Tribunals Ontario
Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario
Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: December 08, 2021
Assessed Person(s): Eva Sommers; Frank Sommers
Appellant(s): Eva Sommers; Frank Sommers
Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 09
Respondent(s): City of Toronto
Property Location(s): 111 Old Forest Hill Road
Municipality(ies): City of Toronto
Roll Number(s): 1904-112-430-00700-0000
Appeal Number(s): 3436461 and 3441415
Taxation Year(s): 2020 and 2021
Hearing Event No.: 755577
Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Representative |
|---|---|
| Eva Sommers and Frank Sommers | Surin Toor |
| Municipal Property Assessment Corporation | Young Woo Kim |
| City of Toronto | No one appeared |
HEARD: November 18, 2021 by telephone conference call
ADJUDICATOR(S): Christopher Voutsinas, Vice-Chair
DECISION
OVERVIEW
1Eva and Frank Sommers (the “Appellants”) are the owners of 111 Old Forest Hill Road, Toronto (the “Subject Property”). The Appellants were represented by Surin Toor who took the position that the assessment was too high for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years.
2The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) was represented by Young Woo Kim who took the position that the current assessed value of $3,250,000 should be confirmed.
3No one appeared on behalf of the Municipality.
Areas of Agreement
4The parties agreed to the Time Adjustment Sales methodology and resulting time adjustment factors presented by MPAC.
Issues for the Hearing
5At issue in this proceeding:
- What is the current value of the Subject Property for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years?
- Is an equity reduction of the current value required, and if so, how much?
Result
6The Assessment Review Board (“Board”) finds that the Subject Property’s correct current value for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years is $3,091,000.
7The Board finds that with reference to similar lands in the vicinity, no equitable reduction of the current value is required for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years.
ANALYSIS
Description of Subject Property
8The Subject Property is a single-family detached residence located at 111 Old Forest Hill Road in the Forest Hill neighbourhood of the City of Toronto. The residence, built in 1952 and renovated in 1988, comprises a two-storey building with a built area of 4,113 square feet (“sq. ft.”) situated on a land area of 0.25 acres. MPAC has assigned a quality of construction to the property of 8 out of a possible 10. The property has an attached garage and an outdoor pool.
Issue 1 – What is the current value of the Subject Property?
9Section 19(1) of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (“Act”) provides that the assessment of land shall be based on its current value. Section 1 of the Act defines current value 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”. For the 2020 and 2021 taxation years, the valuation date is January 1, 2016.
10For value comparison purposes, MPAC and the Appellants presented their respective valuation reports which included both actual and time adjusted sale prices. Time adjusted sale prices estimate the value of a sale as of the January 1, 2016 valuation date based on changes that occurred in the market between the actual sale date and the valuation date. Both MPAC and the Appellants relied on an analysis based on an average time adjusted sale price per square foot of building area to determine the value of the Subject Property.
11During the hearing, the parties also discussed using the bracketing technique to determine the current value of the Subject Property.
12MPAC’s valuation report consisted of five property sales. The Appellants’ report also consisted of five property sales. Of the property sales submitted by both parties, two property sales were common. Specifically, 79 Old Forest Hill Road and 108 Richview Avenue.
13MPAC’s analysis of its property sales resulted in time adjusted sale prices per square foot ranging from $649 to $927 with a median of $798. MPAC applied the median of $798 per square foot to the Subject Property’s built area of 4,113 sq. ft. to arrive at a current value for the Subject Property of $3,286,000.
14The Appellants raised issues of turning traffic and high-rise buildings at the intersection of Eglinton Avenue and Old Forest Hill Road as impacting the Subject Property. The Appellant’s analysis of its property sales resulted in time adjusted sale prices per square foot ranging from $555 to $732 with an average of $640. At the hearing, the Appellants submitted that the property sale at 79 Old Forest Hill Road (with a time adjusted sale price per square foot of $648) was the best property sale for comparison purposes. In its valuation report, the Appellants applied a ‘blended’ (or averaged) value of $644 per sq. ft. to the Subject Property’s built area of 4,113 sq. ft. to arrive at a current value for the Subject Property of $2,651,660. At the hearing, the Appellants submitted the current value of the Subject Property as either $2,650,000 or the time adjusted sale value of 79 Old Forest Hill Road of $2,530,000 (as rounded by the Appellants).
15As described above, both parties utilized an average value per sq. ft. of building area analysis. Generally, this is not a reliable method of determining a property’s current value when the suggested property sales vary broadly along a number of different characteristics such as age, building size, land area, and quality of construction – which is the case here. As a result, the Board used the bracketing technique of property sales analysis. The bracketing technique is based on the principle that inferior properties sell for less than the Subject Property, and that superior properties sell for more. In this case, the bracketing technique is more reliable than a value per sq. ft. of building area.
16Of the combined total of eight property sales submitted by MPAC and the Appellants (5 each with 2 in common), the Board did not rely on the following three property sales:
- MPAC’s property sale 5, 221 Forest Hill Road. This property sale is the furthest away of MPAC’s property sales from the Subject Property; the only one of MPAC’s property sales west of Spadina Avenue; and is located in the D65 neighbourhood (while all MPAC’s other sales are in the D59 neighbourhood, like the Subject Property).
- MPAC’s property sale 3, 101 Vesta Drive. This property sale has the largest land area and largest built area of MPAC’s property sales, and a time adjusted sale price of $4,116,797. The time adjusted sale price of $927 per sq. ft. is a significant outlier when compared to the other property sales. The Appellants testified that this property had undergone a significant and high-end renovation that may not be properly reflected in MPAC’s data.
- The Appellants’ property sale 3, 89 Forest Hill Road. This property is located west of Spadina Avenue and in the D65 neighborhood, (while all of the Appellants’ other sales are in the D59 neighborhood, like the Subject Property). Further, the sale date of November 28, 2014 is outside of the shoulder years of the valuation date of January 1, 2016 and as such, too far removed to be reliable.
17MPAC’s property sale 1, also the Appellants property sale 1, 79 Old Forest Hill Road, is on the same street as the Subject Property. As submitted by the Appellants, this property experiences similar traffic issues originating at the corner of Eglinton and Old Forest Hill Road but is not proximate to the high-rise properties at that intersection, like the Subject Property. This property has a smaller land area (0.22 acres vs. 0.25 acres) and a smaller built area (3,894 sq. ft. vs. 4,113 sq. ft.) than the Subject Property. It has a lower quality of construction of 7.5 vs. 8 for the Subject Property, and an effective year built of 1990 vs. 1986 for the Subject Property. According to MPAC, it has a detached garage and an outdoor pool. On balance, the Board is satisfied that the Subject Property is superior to this property and therefore, would sell for more than this property’s time adjusted sale value of $2,530,787 (Appellants’ $2,525,450).
18MPAC’s property sale 2, also the Appellants’ property sale 2, 108 Richview Avenue, is located 0.9 kilometres (“km”) from the Subject Property. It has a significantly smaller land area (0.18 acres vs. 0.25 acres) and a slightly larger built area (4,257 sq. ft. vs. 4,113 sq. ft.) than the Subject Property. It has a lower quality of construction of 7.5 vs. 8 for the Subject Property, and an effective year built of 1979 vs. 1986 for the Subject Property. According to MPAC, it has an attached garage. Based on the above, the Board is satisfied that the Subject Property is superior to this property and therefore, would sell for more than this property’s time adjusted sale value of $2,368,434 (Appellants’ $2,363,440).
19MPAC’s property sale 4, 100 Vesta Drive, is located 0.93 km from the Subject Property. It has a significantly smaller land area (0.17 acres vs. 0.25 acres) and a notably smaller built area (3,609 sq. ft. vs. 4,113 sq. ft.) than the Subject Property. It has a lower quality of construction of 7.5 vs. 8 for the Subject Property, and an effective year built of 1970 vs. 1986 for the Subject Property. According to MPAC, it has an attached garage and an outdoor pool. Based on the above, the Board is satisfied that the Subject Property is superior to this property and therefore, would sell for more than this property’s time adjusted sale value of $2,883,112.
20The Appellants property sale 4 is located at 24 Rosemary Lane. It has a smaller land lot (0.23 acres vs. 0.25 acres) and a notably smaller built area (3,586 sq. ft. vs. 4,113 sq. ft.) than the Subject Property. It has 50 feet of frontage compared to the Subject Property’s 60 feet. It has a lower quality of construction of 7.5 vs. 8 for the Subject Property. This property is 2.25 storeys vs. the Subject Property’s 2 storeys. Based on the above, the Board is satisfied that the Subject Property is superior to this property and therefore, would sell for more than this property’s time adjusted sale value of $2,625,792.
21The Appellants property sale 5 is located at 14 Rosemary Lane. It has a slightly smaller land lot (0.24 acres vs. 0.25 acres) and a significantly larger built area (5,010 sq. ft. vs. 4,113 sq. ft.) than the Subject Property. It has 60 feet of frontage like the Subject Property. It has a lower quality of construction of 7.5 vs. 8 for the Subject Property. This property has 2.5 storeys vs. the Subject Property’s 2 storeys. On balance, the Board is satisfied that the Subject Property is inferior to this property and therefore, would sell for less than this property’s time adjust sale value of $3,135,585.
Findings on Issue 1
22Based on the evidence received and the above analysis, the Board finds that the Subject Property’s current value is between $2,883,112, the highest value of the inferior properties, and $3,135,585, the value of the sole superior property. As such, the Board finds that the Subject Property’s correct current value is the midpoint of these values, or $3,091,264.
Issue 2 – Is an equity reduction in the current value required, and if so, how much?
23Section 44(3)(b) of the Act 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.
24The Assessment to Sales Ratio (“ASR”) is a tool used to determine whether a reduction of the assessment is required to make it equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity. The ASR is determined by dividing the assessment as returned by the time adjusted sales price.
25The Appellants did not present an equity analysis report but concurred with MPAC’s analysis.
26MPAC presented its equity analysis report. MPAC analysed ASRs for single-family detached residences located within 1.3 km of the Subject Property. This represented a list of 30 properties. The resulting median ASR or level of assessment was 1.03 which MPAC argues is within its acceptable target level of assessment of 0.95 – 1.05. MPAC also calculated the coefficient of dispersion (“COD”) at 9.85. The COD is measured by determining the average percentage deviation from the median ASR. MPAC argues that a COD of no more than 15 is acceptable for residential properties. MPAC submitted that both its ASR of 1.03 and COD of 9.85 indicates that similar properties in the vicinity are being assessed at or near their time adjusted sales values and therefore, an equitable reduction of the current value is not required.
Findings on Issue 2
27The Board accepts MPAC’s equity analysis.
28The Board finds that an equitable reduction in the current value of the Subject Property is not required.
CONCLUSION
29The Board determines that the correct current value of the Subject Property is $3,091,000 (rounded) and that an equitable adjustment is not required.
30The correct current value is lower than the current assessed value of $3,250,000.
ORDER
31The Board orders that the current assessed value of the Subject Property for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years be reduced from $3,250,000 to $3,091,000.
“Christopher Voutsinas”
CHRISTOPHER VOUTSINAS VICE-CHAIR Assessment Review Board
Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb