Tribunals Ontario

Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

March 4, 2021

FILE NO.:

WR 167892

Assessed Person(s):

Kiran Walia and Madanjit Walia

Appellant(s):

Kiran Walia

Respondent(s):

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 15

Respondent(s):

City of Brampton

Property Location(s):

29 Bellini Avenue

Municipality(ies):

City of Brampton

Roll Number(s):

2110-120-002-31004-0000

Appeal Number(s):

3415467

Taxation Year(s):

2020

Hearing Event No.:

738870

Legislative Authority:

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

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Representative

Walia Kiran

Gurjit Grewal

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation

Olivia Medeiros

City of Brampton

No one appeared

HEARD:

January 6, 2021 by telephone conference

ADJUDICATOR:

Anthony LaRegina, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1Gurjit Grewal, Representative on behalf of the property owner Walia Kiran (the “Appellant”) filed a property assessment appeal for the 2020 taxation year with the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) regarding their property located at 29 Bellini Avenue (“Subject Property”) in the City of Brampton (“City”). It is the Appellant’s position that the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation’s (“MPAC”) current value assessment is too high and that the correct current value assessment should be $1,515,000. At this hearing, MPAC has taken the position that the current value assessment should be confirmed at $1,789,000.

2Pursuant to s. 40(11) of the of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (“Act”), the City of Brampton (“City”) is a party to this proceeding. No one appeared at the hearing on behalf of the City, and no evidence was submitted on its behalf.

Issues for the Hearing

3At issue in this proceeding is:

1. a determination of the current value of the Subject Property; and

2. whether an equity reduction in the current value should be made to compensate for the assessment of similar lands in the vicinity.

Result

4The Board finds that the current value of the Subject Property for the 2020 taxation year is $1,846,000. Pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act, no further equitable reduction to the current value is required to compensate for the assessment of similar lands in the vicinity. MPAC is not requesting an increase in assessment and therefore the Board confirms the returned value of $1,789,000 for the 2020 taxation year.

Description of Subject Property

5The Subject Property is a single-family detached residence (not on water), located at 29 Bellini Avenue in the City of Brampton. The actual and effective site area is 2.09 acres. The structure is a two-storey single family home of quality 8 construction built in 1989, with a total building area of 5,646 square feet consisting of 3,090 square feet on the main floor, 2,556 square feet on the second floor and 3,162 square feet in the basement with no finished space. The home is in average condition and has 4 bedrooms, 3.5 bathrooms and 1 fireplace. This Subject Property also has two attached garages: one with a building area of 670 square feet and the other with 480 square feet.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

Issue 1 – Current Value

6The first issue to be determined on this appeal is the correct current value of the Subject Property for the 2020 taxation year. Pursuant to s. 19(1) of the Act, the assessment of land shall be based on its current value. The Act also provides that, for the 2017 to 2020 taxation years, MPAC is required to assess this value as of the valuation date, January 1, 2016 (“current value”). As defined in the Act, “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.” This statutory language translates into the market value of the Subject Property as of January 1, 2016.

7In order to determine the market value, MPAC has utilized the direct sales comparison approach and submitted into evidence the sale of comparable properties in the vicinity of the Subject Property. The comparable properties rarely sell on the valuation day of January 1, 2016, and therefore their sale values are time-adjusted to greater or reduced values depending on whether the date of the sale occurred before or after the valuation day. According to the time-adjusted evidence submitted by MPAC, there was a 31.88% increase in market value over a 23-month period starting January 5, 2015. MPAC created a time adjustment factor table by month covering the same period and applied these values to time-adjust the comparable sales which it provided in evidence.

MPAC’s Comparable Properties

8The Board has reviewed and analysed the four suggested comparable property sales and the two vacant land sales, sold between 2015 and 2016 in the vicinity of the Subject Property, as submitted by MPAC (see Table 1 below).

Table 1 - MPAC’s Comparable Property Sales

Subject Property

Property 1

Property 2

Property 3

Property 4

Property 5

Property 6

Address

29 Bellini Avenue

6 Rae Avenue

18 Lucinda Court

44 Bellini Avenue

10820 McVean Drive

6 Cheval Court

34 Rosegarden Drive

Distance from Subject - kilometres

1.4771

1.3513

0.3143

0.9676

1.3257

1.6277

Current Value Assessment $

1,789,000

1,988,000

1,545,000

1,595,000

1,335,000

1,127,000

710,000

Sale Date

April 2015

July 2015

December 2016

August 2016

Sept 2015

May 2015

Sale Value $

1,500,000

1,325,000

2,100,000

1,610,000

1,165,000

1,250,000

TAS Value $

1,669,680

1,418,260

1,846,167

1,447,513

1,214,257

1,369,003

Property Code and Description

(301) Single Family Detached

(301) Single Family Detached

(301) Single Family Detached

(301) Single Family Detached

(301) Single Family Detached

(100) Vacant Residential Land

(100) Vacant Residential Land

Actual/Effective Year Built

1989

1990

1988

1991

1980

Quality

8

8

8

8

8

Effective Site Area Acres

2.09

2.0

1.97

2.0

2.0

2.07

2.14

Total Building Area – Square Feet

5,646

6,371

4,272

3,878

2,899

First Floor – square feet

3,090

4,428

2,317

1,921

1,476

Subject Property

Property 1

Property 2

Property 3

Property 4

Property 5

Property 6

Second Floor – square feet

2,556

2,943

1,955

1,957

1,423

Basement Area – square feet

3,162

3,740

2,317

1,998

1,506

Finished Basement Area – square feet

0

2,244

789

1,279

1,254

Full Storeys

2

2

2

2

2

Bedrooms

4

4

4

7

4

Baths

3.5

3.5

4.5

4.0

3.5

Outdoor Pool

Yes

MPAC’s Opinion of Comparability

Similar

Similar

Similar

Similar

Not Similar

Not Similar

9In order to determine the current value as of January 1, 2016, Olivia Medeiros, valuation witness for MPAC, determined the time-adjusted sale value per square foot for each of the four sales to be $262.08, $331.99, $476.68 and $509.66. Applying the median value of $404.33 to the building area of the Subject Property of 5,646 square feet, Ms. Medeiros determined that the current value to be $2,281,000 rounded.

10MPAC also entered two vacant land sales of similar size to the Subject Property located within two kilometres of the Subject Property with time-adjusted sale values of $1,214,257 and $1,369,003. Ms. Medeiros concluded that if the median sale value of a similar vacant lot to the Subject Property is $1,291,630, which represents 72% of the current value assessment of the Subject Property, then the current value of $1,789,000 is reasonable for the Subject Property which also includes the structure with a building area of 5,646 square feet.

11MPAC requests that the Board find the current value to be $2,281,000 and further requests that the returned current value assessment be confirmed at $1,789,000 as MPAC is not requesting an increase in value.

Appellant’s Comparable Properties

12The Appellant submitted six property sales which occurred in 2015, 2016 and 2017 itemized as follows (see Table 2 below).

Table 2 - Municipality’s Comparable Property Sales

Address

Lot Size Acres

Building Size – square feet

Sale Date

Current Value Assessment /Sale Price $

Rate Per square feet Building

29 Bellini Avenue (Subject Property)

2.09

5,646

1,789,000

316.87

3 Bloomsbury Avenue

0.117

5,500

June 2017

1,425,000

259.09

9 Bowman Avenue

2.05

4,973

June 2016

1,410,000

283.53

6 Rae Avenue

2.0

6,371

April 2015

1,500,000

235.44

38 Eastview Gate

2.0

4,574

September 2015

1,236,000

270.22

15 Farina Drive

1.97

5,334

August 2015

1,635,000

306.52

21 Bowman Avenue

2.03

5,027

October 2015

1,320,000

262.58

Median

266.40

Mean

268.29

13The Appellant has taken the position that the current value of the Subject Property should be based on the mean sale value per square feet of building area for the six comparable property sales of $268.29, applied to the Subject Property’s building area of 5,646 square feet, resulting in a current value of $1,515,000 for the Subject Property.

Findings on Issue 1 - Current Value

14In support of establishing a current value for the Subject Property, the Board will rely on the four comparable property sales submitted by MPAC located within 1.5 kilometres from the Subject Property. MPAC has identified these four properties as being the most similar property sales which they could find in the vicinity. The four comparable properties all have two acre lots with two-storey homes of quality 8 construction in average condition and therefore considered similar to the Subject Property.

15However, the Board does not agree with MPAC’s methodology in determining the current value by utilizing the time adjusted sale value per square foot approach. This approach is fine when the building areas of the four comparable properties are very similar. In this case, the building areas range from 2,899 square feet to 6,371 square feet and the time-adjusted sale prices range from $1,418,260 up to $1,846,167. The comparable properties are substantially different in building area from the Subject Property and therefore this approach does not yield an accurate result for current value.

16The Board will therefore use the range of time-adjusted sale values of MPAC’s comparable property sales to establish the current value of the Subject Property. After reviewing all the evidence, including the photographs of the Subject Property demonstrating very attractive architectural design features with extensive stonework and landscaping verses the comparable properties as well as the fact that the Subject Property has one of the largest building areas, the Board concludes that the Subject Property’s current value should, at the very least, be at the higher end of the range. The Board therefore finds the current value of the Subject Property to be $1,846,167 rounded to $1,846,000 representing the top of the time adjusted sale value range of the comparable properties submitted by MPAC.

17The Board has also analysed the Appellant’s evidence of current value and makes the following observations:

1. The comparable property sale values have not been time-adjusted,

2. The comparable properties have no detail with regards to whether they are two-storey structures or bungalows,

3. The quality of construction is not provided for the comparable properties,

4. The effective age of the comparable properties has not been provided.

18Given the lack of detail about the Appellant’s proposed comparable properties, the Board cannot make a direct comparison to the Subject Property and will therefore reject the evidence submitted by the Appellant to establish current value of the Subject Property.

19However, based on the limited information for the comparable properties submitted by the Appellant, the Board notes that the most similar property to the Subject Property appears to be 15 Farina Drive, which has a lot with 1.97 acres, building area of 5,334 square feet and was sold in August 2015 for $1,635,000. Using MPAC’s time adjustment factors, the time-adjusted sale value for 15 Farina Drive is $1,685,685, resulting in a time-adjusted sale value per square feet of $316.026. Applying this to the building area of the Subject Property of 5,646 square feet results in a current value of $1,784,285 for the Subject Property, which is almost identical to the current value assessment of $1,789,000 returned by MPAC.

20The Board has also analysed the two vacant lot sales provided by MPAC and concludes that these two properties are only similar in lot size to the Subject Property. The Board cannot draw any definitive conclusion from the sale of the two vacant lots to support the current value of the Subject Property, which also has a 5,646 square foot structure. The Board therefore attributes no weight to the vacant lot sales in establishing the current value of the Subject Property.

21Based on the best available evidence, the Board finds the current value of 29 Bellini Avenue to be $1,846,000 for the 2020 taxation year.

Issue 2 – Equitable Reduction in Assessed Value

22Section 44(3)(b) 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.”

23The Assessment to Sales Ratio (“ASR”) of a sample of sold properties is a tool often used to determine if a property in the vicinity is assessed below its current value. If other properties are assessed below their current value, a reduction in the assessment below current value is required to make the assessment equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity. The ASR is determined by comparing the assessment as returned to the time-adjusted sale price, expressed as a mathematical ratio.

24MPAC presented an equity analysis of 30 property sales of single-family detached not on water with a property code of 301 that occurred from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2016, located within two kilometres of the Subject Property. This equity analysis of 30 properties results in a median ASR of 0.989 with a Coefficient of Dispersion (“COD”) of 8.3. Ms. Medeiros submits that MPAC’s standards indicate that for residential properties, the median ASR should fall between 0.95 and 1.05, and the COD should be less than 15. If the median ratio falls within this range, this reveals that the current value assessments are reflective of sales prices in the vicinity and therefore, no further adjustment is required. In this case, the median ASR falls within the range at 0.989 and the COD is 8.3. Therefore, Ms. Medeiros recommends no further downward adjustment is required to the current value of the Subject Property.

25The Appellant has not introduced any evidence in support of an equity argument.

Findings on Issue 2 - Equitable Reduction in Assessed Value

26The Board finds that MPAC’s evidence of 30 property sales resulting in ASRs of 0.989 to be the best evidence in support of equity.These sales are all time-adjusted and the resulting ASRs are within the acceptable range of 0.95 to 1.05.

27The Board finds that based on MPAC’s equity study which resulted in ASRs of 0.989, no additional downward adjustment is warranted to the current value of the Subject Property to ensure that the assessment is equitable with the assessment of similar properties in the vicinity.

CONCLUSION

28The Board finds that the correct current value of the Subject Property is $1,846,000 for the 2020 taxation year. Furthermore, the Board finds that no equitable reduction is required under s. 44(3)(b) of the Act.

ORDER

29MPAC has not requested an increase in assessment, therefore the Board orders the assessment of the Subject Property be confirmed at $1,789,000 for the 2020 taxation year.