Daniel Joseph Smith v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 14, 2021 CanLII 30118

Tribunals Ontario

Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

April 09, 2021

FILE NO.:

WR 169492

Assessed Person(s):

Daniel Joseph Smith

Appellant(s):

Daniel Smith

Respondent(s):

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 14

Respondent(s):

Town of Aurora

Property Location(s):

45 Industrial Parkway South

Municipality(ies):

Town of Aurora

Roll Number(s):

1946-000-044-72100-0000

Appeal Number(s):

3419155 and 3443964

Taxation Year(s):

2020 and 2021

Hearing Event No.:

742385

Legislative Authority:

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

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Representative

Daniel Joseph Smith

Leonard Libman

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation

Albert Ng

Town of Aurora

No one appeared

HEARD:

March 24, 2021 by telephone conference call

ADJUDICATOR(S):

Joanne Laws, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1Daniel Joseph Smith (the “Appellant”) is the owner of 45 Industrial Parkway South (the “Subject Property”) in the Town of Aurora. The Appellant was represented by Leonard Libman. The Appellant takes the position that the assessment is too high. Pursuant to s. 40(26) of the Act, the Appellant is deemed to have brought the same appeal in respect of the 2021 taxation year.

2The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) was represented by Albert Ng. He takes the position that the Subject Property’s current value is $553,000 but is not seeking an increase to the returned assessment of $516,000. Mr. Ng also takes the position 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:

A determination of the current value of the Subject Property;
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 $540,000 in the residential property class for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years. This value exceeds the assessed value of $516,000. The Assessment Review Board (“Board”) has not received notice to seek a higher assessment (Rule 28 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure). Accordingly, I find the current value is $516,000. No adjustment is required for the purpose of an equitable assessment.

ANALYSIS

Description of Subject Property

6The Subject Property is a two-storey single-family detached residence built in 1896. The residence is 1,017 square feet in size, does not have a basement and has electrical baseboard heating. The lot size is 0.12 acres. MPAC has allocated the residence with a 5.5 out of 10 quality of construction.

7It is located in an industrial/commercial area, directly across from a Go Transit station. It is zoned as “Restricted Industrial (M1-A) Exception Zone with the existing residential use permitted under legal non-conforming use.

Issue 1 – What is the Correct Current Value?

8 Section 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.” The valuation day for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years is January 1, 2016.

9The Subject Property is located in an area designated as “The Aurora Promenade” the purpose of which is to promote redevelopment. A number of uses are permitted within this designation without application including multiple forms of residential, commercial, cultural, recreational, parking, and public uses. MPAC was seeking a current value based on the current residential use.

10MPAC presented five sales located near the Subject Property, all of which sold near the January 1, 2016 valuation day. All are similar to the Subject Property in age, condition, lot and house size (see Appendix A). MPAC also presented photographs of the sale properties which show that they are similar in appearance.

11MPAC’s position is that Sale 2, 75 Industrial Parkway South, which is located 40 feet from the Subject Property, is the most comparable of the five sale properties. Its time adjusted sale price is $553,000, rounded. The average of the five sales is also $553,000.

12Mr. Libman argued that MPAC’s five sales are superior to the Subject Property because they are located in quieter residential areas and, therefore, would have higher sale values. He argued that Industrial Parkway is a busy street and that close proximity to the Go Transit station results in excess traffic and noise.

13Mr. Libman presented no documentary evidence in support of a current value nor did he call any witness. He expressed a number of opinions and provided hearsay evidence regarding the Subject Property’s occupancy, its market value in relation to the Appellant’s attempts to sell it, that it is a historical building and cannot be torn down or moved, and, that MPAC’s building size is incorrect. Mr. Libman also expressed a frustration with MPAC’s assessment methods, that it was not transparent and that it was not accessible. He argued that the Subject Property’s current value could not be determined because there are no directly comparable properties.

14The Appellant concluded that the current value is $410,000 based on an offer to purchase a few years ago and because the Appellant was unable to sell the Subject Property a year ago.

Findings on Current Value

15Mr. Libman expressed a frustration with access to and the transparency of MPAC’s assessment processes. The purpose of this appeal is to challenge MPAC’s methodology and process. One way to do check the correctness of MPAC’s assessed values is by comparing it to open market sales.

16Mr. Libman also argued that a current value cannot be determined because there are no comparable properties in the area. In Municipal Property Assessment Corp. v. Zarichansky, 2020 O.J. No. 733, 2020 ONSC 1124 the Divisional Court found that the Board has a statutory obligation as set out in the Act to determine the current value of a property. As such, I must make a finding of current value based on the evidence before me.

17I appreciate the Appellant’s argument that some of MPAC’s sales are located in quieter residential areas. However, I received no evidence that they will have higher current values than the Subject Property. This is illustrated by the sale price of 75 Industrial Parkway South, located just 40 feet from the Subject Property, which is very similar in age, building and lot sizes, quality of construction and lack of a basement. Due to its proximity to the Subject Property and its similar characteristics, it is the most similar of the five sales. It sold for $540,000 on November 26, 2015, very close to the valuation day. It’s time-adjusted sale price of $553,000, rounded, is the same as the average of the five time-adjusted sale prices.

18Based on the above analysis of the evidence received, I find that the Subject Property’s current value is $540,000.

Issue 2 – Whether there should be an equitable reduction of the current value pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act?

19 Section 44(3)(b) of the Act directs that after determining the 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 land”.

20The Appellant did not present any evidence on the issue of an equitable adjustment.

21MPAC presented an assessment to sale ratio analysis of its five sale properties, ranging from 0.89 to 1.19 with an average of 1.03. MPAC’s position was that no adjustment to the current value is required.

Findings on Issue 2 - Equity

22An assessment to sale ratio that falls below 1.00 indicates that an equity adjustment may be required. MPAC’s analysis results in a value that exceeds 1.00 and, therefore, no adjustment to the current value is required.

23I find that there is no evidence provided by the parties to support a reduction in the current value of the Subject Property in order to make it equitable with the assessment of similar properties in the vicinity.

CONCLUSION

24I find that the current value of the Subject Property is $540,000. This value exceeds the assessed value of $516,000. The Board has not received notice to seek a higher assessment (Rule 28 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure). Accordingly, I find the current value is $516,000. There is no adjustment required for the purpose of an equitable assessment.

ORDER

25The Board orders that the assessment of $516,000 in the residential property class is confirmed for the 2020 and 2021 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

Appendix A - Page 1

Subject Property

Property #1

Property #2

Property #3

Property #4

Property #5

Roll number

Address

Neighborhood

194600004472100

45 INDUSTRIAL PKY S

I02 - 163

194600004062000

85 METCALFE ST

C60 - 163

194600004474000

75 INDUSTRIAL PKY S

I02 - 163

194600003090000

12 RANSOM ST

C60 - 163

194600004130400

96 CONNAUGHT AVE

C60 - 163

194600003168800

42 GEORGE ST

C20 - 162

Property Code Description

(301) Single-Family

Detached (Not On Water)

(301) Single-Family Detached (Not On Water)

Distance in km

0.3196

0.1204

0.9876

0.3878

1.1876

Valuation

Current Value Assessment

$516,000

$562,000

$548,000

$543,000

$481,000

$732,000

Returned Base Year

2016

Sale

Sale Date

20160825

20151126

20161031

20160705

20160902

Sale Amount

$628,000

$540,000

$570,000

$596,000

$699,000

Time Adjusted

Sale Amount

$560,201

$553,394

$494,234

$539,421

$614,688

Site

Actual Site Area

(Acres)

0.12

0.17

0.13

0.08

0.23

Abuts Variable(s)

(B) Abuts Industrial,

(J) Traffic Pattern - Medium

(K) Traffic Pattern - Light

Proximity Variable(s)

(25) Regional Centre

Distance <10Km

(O) Proximity To Sports

Field/Playground

Commercial

On Site Variables

S) Zoned For Commercial Use, (35) Free On Site,

(90) Major Transit Station,

(28) Rear Access - Driveway,

(26) Predominant Exposure - West

(F) Topography Level

(K) No Curbs And Gutters

Appendix A - Page 2

Subject Property

Property #1

Property #2

Property #3

Property #4

Property #5

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

Year Built

1896

1926

1906

1900

1923

1912

Quality of Construction

5.5

Full Storeys

1 1/2 Storeys

2 Storeys

1 1/2 Storeys

2 Storeys

1 1/2 Storeys

1 3/4 Storeys

Building Total Area (SF)

1,017

1,068

1,006

1,103

950

1,056

First Floor Area (SF)

718

534

635

583

475

528

Second Floor Area (SF)

299

534

371

520

475

528

Basement Area (SF)

384

520

475

528

Finished Basement Area (SF)

Modifications

C, (Year) 1989

B, (Year) 2015

B, (Year) 2014

C, (Year) 1986

C, (Year) 1985

C, (Year) 1960

B, (Year) 1980

C, (Year) 1996