Tribunals Ontario
Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario
Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE:
February 24, 2021
FILE NO.:
WR 168546
Assessed Person(s):
Raymond Phillibert Bergeron and Carol Lynn Bergeron
Appellant(s):
Raymond Phillibert Bergeron and Carol Lynn Bergeron
Respondent(s):
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 32
Respondent(s):
Province of Ontario
Property Location(s):
2 Whitesand Lake Road
Municipality(ies):
Province of Ontario
Roll Number(s):
5811-040-001-12300-0000
Appeal Number(s):
3421948, 3421949, 3421964, 3421965 and 3421966
Taxation Year(s):
2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020
Hearing Event No.:
739465 and 741764
Legislative Authority:
Section 32 and 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Representative
Raymond Phillibert Bergeron and Carol Lynn Bergeron
Raymond Phillibert Bergeron
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
Glenn Spiess
Province of Ontario
No one appeared
HEARD:
February 3, 2021 and February 10, 2021 by telephone conference call.
ADJUDICATOR(S):
Joanne Laws, Member
DECISION
OVERVIEW
1Carol Lynn Bergeron and Raymond Phillibert Bergeron are the owners of 2 Whitesand Lake Road (the “Subject Property”) in the unorganized territory of Superior-Greenstone District Locality Education. Because the Subject Property is not located in an organized Municipality, the Province of Ontario represents the municipal party.
2Mr. Bergeron (the “Appellant”) attended the hearing and takes the position that the assessed values are too high.
3The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) was represented by Glenn Spies and takes the position that the assessed values are correct but that an adjustment for equity, pursuant to s. 44(3) of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (“Act”) is required.
4Pursuant to s. 40(11) of the Act, the Municipality is a party to this proceeding. However, no one appeared on its behalf.
Preliminary Issue – S. 32 Appeal
5The docket for this hearing included a s. 32 appeal for the 2019 taxation year in the amount of $298,000. The Board has no record of this appeal being made.
6I asked the parties for submissions and each confirmed they had not made this appeal. They agreed that the matters before the Board are:
a. a 2017 s. 40 appeal for an assessed value of $410,000; and,
b. s. 40 appeals for 2018, 2019 and 2020, each for the assessed value of $409,000.
7Because there is no appellant on record and no evidence to support the s. 32 appeal, it is dismissed.
Issues for the Hearing
8At issue in this proceeding is:
A determination of the Subject Property’s current value.
Whether an equity reduction is required.
Result
9The current value of the Subject Property is $356,307 for the 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 taxation years in the Residential Property Class.
10An equitable reduction, pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act is required. The equitable value of the Subject Property is $330,000 for the same taxation years.
ANALYSIS
Description of the Subject Property
11This waterfront property is 0.9 acres and has been improved with a one-and-a-half storey, single-family detached residence measuring 1,952 square feet (“sq. ft.”) with a basement measuring 966 sq. ft., 642 of which is finished. The residence was built in 1965 but underwent renovations and additions which were completed in 2012. As a result, MPAC allocated an effective age of 1995 for the entire residence and allocated it with a 6.5 out of 10 quality of construction. In addition to the residence, there is a shed and a detached garage.
Issue 1 – What is the Current Value?
12MPAC recommends the value of $409,000 for all four taxation years.
13Section 19(1) of the 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.” Section 19.2 of the Act provides that for 2017 through 2020 taxation years the valuation day is January 1, 2016.
14There are a number of methods to determine a property’s current value. Some examples are:
an open market, arm’s length sale of the Subject Property occurring near the valuation day,
an appraisal of the Subject Property,
comparing similar properties that are located near the Subject Property which have open market, arm’s length sales occurring near the valuation day.
15The evidence is that the Subject Property was last sold in 1990 which is too far from the January 1, 2016 valuation day to be of assistance.
16MPAC presented six waterfront properties (see Attachment 1) which were sold from 2013 to 2017 and are located between 0.8 to 50 kilometres from the Subject Property. In addition, MPAC included photographs of the Subject Property and the six sale properties in its evidence, all of which are appreciated.
17MPAC utilized a bracketing technique, the proposition of which is that inferior properties will sell for less than the Subject Property, superior properties would sell for more and similar properties would reflect the value of the Subject Property. MPAC takes the position that, of its six sale properties, 1, 2 and 3 are inferior to the Subject Property, 5 and 6 are superior and 4 is the most comparable and concluded that the recommended value of $409,000 is the correct current value for the four taxation years.
18In reviewing the data, I agree that properties 1, 2 and 3, are inferior to the Subject Property and, therefore, it would sell for more than $257,754, the highest time-adjusted sale value of the three.
19The Appellant argued that properties 4, 5 and 6 are located in a different and superior market than the Subject Property. They are located closer to prospective purchasers from Thunder Bay and the road conditions between these three properties and the Subject Property difficult and undesirable. I accept the Appellant’s evidence and find that properties 4, 5 and 6 are located in a superior market.
20Property 4 has aspects that are superior and inferior to the Subject Property. It is superior because it has a slightly larger lot and residence and it is located in a superior market. It is similar in age but has a lower quality of construction, less bathrooms, no basement and only one fireplace. I agree with MPAC that, on balance, it is similar to the Subject Property. As such, the Subject Property would sell for a similar time-adjusted sale value of $356,307.
21I find that property 5 is, on balance, inferior to the Subject Property. It is similar in age but inferior in quality of construction, number of bathrooms, building size and because it does not have a fireplace; the Subject Property has two fireplaces. Despite the fact that it is located in a superior market, I conclude that the numerous inferior aspects outweigh the single superior aspect. Accordingly, the Subject Property would likely sell for more than its time-adjusted sale price of $283,495.
22Property 6 is, on balance, superior to the Subject Property. It has a larger lot, a larger and newer residence with a 7.5 quality of construction, two garages, one of which is twice the size of the Appellants’ single garage, and it has a pool house/cabana. It does not have a basement and has only one fireplace, but I do not find these are significant issues when compared to the superior factors. It is located more than 30 kilometres west of the Subject Property and, as noted above, I accept the Appellant’s testimony that the locational market is superior. Accordingly, I find that the Subject Property would sell for less than the time-adjusted sale price of $562,800.
23MPAC also submitted a sale value per square foot analysis but did not rely on it to determine the Subject Property’s current value but to illustrate that the value of $409,000 is reasonable. I have given this analysis no weight because, as noted by MPAC, this type of analysis will not result in a reliable estimate of current value. Such an analysis is most often used where the suggested comparable sale properties are very near or wholly identical to the Subject Property. This is not the case here.
24The Appellant argued that the local real estate market would not support a property sale of $409,000 and that the Subject Property would not sell for more than $350,000.
25Mr. Bergeron stated he has personal knowledge of the local market, testifying he had previously lived in nearby Schreiber and Mrs. Bergeron in Terrace Bay, had bought the Subject Property in 1990 while living in Thunder Bay, and that they have resided at the Subject Property full-time since his retirement in 2011. The Appellant testified that the general area, including Schreiber and Terrace Bay, has experienced an economic and population decline over recent decades due to a lack of stable employment. He presented an MPAC document in which the 2016 assessed value of a typical residential home in Terrace Bay Township is $79,000 and a typical waterfront residence is $237,500. He also submitted economic and census data for the local area, Northwestern Ontario and Thunder Bay. I appreciate the Appellant’s personal knowledge of the area. However, his opinion of value was not supported by direct evidence such as comparable sales or other evidence such as an appraisal of the Subject Property. The MPAC document indicates typical values but I received no evidence that the Subject Property is a typical property.
26The Appellant argued that the value of his property should be calculated based on town sales plus 35% for the waterfront. He based this percentage on a document published by MPAC. However, the Appellant submitted no evidence of similar property sale values located in the town.
27The Appellant referenced three recent lot sales, two of which abut the Subject Property and the third is one lot over. He testified that the purchasers advised him of their purchase prices and that all three properties sold below their assessed values by approximately 10%. The Appellant did not provide oral or documentary evidence of the sale values, the assessed values or how the three properties compare to the Subject Property.
28In conclusion, the Appellant did not provide me with evidence that would assist in determining the Subject Property’s current value.
Findings on Issue 1
29The best evidence received to determine the Subject Property’s current value is MPAC’s sales. I conclude from this evidence and using the bracketing technique that the Subject Property’s current value is $356,307 as of the January 1, 2016 valuation day.
Issue 2 – Is an Equity Adjustment Required?
30The Act provides that I must also consider whether the Subject Property’s current value is equitable by referencing the value at which similar lands in the vicinity are assessed.
31The Appellant presented no evidence on this issue.
32MPAC presented an Equity Study of 30 sales, using an assessment to sale ratio analysis and concluded that the Subject Property’s current value should be reduced by 0.925, or 9.25%. The criteria for selecting the property sales were:
open market sales which occurred from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2017,
single family detached residences with more than 700 sq. ft. and built after 1950,
waterfront,
seasonal/recreation,
lot sizes between 0.10 and 5.25 acres, and
within 75 kilometres of the Subject Property.
Findings on Issue 2
33In determining whether an equitable adjustment is required, the criteria is not as stringent as those for determining the current value. Clause 44(3)(b) of the Act provides that, in determining whether an adjustment of the current value is required to make it equitable, I must “have reference to the value at which similar lands in the vicinity are assessed.” The word ‘similar’ is not defined in the Act.
34In Municipal Property Assessment Corporation v Loblaw Properties Limited, 2017 ONSC 1299, the Divisional Court contemplated the meaning of ‘similar lands’ in relation to clause 44(3)(b) of the Act. Referencing Trizec Equities Ltd v Ontario (Regional Assessment Commissioner, Region No 27), [1988] OJ No 182, 27 OAC 203, 37 MPLR 175, 8 ACWS (3d) 399 (Div. Ct.) (“Trizec”) it found, at paragraph 25, that “the proper approach to be taken to determining what are “similar lands in the vicinity” is that set out by Saunders J. in Trizec, that is, that all points of comparison must be considered.”
35I find that MPAC’s comparison factors are sufficient to meet the test and find that an adjustment to the current value is required to achieve an equitable assessment. Accordingly, the current value is reduced to $330,000, rounded ($356,307 x 0.925).
CONCLUSION
36I find that the correct current value of the Subject Property is $356,307 for the 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 taxation years. Pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act a reduction for equity is required. The equitable value is $330,000.
ORDER
37The Board orders that:
a. The s. 32 deemed appeal for 2019 is dismissed.
b. The current and equitable value of the Subject Property is $330,000 for the 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 taxation years.
"Joanne Laws"
JOANNE LAWS
MEMBER
Assessment Review Board
Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb
Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248
Attachment 1
MPAC’S Appendix E – Market Analysis Grid
Subject Property
Property #1
Property #2
Property #3
Property #4
Property #5
Property #6
Roll Number
581104000112300
581104000104200
581104000106400
585100000326200
581101000105000
589857000002500
581101000105200
Address
2 WHITESAND LAKE RD
LT 41 AND 42 HUNTER RD
LOT 64 WHITESAND LAKE
225 WALKER LAKE DR
34 MOUNTAIN BAY DR
PLAN M239 LOT 3 KAMA BAY
36 MOUNTAIN BAY DR
Neighbourhood
P03 - 477
P03 - 477
P03 - 477
P03 - 477
P01 - 477
O31 - 5842
P01 - 477
Property Code & Desc.
(313)
Single Family Detached
On Water
(391)
Seasonal/Recreational Dwelling First Tier On Water
(313)
Single Family Detached
On Water
(391)
Seasonal/Recreational Dwelling First Tier On Water
(391)
Seasonal/Recreational Dwelling First Tier On Water
(391)
Seasonal/Recreational Dwelling First Tier On Water
(313)
Single Family Detached
On Water
Distance in km
1.0615
0.0854
6.2628
30.7178
49.8101
30.6375
Valuation
Current Value Assessment
$409,000
$162,000
$266,000
$160,000
$329,000
$255,000
$719,000
Sale
Sale Date
20131001
20160815
20140530
20140530
20161011
20170428
Sale Amount
$180,000
$250,000
$160,000
$339,000
$295,000
$600,000
Time Adjusted Sale Amount
$200,520
$257,754
$173,280
$356,307
$283,495
$562,800
Time Adjusted Sale Ratio
0.8079
1.032
0.9234
0.9234
0.8995
1.2775
Site
Effective Site Area (Acres)
0.9
5.25
1.85
0.14
1.26
0.72
1.56
Actual Site Area (Acres)
0.9
5.25
1.85
0.14
1.26
0.72
1.56
Residential Structure
Structure Code & Desc.
(301) Single Family
Detached
(301) Single Family
Detached
(301) Single Family
Detached
(301) Single Family
Detached
(301) Single Family
Detached
(301) Single Family
Detached
(301) Single Family Detached
Year Built
1965
1966
1980
1955
1996
2000
2011
Effective Year Built
1995
1966
1983
1994
1996
2000
2011
Structure Condition Code
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Quality of Construction
6.5
4
5
5.5
5
6
7.5
Full Storeys
2 Storeys
1 Storey
1 Storey
1 1/2 Storeys
1 3/4 Storeys
1 Storey
2 Storeys
Baths
2.5
1
1
1
1.5
1
3
Fire Places
2
1
1
Air Conditioning
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Heating Type
Hot Water (Boiler)
No Central Heat
Electric
(Baseboard, Wall Insert)
Electric
(Baseboard, Wall Insert)
Electric
(Baseboard, Wall Insert)
Electric
(Baseboard, Wall Insert)
Forced Air
Building Total Area (SF)
1,952
816
1,298
1,219
1,221
1,210
2,396
First Floor Area (SF)
1600
816
1298
720
774
1210
1,342
Second Floor Area (SF)
352
499
447
1,054
Basement Area (SF)
966
Finished Basement Area (SF)
642
Secondary Structure(s)
Structure Description
(102) Shed
(101) Detached Garage
(127) Outdoor Sauna/Hot Tub
(101) Detached Garage
Year Built
1992
1992
1987
2011
Building Total Area (SF)
450
672
128
908
Quality of Construction
1
3
1
3
Structure Description
(101) Detached Garage
(101) Detached Garage
Year Built
2007
2011
Building Total Area (SF)
624
384
Quality of Construction
3
3
Structure Description
(123) Pool House/Cabana
Year Built
2011
Building Total Area (SF)
200
Quality of Construction
2