Tribunals Ontario

Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: December 08, 2021

FILE NO.: WR 175392

Assessed Person(s): Linda Devenyi and Robert Devenyi

Appellant(s): Linda Devenyi and Robert Devenyi

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 09

Respondent(s): City of Toronto

Property Location(s): 1 Green Valley Road

Municipality(ies): City of Toronto

Roll Number(s): 1908-081-580-00100-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3435314 and 3441888

Taxation Year(s): 2020 and 2021

Hearing Event No.: 753390

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

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Linda Devenyi and Robert Devenyi	Surin Toor
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation	Carlo Bassi
City of Toronto	No one appeared

HEARD: November 15, 2021 by telephone conference call

ADJUDICATOR(S): Jennifer Griffith, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1Linda Devenyi and Robert Devenyi the (“Assessed Persons/Appellants”) are the owners of 1 Green Valley Road (the “Subject Property”) in the City of Toronto (the “City”). The Subject Property is a Single-Family Detached (not on water) dwelling, Property Code 301. The Appellants filed appeals for the returned assessment of $4,027,000 for the 2020 and 2021 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 of $4,027,000 is too high and that the correct current value should be $3,496,000 based on sales evidence, although other scenarios of what the current value should be were proposed. MPAC takes the position that the correct current value should be $4,850,000 based on sale evidence. However, MPAC is not seeking an increase in the correct current value and is asking the Board to confirm the returned assessment of $4,027,000. No one appeared on behalf of the City.

3Pursuant to s. 19(1) of the Act, the assessment of land shall be based on its current value; and s. 19.2(1)4 provides that, for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years, MPAC is required to assess this value as of the valuation date, January 1, 2016.

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

5Pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act, MPAC takes the position that an equitable reduction of the current value is not required. The Appellant asserts that an equity reduction is required.

Issues for the Hearing

6The issues to be determined on this appeal are:

1. What is the determination of the current value of the Subject Property for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years based on a direct comparison approach?

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

Result

7The Board finds the correct current value of the Subject Property is $3,937,000 as of the valuation date January 1, 2016, which is applicable to the 2020 and 2021 taxation years.

8The Board also finds that an equity reduction pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) is not required.

9Therefore, the Board orders that the returned assessment of $4,027,000 be reduced to $3,937,000 for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years.

ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - What is the determination of the current value of the Subject Property for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years based on a direct comparison approach?

Direct Comparison Approach Based on Sales

10The Direct Comparison Approach estimates the market value by comparing the sale prices of similar properties (in terms of lot size, total building area, year built, quality of construction etc.) that have sold within a reasonable timeframe of the valuation date to the Subject Property. In this case the valuation date is January 1, 2016.

11In 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”.

12For the reasons discussed below, the Board finds the correct current value at the valuation date of January 1, 2016 is $3,937,000.

13Reviewing the evidence in support of current value, the Board finds the three sales of ravine type 1 comparable properties (two sales by MPAC and one sale by both MPAC and the Appellant) to be the best evidence of current value.

MPAC’s Evidence in Support of Current Value

14MPAC’s Representative presents a Valuation Report dated April 30, 2021, which he prepared and testifies to the information contained in the report.

15MPAC’s Representative testifies that the Subject Property is located in Hogg’s Hollow neighourhood of Toronto and is one of the most affluent neighbourhoods, located in the Don River Valley and centered on the intersection of Yonge Street and York Mills Road.

16He testifies that the subdivision of Hogg’s Hollow began in the 1920s with design of homes reflecting the aesthetic of the English countryside; the neighbourhood grew in stages and was finally completed in the 1960s; and in recent years, Hogg’s Hollow has gone through extensive redevelopment with the building of new, very large and very high-quality houses.

17MPAC’s Representative also testifies that the Subject Property abuts a ravine type 1, which represents a positive adjustment of ten percent to the current value. He further explains that the adjustments for ravine type 2 is six percent; abutting multi-residential is a negative five percent; abutting light traffic is a negative seven percent and corner lot is a negative one percent.

18In support of current value, MPAC’s Representative relies on the Direct Comparison Approach and presents 10 proposed comparable properties, sold in 2015 and 2016 which in the same homogeneous neighbourhood as the Subject Property identified as C60.

19MPAC’s Representative provides both the actual and time-adjusted sale prices and relies on the time-adjusted sale prices in his analysis. The following Table 1 is the analysis of the 10 proposed comparable properties:

Table 1

MPAC’s Sales Analysis

10 PROPOSED COMPARABLE PROPERTIES	LOT SIZE (square foot (sq. ft.)	TOTAL BUILDING AREA (sq. ft.)	QUALITY RATING	YEAR BUILT	SALE DATE	SALE PRICE ($)	SALE PRICE (time adjusted (TAS) ($)	TAS ($) (adjusted for site variables ravine, multi-residential, light traffic, and corner lot) per sq. ft. based on total building area)
24 Ivor Road	11,352	5,143	9	2010	2015	3,850,000	4,482,853	959
3 Campbell Crescent	13,260	5,330	9	2004	2016	4,278,000	4,101,766	1,052
11 Campbell Crescent	12,000	4,938	9	2015	2015	4,125,000	4,423,673	1,093
86 Donwoods Drive	9,272.20	4,649	9	2000	2016	4,300,000	3,937,481	847
1 York Valley Crescent	7,650	3,657	9	2003	2015	3,449,900	3,749,047	1,138
11 York Valley Crescent	10,318	5,672	9	2006	2016	4,550,000	4,074,795	790
2 Green Valley Road	12,054	4,807	8.5	1979	2016	4,280,000	3,919,167	905
2 Green Valley Road	12,054	4,807	8.5	1979	2015	3,850,000	4,128,761	953
11 Green Valley Road	12,358	6,583	9	2000	2016	5,300,000	4,746,465	721
8 York Valley Crescent	12,600	6,500	9	2008	2015	5,210,000	5,514,635	848
Median								929
Subject Property	10,200	5,221	9	1952	NIL	N/A	N/A	N/A

20Based on the above analysis, MPAC’s Representative is of the view that the median adjusted TAS per square foot (“sq. ft”) of $929 of all 10 sales to be the best evidence. When this rate is applied to the Subject Property it results in a current value of $4,850,309 ($929 x 5,221 sq. ft. of total building area for the Subject Property).

21Therefore, MPAC’s Representative is of the opinion that current value of the Subject Property is $4,850,309.

22MPAC’s Representative confirms that he has not adjusted for differences in characteristics such as lot size, total building area, quality, and year built. Instead, he relies on the median time-adjusted sale price per sq. ft. adjusted for ravine lots, corner lot, light traffic and abutting multi-residential property.

Appellants’ Evidence in Support of Current Value

23In support of current value, the Appellants’ Representative relies on the Direct Comparison Approach, and presents a spreadsheet analysis of five sales which occurred in 2016 and 2017 and located in the same homogeneous neighbourhood as the Subject Property identified as C60. The Appellants’ Representative provides both the actual and time-adjusted sale prices and relies on the time-adjusted sale prices in his analysis. The following Table 2 is the analysis of the five proposed comparable properties:

Table 2

Appellants’ Sales Analysis

5 PROPOSED COMPARABLE PROPERTIES	Ravine Type 1 or Ravine Type 2	LOT SIZE (square foot (sq. ft.)	TOTAL BUILDING AREA (sq. ft.)	QUALITY RATING	YEAR BUILT	SALE DATE	SALE PRICE ($)	SALE PRICE (time adjusted (TAS) ($)	TAS (adjusted for ravine lot per sq. ft. based on total building area) ($)
86 Donwoods Drive	1	9,272.2	4,649	9	2000	2016	4,300,000	3,938,800	847.74
3 Campbell Crescent	2	13,260	5,330	9	2004	2016	4,288,000	4,112,192	763.80
11 York Valley Crescent	Nil	10,318	5,672	9	2006	2016	4,550,000	4,076,800	718.76
4 Ivor Road	2	8,292.8	4,799	8.5	2000	2016	2,950,000	2,731,700	591.99
18 Brookfield Road	Nil	16,218	4,594	9	2002	1017	3,600,000	2838,052	617.77
Average		11,472.20	5,009	9	2002	2016	3,937,600	3,539,508	707.91
Subject Property		10,200	5,221	9	1952	NIL	N/A	N/A	N/A

24The above analysis shows that these five proposed comparable properties when the time-adjusted sale prices per sq. ft. were further adjusted for ravine lot to reflect similar adjustment received by the Subject Property it results in median adjusted sale price of $707.91 per sq. ft. When this average adjusted sale price is applied to the Subject Property it results in a current value of $3,696,012 ($707.91 x 5,221 sq. ft. based on total building area).

25Based on the evidence, the Appellant’s Representative is of the opinion that the current value should be $3,696,012.

Finding of the current value of the Subject Property for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years

26Reviewing the evidence presented in support of current value, the Board finds the best evidence are the sales of three comparable properties presented by MPAC and the Appellant (two sales by MPAC and one sale by both) which occurred in 2015 and 2016. These three comparable properties are located at 86 Donwoods Drive, sold in 2016 at a time-adjusted sale price of $3,937,481; at 11 Green Valley Road, sold in 2016 at a time-adjusted sale price of $4,746,465 and at 8 York Valley Crescent, sold in 2015 at a time-adjusted sale price of $5,514,635. The sale prices of these three comparable properties range from $3,937,481 - $5,514,635.

27These three comparable properties have on average a year built of 2003, a lot size of 11,410 sq. ft., a quality rating of 9, a total building area of 5,910 sq. ft., finished basement of 2,381 sq. ft., a time-adjusted sale price of $4,732,860, are ravine type 1 properties and located in the same homogeneous neighbourhood (C60) as the Subject Property. This is compared to the Subject Property with a year built of 1952, a lot size of 10,200 sq. ft., a total building area of 5,221 sq. ft., no finished basement, and a quality rating of 9.

28The Board finds that although the above three comparable properties are similar ravine type properties to the Subject Property, they are larger in total lot size, significantly larger in total building (689 sq. ft.), newer built homes and with 2,381 sq. ft. of finished basement (the Subject Property has no basement). Therefore, the Board did not rely on the average time-adjusted sale price and finds that the Subject Property would sell at the lower end of the time-adjusted sale price ranges of $3,937,000 (rounded) because the Subject Property is significantly smaller in total building area, with no basement and significantly older than the three comparable properties.

29Based on the above analysis, the Board finds that the time-adjusted sale of $3,937,000 represents 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. Therefore, the Board determines the correct current value to be $3,937,000 rounded.

30In regard to the sales of the remaining seven comparable properties presented by MPAC (shown in the above analysis), the Board did not rely on these sales for the following reasons:

I. The remaining seven sales of comparable properties are not ravine type 1 properties as the Subject Property; and

II. They are on average significantly newer, smaller in total building area, with significantly larger finished basement area, and a number of these comparable properties require adjustments (negative/positive) for ravine type 1, corner lot, abutting light traffic and abutting multi-residential property.

31Based on the above reasons, the Board finds that these varied differences in characteristics to the Subject Property would require substantial adjustments in order to make them similar to the Subject Property. As no quantifiable evidence was adduced before this Board to adjust for the majority of these differences, the Board relies on the three comparable properties (ravine type 1 as the Subject Property) located in the same homogeneous neighbourhood as the Subject Property, which the Board finds to be the best evidence of current value.

32In reviewing the Appellants’ five sales in support of current value, the Board relies on the sale of one comparable property at 86 Donwoods Drive, sold in 2016 (also presented by MPAC) in its findings of correct current value as stated above.

33The remaining four sales of comparable properties (shown in the above analysis), were not relied on by the Board, because these four comparable properties are not ravine type 1 properties, they are significantly newer with significant differences in total building area, lot sizes, year built, and site variances (ravine type 1, abuts light traffic) that would require substantial adjustments in order to make them similar to the Subject Property. However, there is no quantifiable evidence adduced before this Board to adjust for the majority of these differences. Therefore, the Board relies on the three comparable properties (ravine type 1) located in the same homogeneous neighbourhood as the Subject Property, which the Board finds to be the best evidence of current value.

34Based on all the evidence, the Board find the correct current value is $3,937,000.

Issue 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

35Section 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 to 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.

MPAC’s Evidence

36MPAC presents an Equity Analysis Report in which the assessments of 30 similar comparable properties (similar in general nature, character and 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.

37MPAC states that these 30 comparable properties with Property Code 301- Single-Family Detached (not on water) are similar property type residential homes as the Subject Property, sold over the period January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2016 and located within 1.0 kilometre of the Subject Property.

38MPAC states that the analysis of the sales of these 30 comparable properties shows a Level of Appraisal (“LOA”) of 0.973 and a Coefficient of Dispersion (“COD”) of 9.1.

39MPAC explains that the LOA measures central tendency and the mid-point of the ASR ratios, and the median ASR is the preferred measure to determine the LOA, because it is not affected by very low or high ratios. MPAC also explains that the COD measures appraisal uniformity by determining the average deviation from the median ASR. Based on this finding, MPAC’s opinion is that an equity reduction is not required.

Appellants’ Evidence

40In support of Equity, the Appellants’ Representative relies on 286 residential sales that were used by MPAC to compute the Time Adjustment Factor for adjusting sale prices to the valuation date of January 1, 2016. The report shows that these sales are from neighbourhood and adjoining neighbourhoods.

41The report also shows that these 286 sales occurred in 2015 to 2016 with a median ASR of 0.951 and when the ASR is capped at an ASR of 1.70 it reflects a median ASR of 0.941. Based on this capping approach of the ASR, the Appellants’ Representative is of the opinion that an equity reduction is required.

42On cross-examination, the Appellants’ Representative states that the 286 sales used in his report include all residential properties except for (condominiums) and was unable to say exactly which neighbourhood the sales were from, and how far away they are located in relation to the Subject Property.

Findings on Equity

43Based on 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 Property Code 301 – Single Family Detached (not on water) as the Subject Property. They are similar in nature, character and function; and located within 1.0 kilometre of the Subject Property.

44The analysis shows that these 30 sales of similar properties have a LOA (ASR) of 0.973 which falls within MPAC’s standard of 0.95 – 1.05 and within the International Association of Assessing Officers (“IAAO”) standards of 0.90 – 1.10 which the Board accepts and finds that this evidence does not support an equity reduction.

45The Board rejects the Appellants’ equity analysis of 286 proposed comparable properties for the following reasons:

I. The sales are from distances not defined in the report, which does not demonstrate its’ location in relation to the Subject Property;

II. The sales include residential properties such as townhouses and semi-detached that are not similar to the Subject Property, which is a single family detached home; and

III. The Appellants’ Representative relies on the median ASR of 0.941 which was based on capping the sales at an ASR of 1.70, as opposed to the median of all 286 sales with an ASR of 0.951 which does not support an equity reduction. The Board finds that this approach of capping seems to demonstrate a lack of confidence in the report presented in support of an equity reduction.

46Based on the above evidence, the Board finds that an equity reduction is not required.

CONCLUSION

47The Board finds the correct current value for the Subject Property at the valuation date January 1, 2016 is $3,937,000. This correct current value is applicable to the 2020 and 2021 taxation years.

48The Board also finds that an equity reduction pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) is not required.

ORDER

49The Board orders the returned assessment of $4,027,000 be reduced to $3,937,000 for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years.

"Jennifer Griffith"

JENNIFER GRIFFITH

MEMBER

Assessment Review Board

Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb