Latour v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 28, 2021 CanLII 41884

Tribunals Ontario Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario Assessment Review Board Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: May 10, 2021

FILE NO.: WR 169944

Assessed Person(s): Yvan Gerard Latour, Patricia Makuch

Appellant(s): Yvan Latour, Patricia Makuch

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 28

Respondent(s): Township of Bonfield

Property Location(s): 669 Pine Lake Road

Municipality(ies): Township of Bonfield

Roll Number(s): 4826-000-002-28000-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3421957, 3421958, 3421977, 3421978, 3421959, 3421979 and 3448946

Taxation Year(s): 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021

Hearing Event No.: 742425

Legislative Authority: Sections 33 and 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31

APPEARANCES:

Parties Representative

Yvan Latour and Patricia Makuch Self-represented

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation John Hyatt and Pamela Hawkins

Township of Bonfield No one appeared

HEARD: April 14, 2021 by telephone conference call

ADJUDICATOR(S): Dan Weagant, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1The subject property comprises 5.92 acres with an effective frontage of 745 feet on Pine Lake. It is improved with a two-storey single-family dwelling of 4,316 square feet and three secondary buildings.

2The Current Value Assessment (“CVA”) returned by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) for the 2017 taxation year was $869,000. Yvan Latour and Patricia Makuch (the “Appellants”) believed that value was too high and filed an appeal as a result.

3In response to the appeal, MPAC undertook a property inspection in 2018. The inspection confirmed the characteristics of the subject property, including the presence of a detached garage that had not been previously captured by MPAC’s assessment. MPAC attributed a value of $33,000 to the garage structure, with an effective date of October 1, 2018.

4As a result of consultations between the Parties, MPAC reduced the CVA for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years to $765,000, and to $720,000 for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years.

5In preparation for this hearing, MPAC prepared a valuation report that resulted in an opinion of current value for the years under appeal of $765,000 for 2017 and 2018, with an additional $33,000 for the previously omitted assessment of the subject garage, effective October 1, 2018, for a total CVA for 2019, 2020 and 2021 of $798,000.

6The Appellants believe the correct current value should be no more that $720,000 for the 2019, 2020 and 2021 taxation years and $687,000 for 2017 and 2018, prior to the addition of the $33,000 omitted assessment for the subject garage, effective October 1, 2018.

Areas of Agreement

7The Parties agree that the omitted assessment of $33,000 and its effective date of October 1, 2018 are correct.

Issues for the Hearing

8At issue in this proceeding is:

1. A determination of the current value of the subject property; and

2. Whether 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.

Result

9The Board finds as follows:

1. The current value of the subject property for the 2017, 2018 and 2019 taxation years is $703,000.

2. The value of the omitted assessments, effective October 1, 2018 and January 1, 2019 is $33,000.

3. The current value of the subject property for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years is $736,000.

4. There is no evidence to support a reduction in the current value determined to make it equitable 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?

MPAC

10In order to determine the current value of the subject property, MPAC compared it to seven waterfront properties in the Nipissing and Parry Sound Districts. Bonfield Township lies within the District of Nipissing.

11MPAC selected the seven proposed comparable properties owing to the proximity of their respective sale dates to the January 1, 2016 valuation day that applies to these appeals. The seven properties were also selected by MPAC because they have frontage on a lake or inlet attached to a lake.

12MPAC submitted that there were very few sales of comparable properties suitable for the purpose of comparison to determine current value. According to MPAC, the seven selected were the best available for this purpose. Four of these proposed comparable properties are on Lake Nipissing, two are on Trout Lake and one is on Pine Lake; the same lake as the subject property.

13MPAC’s testimony indicated that the size of the lake a property fronts on has a bearing on the value attributed. According to MPAC, with all other things being equal, properties that front on larger lakes are valued higher.

14The seven properties cited by MPAC sold between September 2014 and September 2018 and have a range of sale values from $400,000 to $959,000. When these sale values are adjusted for the impact on value by the passage of time, the range is from $435,000 to $1,010,000 (rounded).

15MPAC submitted that the range of values represented by the seven comparable sales provide a range within which the subject property should be valued, noting that it has a much larger principal building than most of the comparable properties. MPAC also submitted that before the value determined was arrived at, it was reduced by 15% in recognition that the subject property is “over built” for its neighbourhood.

16Using the range represented by the comparable properties cited, MPAC arrived at a current value of $765,000 without the added garage and $798,000 including the garage, effective October 1, 2018.

Appellants

17The Appellants felt that MPAC’s evidence was not suitable for the purpose of determining the current value of the subject property for the following reasons:

1. Six of the comparable properties cited by MPAC are on other, larger lakes;

2. The subject property is on Pine lake. Pine Lake has special restrictions on use owing to the proximity to a Provincial Park. The environmental and other controls resulting from the Park’s presence make comparisons with properties on other lakes unreliable for determining the current value of the subject property.

18The Appellants contend that the best indication of the value of the subject property is MPAC’s Comparable #1 at 108 Pineland Drive. (“108 Pineland”). 108 Pineland is on Pine Lake and, according to the Appellants, has the same restrictions on lake front use. These restrictions as indicated in the Appellants’ evidence include the prohibition on permanent docks, intensification of use (i.e. land severance), restrictions on building size and use with specific reference to the operation and approval of septic tile systems.

19The Appellants submitted that the other six comparable properties are free of the same level of restrictions experienced on Pine Lake, meaning that they are not good for the purposes of determining the current value of the subject property.

20In comparing the subject property to 108 Pineland, the Appellants submitted that:

1. The time adjusted sale value of 108 Pineland can be used to predict the value of the subject property.

2. 108 Pineland’s per square foot sale value is $149.81 and when applied to the subject property’s 4,316 square feet of living area, the result is $647,000 (rounded).

21When the agreed-to value of the detached garage of $33,000 is added to this amount, the Appellants submit the total current value should be approximately $680,000 effective October 1, 2018 and approximately $647,000 for the time period of January 1, 2017 to September 30, 2018.

Findings on Issue 1

22The parties’ respective cases suffer from a lack of good comparable property sales to use in determining the current value of the subject property. The sales in evidence suggest a wide range of values for properties of disparate characteristics, function and location.

23One over-riding consideration drawn from the evidence is the real differences between Pine Lake and the other lakes represented by comparative sales. Pine Lake is smaller than the other two lakes in evidence. It is also different because it is dominated by a Provincial Park. The presence of the park on the lake and the attendant restrictions on use, construction and development set properties that front on it apart from properties on other lakes. Accordingly, current values, with all other things being equal, are different on Pine Lake, when compared to Trout Lake and Lake Nipissing. This was confirmed in MPAC’s testimony at the hearing.

24Accordingly, the Board finds that the only comparable property in evidence that represents all the constraints experienced by the subject property is 108 Pineland. 108 Pineland sold in September 2014 for $400,000. When the time adjustment factor assigned by MPAC was applied to that sale price, the result was $435,000 (rounded). MPAC’s evidence, that this time-adjusted value represents what 108 Pineland would sell for on the valuation day, was not refuted by the Appellants.

25While 108 Pineland is a smaller lot, with a shorter waterfront, it does have two levels of living area, the same as the subject property. When its time adjusted sale price is divided by the 2,670 square feet of living area, the result is $162.92 per square foot.

26When this result is applied to the 4,316 square feet of living area at the subject property, the result is $703,000 (rounded). The Board finds this is the best indication of current value based on the evidence at the hearing, prior to the addition of the agreed-to value of the detached garage.

27When the value of the garage is added, effective October 1, 2018, the total current value is $736,000.

Issue 2 - Does the current value determined need to be reduced for it to reflect equitable assessment when reference is made to the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity?

28There was no evidence adduced at the hearing by the Appellants regarding a reduction in the current value determined to make it fair and equitable with other properties in the vicinity.

29MPAC’s unchallenged equity study found that, based on the comparison of assessments and time adjusted sale values of properties in the vicinity, equitable assessment was being achieved.

Findings on Issue 2

30The Board finds that there is no evidence to support a reduction in the current value determined for it to reflect equitable assessment.

CONCLUSION

31The current value of the subject property for the 2017, 2018 and 2019 taxation years is $703,000.

32The value of the omitted assessment, effective October 1, 2018 is $33,000. The value of the omitted assessment, effective January 1, 2019 is also $33,000.

33Therefore, the total current value of the subject property for the 2019, 2020 and 2021 taxation years is $736,000.

34There is no evidence to support a reduction in the current value determined to make it equitable when reference is made to the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity.

ORDER

35The assessment of the subject property at 669 Pine Lake Road, for the 2017, 2018 and 2019 taxation years is reduced to $703,000 in the Residential property class. The omitted assessments effective October 1, 2018 and January 1, 2019 are confirmed at $33,000 in the Residential property class. For the 2020 and 2021 taxation years the assessment is amended to $736,000 in the Residential property class.