Tribunals Ontario

Assessment Review Board

ISSUE DATE: April 19, 2021 FILE NO.: WR 168842

Assessed Person(s): Michelle Strike and Darius Strike Appellant(s): Michelle Strike Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 15 Respondent(s): City of Mississauga

Property Location(s): 1381 Victor Avenue Municipality(ies): City of Mississauga Roll Number(s): 2105-010-017-02801-0000 Appeal Number(s): 3433387, 3417025 and 3444835 Taxation Year(s): 2019, 2020 and 2021 Hearing Event No.: 740364

Legislative Authority: Sections 34 and 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31

APPEARANCES:

Parties Michelle Strike and Darius Strike Representative Robert Baranowski

Parties Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Representative Rachel Michael

Parties City of Mississauga Representative No one appeared

HEARD: February 19, 2021 by telephone conference call

ADJUDICATOR(S): Jennifer Griffith, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1Michelle Strike and Darius Strike (the “Appellants”) are the owners of 1381 Victor Avenue (the “Subject Property”) in the City of Mississauga (the “City”). The Appellants filed appeals for the supplementary assessment of $1,349,000 effective October 7, 2019; and returned assessment of $2,246,000 for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years with the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”), pursuant to s. 34 and s. 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”).

2The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) states that the original 2016 current value assessment (“CVA”) was returned at $897,000 for the existing lot that was developed with a structure measuring 924 square feet (“sq. ft.”), built in 1938. The Subject Property was sold in 2017 for $600,000 which MPAC submits was not an open market sale because of “non-typical financing”.

3After the sale, MPAC submits that the Subject Property was newly built as a two-storey custom-built residential dwelling in 2019, with 3,249 sq. ft. of total building area, a quality of construction rating of 8.5 and situated on lot size of 0.19 acres. Because the Subject Property was newly built, MPAC re-assessed it and returned supplementary assessment of $1,349,000 pursuant to s. 34 of the Act, effective October 7, 2019; and returned assessment of $2,246,000 pursuant to s. 40 of the Act for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years.

4Pursuant to s. 19(1) of the Act, the assessment of land shall be based on its current value; and s. 19.2(1)4 provides that, for the 2017 to 2021 taxation years, MPAC is required to assess this value as of the valuation date, January 1, 2016.

5Regarding supplementary assessments, s. 34(1) states:

Supplementary assessments to be added to tax roll

If, after notices of assessment have been given under section 31 and before the last day of the taxation year for which taxes are levied on the assessment referred to in the notices,

(a) an increase in value occurs which results from the erection, alteration, enlargement or improvement of any building, structure, machinery, equipment or fixture or any portion thereof that commences to be used for any purpose;

6It is the Appellants’ position that MPAC’s CVA is too high and that the correct current value should be $1,700,000. MPAC takes the position that the correct current value based on the most comparable properties should be $2,154,000.

7Pursuant to s. 40(11) of the Act, the municipality in which the land is located is a party to this proceeding; however, no one appeared on behalf of the City.

8Pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act, MPAC takes the position that an equitable reduction of the current value is not required. The Appellants assert that equity is not at issue. As the onus to demonstrate that an equitable reduction is required rests with the Appellants, the Board accepts the Appellants’ assertion that equity is not at issue.

Issues for the Hearing

9At issues in this proceeding are:

1. Is the Quality of Construction rating of 8.5 incorrect?
2. What is the determination of the current value of the Subject Property for the 2019, 2020 and 2021 taxation years based on a direct comparison approach?
3. Should there be any negative adjustments to the current value of the Subject Property?

Result

10The Board finds the correct current value of the Subject Property is $2,195,000 as of the valuation date January 1, 2016, which is applicable to the 2019, 2020 and 2021 taxation years for the reasons set out below.

11The Board also finds that equity pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) is not at issue and no further reduction is required.

12Therefore, the Board orders the reduction of:

1. s. 34 supplementary assessment from $1,349,000 to $1,298,000 effective October 7, 2019; and
2. s. 40 assessment from $2,246,000 to $2,195,000 for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years.

PRELIMINARY MATTERS

Issue 1 - Do the Rules of the Board preclude a person other than a paralegal licensed by the Law Society of Ontario from acting as a representative at a proceeding before the Board?

13At the commencement of the hearing Robert Baranowski, representative for the Appellants (“Appellants’ Representative”) raised a motion that Rachel Michael should not be allowed to be the Representative for MPAC, because she is not a licensed paralegal by the Law Society of Ontario. He also argued that he did not receive written confirmation that Ms. Michael is the Representative for MPAC.

14In response, Ms. Michael submits that she is not licensed by the Law Society of Ontario. However, Ms. Michael argues that although she is not a licensed paralegal, By-law 4 of the Law Society Act provides an exemption for an individual to be a representative for their organization, which would mean that unlicensed employees of MPAC would be exempt.

15By-law 4 made under subsections 62(0.1) and (1) of the Law Society Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.8, provides a list of individuals who may, without a licence, provide the type of legal services that a licensed paralegal is authorized to provide. These include:

In-house legal services provider

1. An individual, other than a Canadian law student or an Ontario paralegal student, who,

i. Is employed by a single employer that is not a licensee or a licensee firm,

ii. Provides the legal services only for and on behalf of the employer, and

iii. Does not provide any legal services to any person other than the employer.

16Rules 4, 5 and 12 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”) provide:

Interpretation

4. These Rules shall be applied in a manner proportionate to the importance and complexity and least expensive determination of every proceeding.

Proportionality

5. These Rules shall be applied in a manner proportionate to the importance and complexity of the issues in a proceeding and with a view of resolving appeals within the four-year cycle.

Representatives

12. In any proceeding;

(a) a party or participant may appear in person or by representative;

(b) a representative who is not licensed by the Law Society of Ontario must provide the Board with written confirmation of their authority to provide legal services; and

(c) a party or participant must notify the Board, and all other parties and participants to the proceeding, of any changes in representation, including how to serve the representative with notice.

Board’s findings on the Motion

17In reviewing the submissions of the parties, the Board denies the motion by the Appellants’ Representative and finds that Ms. Michael is qualified to represent MPAC as its representative for the following reasons.

18The Board’s Rule 12(b) requires an unlicensed representative to provide written confirmation to the “Board” of its authority to provide legal services. There is no provision in this Rule requiring an unlicensed representative to provide that written confirmation to any other participants to this proceeding.

19The Board finds that all documentary evidence and emails filed with the Board clearly indicate that Ms. Michael is the representative. Ms. Michael also represented MPAC at the Mandatory Meeting held on December 18, 2020 in which she was engaged in negotiating a possible settlement with Appellants’ Representative for his client. Unfortunately, the negotiation was unsuccessful which led to today’s hearing.

20Although this Board is not governed by the Rules of the Law Society of Ontario, it is important to note that By-law 4 also provides exemptions to some classes of persons to act as a representative even if they are not licensed by the Law Society of Ontario. As stated above, By-law 4 provides exemption for “In-house legal services providers” who are employees of a single employer that is a party to a proceeding. In this case, Ms. Michael testifies that she is an employee of MPAC to which the exemption applies. The existence of exemptions to the licensing requirement is recognized in Rule 12(b) of the Board’s Rules.

21The Board also considered what would be the most just, expeditious and least expensive way of determining this proceeding and finds that it is to hear the appeal today, which would give all parties the opportunity to plead their respective cases and bringing these appeals to a conclusion.

22For the reasons stated above, the Board denies the motion and finds that Ms. Michael does qualify as MPAC’s Representative (“MPAC’s Representative”).

Issue 2 – Issue of Disclosure

23On cross-examination the Appellants’ Representative testifies that he had requested a breakdown of the value of land and Building for the Subject Property from MPAC and that MPAC failed to provide the information. However, the Appellants’ Representative submits that he did not pursue filing a Motion with the Board pursuant to any of the following Rules of the Board which states:

Disclosure

45. All parties must provide a copy, in paper or electronic form, of all relevant documents in their possession, control or power to all other parties in the proceeding except for privileged documents.

Board Order for Discovery

47. A party may seek an order from the Board, by motion, ordering;

(a) the oral examination or cross-examination of any person; or

(b) the written examination or cross-examination of any person; or

(c) any other method of discovery, including inspections of property.

Notice of Motion

61. A party bringing a motion shall deliver notice of the motion setting out;

(a) the decision or order that the party is requesting from the Board;

(b) the grounds to be argued;

(c) the facts relied upon in support of the motion; and

(d) any request to have the motion heard in a format other than writing and the reasons for the request.

24Instead, the Appellants’ Representative argues that MPAC is not in compliance with Canadian rules of evidence and Evidence Act by failing to provide the information requested.

25In response, MPAC’s Representative argues that MPAC complied with the Board’s Schedule of Events (“SOE”) and responded to the Statement of Issues of the Appellant on or before the due date of October 19, 2020.

Finding of Disclosure Issue

26The Board’s Rules address a wide range of procedural issues such as motion hearings, settlement conferences, adjournments etc. to ensure that the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness apply to everyone appearing before this Board.

27In reviewing the arguments, the Board finds that MPAC complied with the requirements of the Board’s SOE and delivered its response on or before the date prescribed by the Board.

28The Board agrees with the Appellants’ Representative that there are rules that address the relevance of disclosure evidence that is requested by any party to a hearing. As per Rule 45, parties must serve all relevant documents in their possession, subject to privilege. However, if another party believes that a relevant document has not been served, the rules allow a party to bring a motion for the disclosure of that document (Rule 47). In this case, it is the Board’s Rules (specifically Rules 45, 47 and 61, as stated above) and not any other rules of evidence as suggested by the Appellants’ Representative. The Board finds that the Appellants’ Representative who ought to have known of Rule 45, 47, and 61 failed to exercise this right of filing a Motion to ensure his request was addressed fairly and efficiently.

29The Board also finds that the Appellants’ Representatives had more than ample time to file a motion with the Board if he felt that the disclosure evidence was crucial to his case. Even if the document was relevant and in MPAC’s possession and therefore ought to have been disclosed by MPAC, Rule 7 (Rule 8 of pre-April 2021 Rules) is clear that the appropriate consequences of non-compliance are to be determined by the Board. Given the Appellants’ failure to request the document and raising it at the hearing, the appropriate course of action is to continue the hearing without it. Therefore, the Board allows the hearing to continue and relies on the factual evidence presented into evidence by the parties in its determination of the correct current value.

ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Is the Quality of Construction rating of 8.5 incorrect?

30The Appellants’ Representative argues that the quality of constructions rating of 8.5 is too high for the Subject Property and should be a rating of 7.5 because the quality of construction, design and construction materials do not rise to the level of a quality rating of 8.5 as demonstrated in the description outlined in the Ontario Property Assessment Corporation – July 2000 document (“OPAC”).

31The OPAC General Description for:

I. Quality 7 is described as good quality materials used throughout and workmanship above average Interiors well finished with some quality wall covering and wood panelling. Design of varied nature with the exterior front elevation usually having a good combination of ornamental materials;

II. Quality 8 is described as particular attention given to interior details. Millwork of above average materials and workmanship. Design of an individual character. Attractive exteriors, spacious hallways. Ensuite bathrooms and good segregation of living and sleeping quarters; and

III. Half Classes – The OPAC states while half classes exist there are no written specifications. In theory, these are structures which do not fall into one whole or another but are in between classes. Great care must be exercised as half classes can require more judgement than whole classes and therefore mor subjectivity…

32MPAC’s Witness testifies that an exterior inspection of the Subject Property was done on October 11, 2019 and at that time, she reviewed the building measurements and observed the Subject Property’s general location. Utilizing the data obtained and confirmed by the exterior inspection, the Subject Property’s approved building plans, and photographs of the interior of the Subject Property submitted by the Appellants’ Representative, MPAC’s Witness states that she determined that the quality of construction rating of 8.5 for the Subject Property is correct, because the rating is based on the quality of construction, quality of construction materials, quality of workmanship and design.

33MPAC’s Witness also testifies that the Subject Property is a custom-built home with unique character, good quality of construction and construction material. She describes some of the unique characteristics as oversized hardwood door, custom windows, skylight, a complex roof with steep slope and some cuts, open-concept floor plan, pyramid style ceiling on the first floor, and a kitchen island with walk-in pantry and server, all of which she argues supports the quality of construction rating of 8.5.

Findings on Quality of Construction Rating

34In reviewing the above evidence, the Board finds that the quality rating 8.5 is correct. The Board finds that MPAC presents the best evidence in support of a quality rating 8.5, because it is based on information contained in the approved building plan which would have demonstrated the estimated cost of building the structure, an external inspection which confirmed that the Subject Property was a custom-built home, and the photographs have demonstrated the interior finishes, construction materials and quality of workmanship, which together supports a quality rating of 8.5.

35On the other hand, the Board rejects the Appellants’ argument that the Subject Property should be a quality rating 7.5 based only on photographs and the general description of the quality ratings (e.g. class 6 – 10 and half-sizes) referenced in Residential Data Collection and Sales Investigations of the OPAC – July 2000, which is 16 years prior to the valuation date of January 1, 2016. Therefore, the Board puts no weight on the Appellants’ argument.

Issue 2 - What is the determination of the current value of the Subject Property for the 2019, 2020 and 2021 taxation years based on a direct comparison approach?

Direct Comparison Approach Based on Sales

36The Direct Comparison Approach estimates the market value by comparing the sale prices of similar properties (in terms of lot size, total building area, year built, quality of construction etc.) that have sold within a reasonable timeframe of the valuation date to the Subject Property. In this case the valuation date is January 1, 2016.

37In determining the correct current value, the Board references s. 19(1) of the Act, which states that the assessment of land shall be based on its current value, which is defined 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”.

38For the reasons discussed below, the Board finds the correct current value at the valuation date is $2,195,000.

39MPAC and the Appellants provide evidence based on the Direct Comparison Approach. Reviewing the evidence in support of current value, the Board finds seven sales presented by both MPAC and the Appellants to be the best evidence of current value.

MPAC’s Evidence in Support of Current Value.

40MPAC’s Representative called Laurie DeWinter, as a witness (“MPAC’s Witness”) and she presented a Valuation Report dated January 7, 2021, which she prepared and testified to the information contained in the report.

41In support of current value, MPAC’s Witness presents the following five proposed comparable properties, which sold in 2015 and 2016 in the same neighbourhood as the Subject Property (A 79 – 112). She provides both the actual and time-adjusted sale prices; however, she relies on the time-adjusted sale prices in her analysis, utilizing the Direct Comparison Approach to value. The following table is the analysis of the five suggested comparable properties:

MPAC’s Sales Analysis

5 SUGGESTED COMPARABLE PROPERTIES	FRONTAGE (ft.)	LOT SIZE (acre)	TOTAL BUILDING AREA (sq. ft.)	QUALITY RATING	YEAR BUILT	SALE DATE	SALE PRICE	SALE PRICE (time adjusted)	SALE PRICE (time adjusted per sq. ft.)
1405 Milton Avenue	52.62	0.19	3,561	8	2007	2015	$1,650,000 (or $463.35 per sq. ft.)	$1,908,700	$536.00
1513 Douglas Drive	45	0.24	3,385	8	2007	2015	$1,750,000 (or $516.98 per sq. ft.)	$1,811,650	$535.19
298 Mineola Road West	75	0.24	3,259	8.5	1989	2016	$2,325.000 (or $713.40 sq. ft.)	$2,081,513	$638.69
298 Mineola Road West	75	0.24	3,259	8.5	1989	2015	$2,195.000 (or $673.51 sq. ft.)	$2,241,488	$687.78
1456 Glenburnie Road	65	0.33	4,026	8	2008	2016	$2,433,170 (or $604.36 sq. ft.	$2,145,105	$532.81
Median	65	0.24	3,385	8	2007	2015	$2,195,000 (or median $604.36 per sq. ft.)	$2,081,513	$536.00
Subject Property	52.63	0.19	3,249	8.5	2019	NIL	N/A	N/A	N/A

42Based on the above analysis MPAC’s Witness believes that the best evidence are the two sales at 298 Mineola Road West because they are similar in quality rating and total building area. The first sale occurred in 2015 and sold at a time-adjusted sale price of $2,241,488 ($687,78 per sq. ft.); and the second sale occurred in 2016 and sold at a time-adjusted sale price of $2,081,513 ($638.69), reflecting an average time-adjusted sale price of $663.00 per sq. ft. based on total building area. When the average time-adjusted sale price of $663.00 per sq. ft. is applied to the Subject Property it results in a current value of $2,154,000 (rounded) ($663.00 x 3,249 sq. ft. of total building area).

43Based on the evidence, MPAC’s Representative is of the opinion that the correct current value is $2,154,000 for the 2019, 2020 and 2021 taxation years.

Appellants’ Evidence in Support of Current value

44Robert Baranowski is the Appellants’ Representative and he acts as both representative and witness.

45The Board’s Rule 14 states that a Representative who is licensed by the Law Society of Ontario as a paralegal or lawyer may appear at a hearing event as both an advocate and a witness:

(a) in a summary proceeding before the Board; or

(b) in a general proceeding with leave of the Board.

46In support of current value, the Appellants’ Representative presents an evidentiary package and testifies to the information contained in the package.

47The Appellants’ Representative presents the sales of three proposed comparable properties located at 151 Mineola Road West, sold in 2015 for $1,610,000; 1379 Wendigo Trail, sold in 2016 for $2,500,000; and 1381 Victor Avenue, sold in 2017 for $600,000. The Victor Avenue sale was the sale of the Subject Property before it was rebuilt in 2019. The following is an analysis of the three sales based on actual sale prices:

Appellants’ Sales Analysis

3 PROPOSED COMPARABLE PROPERTIES	FRONTAGE (ft.)	LOT SIZE (acre)	TOTAL BUILDING AREA (sq. ft.)	YEAR BUILT	QUALITY RATING	SALE DATE	SALE PRICE	SALE PRICE per (sq. ft.)
151 Mineola Road West	105.24	0.34	3,060	1947	7.5	2015	$1,610,000	$526.14
1379 Wendigo Trail	87	0.29	4,667	2011	7.5	2016	$2,500,000	$535.00
1381 Victor Avenue	52.63	0.19	924	1938	6	2017	$600,000	$649.35
Average	81.62	0.27	2,883	1965	7	2016	$1,570,000	$570.38
Subject Property	52.63	0.19	3,249	2017	8.5	N/A	N/A	N/A

48The above analysis shows that these three proposed comparable properties have an average lot size of 0.27 acres, a total building area of 2,883 sq. ft., a quality rating of 7 and sold at a sale price per sq. ft. of $570.38 based on total building area. When the average sale price is applied to the Subject Property it results in a value of $1,853,164 ($570.38 x 3,249 sq. ft. based on total building area).

49The Appellants’ Representative argues that when the above value determined by the sales is negatively adjusted for differences in size, quality and site variance due to proximity to a Go Train station, the current value should be $1,700,000 for the Subject Property.

Finding of the current value of the Subject Property for the 2019, 2020 and 2021 taxation years.

50Reviewing the evidence presented in support of current value, the Board finds the best evidence are seven sales (two sales presented by the Appellants and five sales presented by MPAC) which occurred in 2015 and 2016. These seven comparable properties are located at 151 Mineola Road West, sold in 2015 for $1,610,000 (or $526.14 per sq. ft.); 1379 Wendigo Trail, sold in 2016 for $2,500,000 (or $535.67 per sq. ft.); 1405 Milton Avenue, sold in 2015 for $1,650,000 (or $463.35 per sq. ft.); 1513 Douglas Drive, sold in 2015 for $1,750,000 (or $516.98 per sq. ft.); 298 Mineola Road West, sold in 2016 for $2,325,000 (or $713.40 per sq. ft.); 298 Mineola Road West, sold in 2015 for $2,195,000 (or $673.51 per sq. ft.); and 1456 Glenburnie Road, sold in 2016 for $2,433,170 (or $604.36 per sq. ft.).

51The Appellants’ Representative only presents the actual sale prices of its two comparable properties, as opposed to MPAC who presented both actual and time-adjusted sale prices. The Board relies on the actual sale prices. The Board finds that it is not necessary to adjust for time in this case because the sales occurred within one year on either side of the valuation date of January 1, 2016 which the Board deems to be reasonable.

52These seven sales have a median total building area of 3,381 sq. ft.; lot size of 0.24 acres; year built 2007; quality of construction rating of 8; finished basement area of 1,594 sq. ft. and a median sale price of $2,195,000 (or $604.36 per sq. ft.). This is compared to the Subject Property with a total building area of 3,249 sq. ft.; lot size of 0.19 acres; year built 2019; quality of construction rating of 8.5; finished basement area of 1,398 sq. ft. and assessed at $2,246,000.

53Because of differences in characteristics (age, building area, lot size, quality, finished basement etc.) to the Subject Property, the Board relies on the median sale price of $2,195,000 and finds that this current value represents the best evidence of arm’s length transaction between a willing buyer and a willing seller pursuant to s. 19(1) of the Act.

54Regarding the remaining one sale by the Appellants at 1381 Victor Avenue which occurred in August 2017, the Board did not rely on this sale for two reasons. Firstly, the proposed comparable property is the Subject Property before it was re-built in 2019, it is not similar to the current Subject Property, because the structure was significantly smaller with 924 sq. ft. and was built in 1938 which is significantly older. The parties also agreed that the sale was for land only. Secondly, the sale occurred outside of the valuation date of January 1, 2016 to be a true reflection of current value.

55The Board’s finding that 1381 Victor Avenue (the former Subject Property) is not similar to the Subject Property (built in 2019) because of the large difference in building size, the significant difference in age and the fact that the parties agreed that the sale was for land only is supported by Oakville (Town) v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp., Region No. 15 2009 CarswellOnt, which states in para. 25:

The Board concurs with Mr. Alves’ submission that the Board does not attribute weight to the sale of 173 Donessle in its determination. The 3,486 square foot total building size of this property is substantially less than the subject (5,591 square feet) …Number 173 Donessle is accordingly likely to fall within a different marketplace, and its sale should accordingly be excluded from the Board’s determination of the value applicable to the subject.

Issue 3 - Should there be any negative adjustments to the current value of the Subject Property?

Negative adjustment for location close to Major Transit Station (Go Train Station)

56The Appellants’ Representative argues that the Subject Property is negatively impacted by a Major Transit Station (Go Train Station) located near it and MPAC failed to provide any negative adjustment for nuisances caused by the station.

57The Appellants’ Representative argues that there are provisions for adjustments in MPAC’s model and he cited MPAC’s Market Valuation Report – Residential Properties, City of Mississauga South, January 1, 2016, and cited page 14, which indicates that railway adjustment is within the ranges of negative 4% and negative 7%.

58MPAC’s Representative argues that the Subject Property receives no negative adjustment for its location to the Major Transit Station, because it is not abutting the station and it is not within proximity to the station to warrant an adjustment. MPAC’s Representative agrees that there are provisions for negative adjustments, however, in this case the Subject Property does not meet the criteria of “abutting” or “proximity” to the station to warrant a reduction.

Finding on Negative Adjustment for Location to Major Transit Station

59The Board rejects the Appellants’ argument that a negative adjustment for proximity to the Go Train Station is required because they present no factual evidence to show that the Subject Property is abutting or within proximity to the Subject Property to warrant an adjustment.

60The Board finds that the MPAC’s Market Valuation Report – Residential Properties, City of Mississauga South, January 1, 2016, while not specific to the Subject Property, clearly supports MPAC’s argument that properties “abutting” or “within proximity” to the railway are given an adjustment. However, in this case the Board finds that an adjustment is not warranted, because the Appellants adduce no evidence that the Subject Property is abutting or located within proximity to the Major Transit Station.

Negative Adjustments for Differences in Characteristics of the Proposed Comparable Properties to the Subject Property.

61The Appellants take the position that the current value determined by the sales of comparable properties should be negatively adjusted for differences in characteristics to the Subject Property, including lot size and a summer kitchen at one of the comparable properties.

62The Appellants’ Representative argues that MPAC’s Market Valuation Report – Residential Properties, City of Mississauga South, January 1, 2016, also indicates that lot size adjustment ranges from $24 - $135 per sq. ft.; and summer kitchen is based on the cost to build. The Appellants’ Representative estimates the value of $90 per sq. ft. to build a summer kitchen.

63MPAC’s Witness states that she relies on the two most similar properties to the Subject Property which do not require any adjustment for differences in characteristics, because these differences off-set the value of each other.

64Based on the evidence, MPAC’s Representative takes the position that negative adjustments are not warranted for the Subject Property.

Findings on negative adjustments for Differences in Characteristics of the Comparable Properties to the Subject Property.

65Regarding other adjustments for differences in lot size and outdoor kitchen of the comparable properties to the Subject Property, the Board finds that no adjustments are required, because the Appellants adduce no evidence to show that the value of the lot size and summer kitchen of the Subject Property is too high and that adjustments are warranted.

66The Board did not rely on the MPAC’s Market Valuation Report – Residential Properties, City of Mississauga South, January 1, 2016 presented by the Appellants, because the report sets out valuation parameters for all residential properties in the City of Mississauga South and it is not a report that is specific to the valuation of the Subject Property.

67The report clearly states that the ranges of value are dependent on such things as location, cost to build, size etc. which the Board finds cannot be used to adjust for differences in characteristics between the comparable properties and the Subject Property, because the Board has no way of determining what impact each characteristic has on the overall sale price of the Subject Property. Therefore, the Board puts no weight on the report and relies on seven sales presented by both MPAC and the Appellants.

68The Board also rejects the estimated cost of $90 per sq. ft. to build a summer kitchen, because the Appellants’ Representative presents no official estimate or receipts to show how he arrives at the estimated cost of $90 per sq. ft.

CONCLUSION

69The Board finds the correct current value for the Subject Property at the valuation date is $2,195,000.

70The Board also finds that equity pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) is not at issue and no further reduction is required.

71Based on the correct current value of $2,195,000, the Board finds the correct s. 34 supplementary assessment for the 2019 taxation year is $1,298,000 effective October 7, 2019 (correct current value of $2,195,000 minus $897,000 original s. 40 returned assessment for the valuation date of January 1, 2016).

ORDER

72The Board orders the reduction of the returned assessments for the:

1. Section 34 supplementary assessment from $1,349,000 to $1,298,000 effective October 7, 2019 for the 2019 taxation year; and
2. Section 40 assessment from $2,246,000 to $2,195,000 for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years.