Assessment Review Board
ISSUE DATE: December 29, 2021
Assessed Person(s): Caryl Schwartz
Appellant(s): Caryl Schwartz
Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 09
Respondent(s): City of Toronto
Property Location(s): 5 Bayview Ridge Crescent
Municipality(ies): City of Toronto
Roll Number(s): 1908-081-600-00100-0000
Appeal Number(s): 3435315 and 3442223
Taxation Year(s): 2020 and 2021
Hearing Event No.: 753392
Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Representative |
|---|---|
| Caryl Schwartz | Surin Toor |
| Municipal Property Assessment Corporation | Carlo Bassi |
| City of Toronto | No one appeared |
HEARD: November 16, 2021 by telephone conference call
ADJUDICATOR(S): Jennifer Griffith, Member
DECISION
OVERVIEW
1Caryl Schwartz (the “Assessed Person/Appellant”) is the owner of 5 Bayview Ridge Crescent (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 Appellant filed appeals for the returned assessment of $3,663,000 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 Appellant’s position that the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation’s (“MPAC”) current value assessment of $3,663,000 is too high and that the correct current value should be $3,385,000 based on equity. MPAC takes the position that the correct current value should be in the range of $4,264,800 to $4,767,900 based on sales evidence. However, MPAC is not seeking an increase in the correct current value and is asking the Board to confirm the returned assessment of $3,663,000. 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 these appeals are:
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?
Whether there should be an equitable reduction of the current value pursuant to s. 44(3) of the [Act](