Domjancic Bernardica Pocrnic v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 19, 2021 CanLII 26728

Tribunals Ontario

Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

March 29, 2021

FILE NO.:

WR 169445

Assessed Person(s):

Domjancic Bernardica Pocrnic

Appellant(s):

Domjancic Bernardica Pocrnic

Respondent(s):

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 19

Respondent(s):

City of Hamilton

Property Location(s):

192 Lloyminn Avenue

Municipality(ies):

City of Hamilton

Roll Number(s):

2518-140-230-06000-0000

Appeal Number(s):

3418355 and 3433082

Taxation Year(s):

2019 and 2020

Hearing Event No.:

740871

Legislative Authority:

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

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Representative

Domjancic Bernardica Pocrnic

Steve Pocrnic

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation

Tim Oberle

City of Hamilton

No one appeared

HEARD:

March 4, 2021 by telephone conference call

ADJUDICATOR(S):

Joanne Laws, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1Domjancic Bernardica Pocrnic (the “Appellant”) is the owner of 192 Lloyminn Avenue (the “Subject Property”) in the City of Hamilton. The Appellant was represented by Steve Pocrnic. He took the position that the assessment was too high.

2The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) was represented by Tim Oberle. He takes the position that the assessed value of $1,484,000 is correct and that an adjustment for equity, pursuant to s. 44(3) of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (“Act”) is not required.

3Pursuant to s. 40(11) of the Act, the Municipality is a party to this proceeding. However, no one appeared on its behalf.

Issues for the Hearing

4At issue in this proceeding is:

1. A determination of the current value of the Subject Property;

2. Whether a reduction of the current value should be made when the current value is compared to the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity?

Result

5The Subject Property’s current value is $1,484,000 in the residential property class for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years. When reference is made to the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity, the current value is reduced to make it equitable. Accordingly, the assessment of the Subject Property is reduced from $1,484,000 to $1,381,000 in the residential property class for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years.

PRELIMINARY MATTERS

6Mr. Oberle submitted his evidence to the Board after the deadline set out in the Schedule of Events. Mr. Pocrnic did not object to the late filing, saying he was prepared to proceed with the hearing.

ANALYSIS

Description of Subject Property

7The Subject Property is a single-family detached residence located in the north west area of Ancaster in the City of Hamilton. The residence, built in 2012, is two storeys with a building area of 4,300 square feet and sits on a 0.69-acre lot (street frontage of 150 and a depth of 200). MPAC has allocated the residence with an 8 out of 10 quality of construction. In addition, it has a pool, gazebo and an outdoor fireplace.

Current Value

8Section 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.

9MPAC presented four sales located near the Subject Property, all of which sold near the January 1, 2016 valuation day. Two of the four were identified as a single storey, one of which had a very small second story room. I reject these two properties because they are not directly comparable to the two-storey Subject Property. The Appellant presented no evidence in support of a current value.

10Both parties relied on a value per square foot analysis. Generally, this is not a reliable method of determining a property’s current value unless the suggested comparable properties are very similar if not identical. This is not the case here. As a result, I will adopt the bracketing method posits properties that when comparing other properties to the Subject Property, those with superior characteristics will sell for more and inferior will sell for less.

11The Mr. Pocrnic argued that the Subject Property has sloping topography which ought to reflect a lower market value but presented no evidence to quantify this characteristic. MPAC acknowledged the slope but stated it wasn’t sufficient to require an adjustment. The photograph of the Subject Property submitted by MPAC shows a retaining wall and abutting garden bed with a slightly undulating lawn area. From the evidence submitted I cannot conclude that the sloping lot would result in a lower market value.

12Of the two remaining sales, 16 Greenfield Drive sold in June 2015 for $1,210,000 and is, on balance, inferior to the Subject Property. It has a smaller lot and the residence is older. It has a similar building size and quality of construction. Unlike the Subject Property there is no pool, gazebo or outdoor fireplace. Based on MPAC’s market data, Mr. Oberon valued pools at $18,000 each, gazebos at $14,570 each and outdoor fireplaces at $5,875. Mr. Oberon added these values to this property’s time adjusted sale price of $1,292,152 for a total value of $1,330,597. Mr. Pocrnic argues that MPAC’s adjustments for exterior structures were not supported by evidence and I agree. However, I am satisfied that the Subject Property would sell for more than this property’s time adjusted sale value of $1,292,152.

1314 Lloyminn Avenue sold in September 2015 for $2,132,000 and is, on balance, superior to the Subject Property. It is similar in age, lot size and quality of construction. The overall superiority is reflected in the significantly larger building area of 5,734 sq. ft. Unlike the Subject Property it does not have a pool, gazebo or an outdoor fireplace. As with the first property, Mr. Oberon added the values for the pool, gazebo and outdoor fireplace to the time-adjusted sale price of $2,207,574 for a total value of $2,246,019. As above, I am not including the adjustments for exterior structures. In conclusion, I am satisfied that the Subject Property would sell for less than this property’s time adjusted sale value of $2,207,574.

Findings on Current Value

14Based on the above analysis, I find that the Subject Property’s current value is more than $1,292,152 but less than $2,207,574. The Subject Property’s assessment of $1,484,000 falls between and at the lower end of these two values. Based on the evidence received, I find that the Subject Property’s current value is likely its assessed value of $1,484,000.

Equitable Value

15Mr. Pocrnic’s evidence and arguments were focused on the equitable value of the Subject Property. He presented 17 properties with assessed values, accompanied with photographs and a few descriptors (number of storeys, distance to Subject Property, number of bedrooms and some additional features such as pools and garages). Other than being located near the Subject Property, there was insufficient data to conclude which were directly comparable properties, the range of values were quite wide, and none had sales. I did not find the appellant’s evidence helpful in determining whether the Subject Property was equitably assessed.

16MPAC presented an Equity Analysis Report, comparing the assessed and sale values of 30 properties. The search criteria were single-family detached properties, located within three kilometres of the Subject Property and which sold between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2016. The median assessment to sale ratio for the 30 sales was 0.973. Mr. Oberle took the position that assessment to sale ratios falling between 0.95 and 1.05 indicates that properties in the vicinity of the Subject Property are assessed equitably and, therefore, the Subject Property’s current value requires no adjustment for equity.

17Mr. Pocrnic took issue with MPAC’s equity analysis. He submits that the Ancaster area in which the Subject Property is located is highly desirable, that some older, smaller homes are being purchased for their land alone; once purchased the houses are razed and replaced with new grander residences. Mr. Pocrnic argues that this is reflected in MPAC’s equity analysis which shows a substantial difference in values between the assessments and sales.

18In reviewing MPAC’s equity analysis I found five properties with such significant differences. The sale values range from $505,000 to $776,000 with corresponding assessed values from $1,048,000 to $2,592,000. I find that these five sales support Mr. Pocrnic’s argument. Accordingly, I have removed them from the equity analysis. Doing so results in a median assessment to sale ration of 0.931. Applying that to the Subject Property’s current value results in a value of $1,381,604.

CONCLUSION

19I find that the current value of the Subject Property is $1,484,000. I further find that, when reference is made to the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity, the current value is reduced to $1,381,000 which reflects an equitable assessment.

ORDER

20The Board orders that the assessment of the Subject Property is reduced from $1,484,000 to $1,381,000 in the residential property class for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years.