Tribunals Ontario
Assessment Review Board
ISSUE DATE: June 11, 2021 FILE NO.: WR 171142
Assessed Person(s): Paul D. Forsyth Appellant(s): Paul Forsyth Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 28 Respondent(s): Municipality of Temagami
Property Location(s): 1422 Lake Temagami Island 234 (Joan Island) Municipality(ies): Municipality of Temagami Roll Number(s): 4869-010-001-02340-0000 Appeal Number(s): 3422357 and 3448872 Taxation Year(s): 2020 and 2021 Hearing Event No.: 744274
Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31
APPEARANCES:
Parties Representative
Paul Forsyth Self-represented
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Blair Adams
Municipality of Temagami No one appeared
HEARD: June 1, 2021 by telephone conference call
ADJUDICATOR(S): Dan Weagant, Member
DECISION
OVERVIEW
1For the 2020 taxation year, the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) returned a value of $579,000 for the subject property. Paul D. Forsyth (the “Appellant”) believed that assessment was too high because of the presence of an adjacent commercial lodge and filed an appeal of that value to the Assessment Review Board (the ‘Board’).
2In reviewing the assessment data applicable to the subject property, MPAC recommended a reduction in the value returned. For the 2021 taxation year, MPAC applied an assessment of $574,000.
3The Appellant believes this reduced assessment is still too high.
Issues for the Hearing
4At issue in this proceeding is:
- A determination of the current value of the subject property; and
- Whether a reduction in the current value should be made to reflect equitable assessment.
Result
5The Board finds that the current value of the subject property is $521,000. The Board also finds that there is no evidence before it to support a reduction in this value when reference is made to the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity.
6Accordingly, the assessment of 1422 Lake Temagami island 234 is reduced to $521,000, in the Residential property class for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years.
ANALYSIS
Description of Subject Property
7The subject property lies on the south facing shore of an island in Lake Temagami known as Joan island or island 234. It shares this island with a number of other single-family dwellings, a commercial-recreational property known as Temagami Lodge and a relatively large expanse of Crown land.
8The subject property lies between Temagami Lodge and the Crown Land component of the island. It backs directly onto another private singe family dwelling property that has frontage on a north facing shoreline.
9The land area of the property under appeal is 1.34 acres, with an effective shoreline of 269 feet. The property is improved with a 1 ½ storey dwelling of 1,753 square feet, a boat house of 851 square feet and a shed / storage building of 402 square feet. The dwelling and the shed were constructed in 2006, with the boat house being added in 2008.
10The property is occupied year-round by the owner.
Issue 1 – What is the current value of the subject property for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years?
MPAC’s Case
11MPAC selected the direct comparison approach to valuation when determining its opinion of value of the subject property. This approach involves the selection of other properties that are comparable in character, location, age and condition to the subject property. In this case, MPAC selected four sales that took place on Lake Temagami between August 2012 and December 2016. These four properties sold for prices between $330,000 and $695,000. These sale values were adjusted by MPAC to reflect the effects of the passage of time on the sale values.
12To establish time-adjusted sale values, MPAC has established a set of time adjustment factors; one for each month in the period from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2016. Through analysis of the sales in the area during that time, MPAC is able to predict how sale values have increased over the 60 months represented and how the actual sale values in the sample selected should be adjusted for these changes in the market.
13The resulting time-adjusted sale values of the four sales selected by MPAC range from $330,096 to $711,915.
14MPAC submitted that a challenge arises in selecting comparable properties in the Lake Temagami area because of the wide range of character, condition and quality of improvements that exist. Some properties on the lake are year-round residences, while others are seasonal-use only.
15MPAC submitted that the four properties selected for comparison were the best available for the purpose. It took a property by property comparison method to determine an indicated value of the subject property. This method compares all of the measurable attributes of the subject and the comparable properties and establishes an opinion-based difference between the subject and the time-adjusted sale values of the comparable properties.
16MPAC’s comparable analysis resulted in indicated values for the subject property in the range of $568,451 to $737,265, with a median of $580,000. MPAC’s position is that this median value is the best indicator of the subject property’s value when it is compared to the values of the four, time-adjusted sale values in its sample.
Appellant’s Case
17The Appellant’s chief concern with the assessment applied to the subject property is the value reduction attributed to the neighboring commercial lodge, and its impact on the quiet