Elmhurst Avenue; and 5 Addington Avenue. These three comparable properties have on average a building area of 1,143 sq. ft., lot size of 0.13 acres; effective year built of 1977 and sale price of $1,005.58 per sq. ft. This is compared to the Subject Property with a returned assessment of $737.35 per sq. ft., a total building area of 1,325 sq. ft., a lot size of 0.09, and an effective year built of 1974. Applying the sale price of $1,005.58 to the Subject Property results in a value of $1,332,000 rounded ($1,005.58 X 1,325 sq. ft.). The Board applies a further reduction of $52,000 (the same total reduction offered by MPAC for the RfR for 2017 taxation year) to the sales value of $1,332,000 to arrive at a current value of $1,280,000.
36The Board accepts MPAC’s evidence that the returned assessment of $1,029,000, based on the valuation date of January 1, 2016 was reduced to $977,000 (reflecting a reduction of $52,000) for the issue of mold; a $0 value for the basement because of issues with flooding; and change in the condition from average condition to fair condition. On the other hand, the Board finds that the Appellant did not dispute this evidence and presents no other quantitative evidence to show that the reduction should be greater than the $52,000 reduction allowed by MPAC.
37Regarding the Appellant’s arguments that the total cost of $255,471.18 for remedial work, replacement of materials, medical bills etc. should further reduce the returned assessment of $977,000 to a value of $721,529 rounded ($977,000 - $225,471.18). The Board rejects this argument, because the Appellant presents no official documents (contracts, estimates, medical report, receipts, cancelled cheques etc.) in support of the itemized expenses she is claiming. The Board also finds that some of these expenses even if they were supported by official documents, they were too far removed from the valuation date of January 1, 2016 to be eligible for consideration of a reduction.
38Regarding the Appellant’s arguments that the owners of the neighbouring property encroaches on her property with a newly built fence, destroyed her property by not adhering to the “TORONTO MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 629, PROPERTY STANDARDS”, illegal parking etc. The Board finds that these problems do not impact the value of the Subject Property, and therefore, are not relevant.
39Based on all the evidence, the Board finds that MPAC presents the best evidence of current value with the three sales analyzed above and with a current value of $1,280,000.
DECISION
40The Board finds that the correct current value of the Subject Property for the 2019 taxation year is $1,280,000. However, MPAC has not served a notice of intention to seek a higher assessment, as required by Rule 40 of the Rules. Given that MPAC is not seeking an increase for the 2019 taxation year, the Board will not increase the assessment. Therefore, the Board confirms the returned assessment of $977,000 for the 2019 taxation year.
“Jennifer Griffith”
JENNIFER GRIFFITH 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