Tribunals Ontario / Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario
Assessment Review Board / Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: March 19, 2021 FILE NO.: WR 168692
Assessed Person(s): Marion Linda Seidler Appellant(s): Marion Seidler Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 13 Respondent(s): Town of Whitby Property Location(s): 111 Fencerow Drive Municipality(ies): Town of Whitby Roll Number(s): 1809-040-035-03688-0000 Appeal Number(s): 3415625 Taxation Year(s): 2020 Hearing Event No.: 741081
Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Representative |
|---|---|
| Marion Seidler | Self-represented |
| Municipal Property Assessment Corporation | Carl Goodrich |
| Town of Whitby | No one appeared |
HEARD: February 22, 2021 by telephone conference call
ADJUDICATOR(S): Dan Weagant, Member
DECISION
OVERVIEW
1The Subject Property, 111 Fencerow Drive, is a single-family dwelling. It is described as a bungalow by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) but has a partial second storey, with additional living area above the attached garage. This type of structure is known colloquially as a “bungaloft”. For the 2020 taxation year, MPAC returned a current value assessment (“CVA”) of $551,000.
2Marion Seidler (the “Appellant”) believed the assessment returned was too high and filed an appeal with the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”).
Issues for the Hearing
3At issue in this proceeding is:
- the current value of the Subject Property; and
- whether a reduction in the current value determined should be made for it to represent equitable assessment when reference is made to the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity.
Result
4The Board finds that the current value of the Subject Property is $620,000.
5The Board also finds there is evidence to support a reduction in the current value determined for it to reflect equitable assessment when reference is made to the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity. The assessment of the Subject Property is therefore reduced from $551,000 to $548,000 in the Residential property class for the 2020 taxation year.
ANALYSIS
Issue 1 – What is the correct current value of the Subject Property for the 2020 taxation year?
6MPAC’s documentary evidence shows that the Subject Property sold in June 2015 for $575,000. The Subject Property’s sale took place approximately six months before the valuation day. MPAC’s time adjustment factor for June 2015 is 1.078. When that factor is applied to the Subject Property’s sale, the value is $619,850, or $620,000 rounded.
7MPAC submitted that the best evidence of current value is this time-adjusted sale value of the Subject Property. MPAC is not seeking an increase in the current value for the 2020 taxation year, submitting that this value supports the current value returned of $551,000. MPAC sought a decision form the Board, confirming the assessment.
8The Appellant did not adduce any evidence related to the sale values of comparable properties. She made no reference to the sale of the Subject Property in 2015. Instead, she compared the assessments of two neighbouring properties. These properties are at 109 Fencerow Drive and 102 Fencerow Drive. The Appellant testified that the assessments of these two properties are $601,000 and $562,000 respectively. They are two-storey dwellings and the Appellant believes two-storey dwellings have more value than bungalows owing to the square footage of living area available.
9109 Fencerow Drive has 2,900 square feet of living area and 102 Fencerow Drive has 2,600 square feet of living area. Based on the comparison of the Subject Property to these two properties, the Appellant submitted the assessment of the Subject Property should be lower than the assessment returned, of $551,000.
10When questioned by both MPAC and the Board, the Appellant preferred not to state a specific value that represented her opinion of value; reiterating that she believed the assessment returned is too high at $551,000.
Findings on Issue 1
11The Board has widely held that the sale of a subject property is the best evidence of its current value, if that sale is relatively close to the valuation day applicable to the year under appeal. The Subject Property was sold in June 2015 with a time adjusted sale price of $620,000.
12The time adjustment factor is applied to sale prices so that those prices may be compared to one another as though they occurred on the valuation day. The time adjustment factor applied by