Tribunals Ontario

Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

March 24, 2021

FILE NO.:

WR 168846

Assessed Person(s):

Bernard Cassar

Appellant(s):

Bernard Cassar

Respondent(s):

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 15

Respondent(s):

City of Mississauga

Property Location(s):

5385 Durie Road

Municipality(ies):

City of Mississauga

Roll Number(s):

2105-040-097-20322-0000

Appeal Number(s):

3419703

Taxation Year(s):

2020

Hearing Event No.:

741113

Legislative Authority:

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

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Representative

Bernard Cassar

Self-represented

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation

Evan Mendel

City of Mississauga

No one appeared

HEARD:

February 26, 2021 by telephone conference call

ADJUDICATOR(S):

Dan Weagant, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1The subject property, 5385 Durie Road, is a single-family bungalow that was built in the 1950s. It is situated on a lot of some 0.76 acres, with a frontage on Durie Road of 58 feet. The majority of the subject lot area lies behind the existing dwelling and is of an irregular shape, created by a previous severance. For the 2020 taxation year, The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) returned a current value assessment (“CVA”) of $997,000.

2The Appellant believed the assessment returned was too high, indicating that the majority of the value of the property is in the land, and while the lot is larger than many of its neighbours, the value attributed to it is higher than it should be because of its shape and inherent restriction on future use or intensification. The Appellant believes the property should be assessed at $562,290 for 2020.

Issues for the Hearing

3At issue in this proceeding is:

1. the current value of the subject property; and

2. 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 Assessment Review Board (the “Board") finds that the current value of the subject property is $818,000.

5The Board also finds there is no evidence to support a reduction in the current value determined is necessary for it to reflect equitable assessment, when reference is made to the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity.

ANALYSIS

Issue 1 – What is the correct current value of the subject property for the 2020 taxation year?

6MPAC compared the subject property to two properties that sold in the neighborhood and that have similar characteristics as the subject property. The two proposed, comparable properties have single-storey dwellings built in the 1950’s and have lot areas that are slightly larger than the subject property.

7The first of the two properties is at 1536 Carolyn Road (“1536 Carolyn”) and has a larger lot that the subject property (0.81 acres), a smaller dwelling and a slightly lower quality of construction rating. It was constructed in 1951. 1536 Carolyn sold in May of 2015 with a time-adjusted sale price of $792,514.

8The second of MPAC’s two proposed comparable properties is 5278 Creditview (“5278 Creditview”). It has a larger lot, a larger dwelling and the same quality of construction as applied by MPAC to the Subject property. 5278 Creditview was built in 1953, the same year as the subject property and has an outdoor pool and an attached garage. MPAC attributes a total value of approximately $58,000 for these two improvements that are not present at the subject property. 5278 Creditview sold in March 2016 with a time-adjusted sale value of $901,738.

9MPAC used the time adjusted sale values of each of these two comparable properties, divided those Time Adjusted Sale (“TAS”) values by the square footage of the dwelling at each and applied the average per square foot value to the subject property to arrive at a value of $932,635, noting that this is approximately $65,000 less that the value returned by MPAC for 2020.

10The Appellant compared the subject property to four properties in the same neighborhood. The first of these was the 1536 Carolyn property cited by MPAC. The second property cited by the Appellant was 1661 Carolyn Road (“1661 Carolyn”). There is no sale record for 1661 Carolyn. It comprises a lot area of 59,598 square feet and is improved by a single-family dwelling constructed in 1960. The property has 129 feet of frontage on Carolyn Road. The house includes a garage. To make his comparison, the Appellant reduced the assessment of 1661 Carolyn by $5,000 for the presence of the garage and an additional $7,000 because it is ‘superior’ to the subject property.

111661 Carolyn is assessed at $1,275,000. When the Appellant made his comparative adjustments, he divided the result by the lot area of 1.37 acres, for a per square foot value of $21.39. By applying this figure to the 33,249 square foot lot at the subject property, the Appellant arrives at a comparative value of $711,277.

12The third property selected by the Appellant for comparison is 1675 Carolyn Road (“1675 Carolyn”). It has a 1.38-acre lot improved by a single-family dwelling, built in 1968. 1675 Carolyn has no sale record. It has an assessment of $1,339,000. To account for differences between the subject property and 1675 Carolyn, the Appellant reduced this value by $30,000 for the presence of a garage, exterior brick and to additional square footage. The Appellant divided the resulting $1,309,000 by the lot area to arrive at a per square foot value of $21.76 per square foot. He arrived at a comparative value of $723,520 for the subject property when the per square foot value was applied to the subject lot.

13Lastly, the Appellant compared the subject property to a property at 5300 Creditview Road (“5300 Credtview”). 5300 Creditview sold in April 2014 for $297,000. It has a lot area of 1.12 acres and backs onto a ravine. It is improved by a single-family dwelling that was built in 1982 and is 2,200 square feet larger than the subject dwelling. When MPAC’s time adjustment factor is applied to the sale price, the sale value increases to $333,917. The Appellant then made several adjustments to account for location, nature of the dwelling and the lot to arrive at a comparable sale value of $202,239 or $4.16 per square foot. When applied to the subject property’s lot size, the Appellant determined a comparable value, based on the 5300 Creditview sale of $138,413.

14The Appellant summarized his case by pointing to the two sales in his analysis and the assessments of two other properties in the area. Using the average of those four values, he arrived at a current value of the subject property of $562,290.65, or $562,000 rounded.

Findings on Issue 1

15The Board has widely held that the sale of the subject property is the best evidence of its current value, if that sale is relatively close to the valuation day applicable to the years under appeal. No such sale took place on the subject property. In that situation, the Board has also held that the next best indicators of the current value of a property are the sale values (time-adjusted if necessary) of other properties that are comparable to the property under appeal. The Board has a total of five properties advanced by the parties as being comparable to the subject property.

16The Board must first determine which of the comparable properties are most reflective of property values at or near the valuation day of January 1, 2016. Of the five properties in evidence, the Board disregards 1661 Carolyn and 1675 Carolyn. Neither of these two properties has a recent sale. The Appellant’s comparison relies on the assessed values of these two properties. Assessments are not reliable indicators of current value when comparisons with properties that have sold are available.

17Of the three proposed comparable properties remaining, the Board also disregards 5300 Creditview. This sale took place in 2014, well before the statutory valuation day of January 1, 2016. 5300 Creditview is also located on a ravine, making it sufficiently different in character when compared to the subject property to make it an unreliable comparable property.

18The two remaining comparable properties in evidence are 1536 Carolyn and 5278 Creditview. 1536 Carolyn has a comparable lot size, but has a smaller dwelling, with a lower quality of construction rating that the subject property. On a balance of comparison, the Board finds that the subject property has a higher value than 1536 Carolyn.

195278 Creditview has a lot size that is larger than the subject property. It also has a larger dwelling, with the same quality of construction rating. 5278 Creditview also has a garage and an outdoor pool, with a value of $58,000 attributed to those features by MPAC.

20The TAS value of 5278 Creditview is $901,738. When the value attributed to the garage and pool are deducted from that sale value the result is $843,738. The Board finds that 5278 Creditview, as adjusted, has a higher value than the Subject Property owing to the larger lot and the larger dwelling.

21This comparison of the subject property to the two best comparable properties in evidence indicates a range of value for the subject property of between $792,514 and $843,738. The Board finds that the best evidence of the current value of the subject property is the mid-point of these two values, or $818,000 (rounded).

Issue 2 – Does the current value determined require a reduction for it to represent equitable assessment when reference is made to the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity?

22Neither Party advanced a position on the question of equitable assessment as it pertains to the current value determined when reference is made to the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity. The Board notes that MPAC did produce an equity analysis report in the normal course of disclosure as required by the Schedule of Events. That report found that no adjustment to the current value determined was necessary for it to represent equitable assessment.

Findings on Issue 2

23The Board finds that there is no evidence to support a reduction in the current value determined, when reference is made to the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity.

CONCLUSION

24The Board finds that the current value of the subject property is $818,000.

25The Board also finds that there is no evidence to support a reduction in the current value determined is necessary for it to reflect equitable assessment, when reference is made to the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity.

ORDER

26The Board orders that the assessment of 5385 Durie Road is reduced to $818,000 in the Residential property class for the 2020 taxation year.