Tribunals Ontario

Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

July 14, 2021

FILE NO.:

WR 172094

Assessed Person(s):

Leanne Lynn Bruinsma

Appellant(s):

Leanne Bruinsma

Respondent(s):

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 06

Respondent(s):

Municipality of Trent Hills

Property Location(s):

30 Trillium Lane

Municipality(ies):

Municipality of Trent Hills

Roll Number(s):

1435-229-040-03535-0000

Appeal Number(s):

3412395, 3411589 and 3440212

Taxation Year(s):

2020 and 2021

Hearing Event No.:

747579

Legislative Authority:

Sections 32 and 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31

Parties

Representative

Leanne Lynn Bruinsma

Self-represented

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation

Jennifer Rutledge

Municipality of Trent Hills

No one appeared

HEARD:

July 6, 2021 by telephone conference call

ADJUDICATOR(S):

Jean-Paul Pilon, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1Leanne Lynn Bruinsma (the “Appellant”) is the owner of a property at 30 Trillium Lane in Northumberland County (the “Subject Property”). The Appellant appealed the assessments of the Subject Property for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years.

Background

2The Subject Property is a single-family detached home with land on water built in 2018. It includes 0.45 acres of land, and a single storey house with two bathrooms and 1,779 square feet (“sq. ft.”) of floor space.

3The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) returned assessments of $634,000 for the 2020 taxation year and $539,000 for the 2021 taxation year. The Assessment Review Board’s (the “Board”) docket indicated an additional correcting assessment made pursuant to section 32 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”) returned at $539,000 in the 2020 taxation year that neither Board staff, nor MPAC’s representative at the hearing, Jennifer Rutledge, could explain. The docket also showed a second identical appeal pursuant to section 40 of the Act for the 2021 taxation year (number 3440153) that Board staff advised had been deleted from the Board’s records which is therefore not addressed in this decision.

4MPAC’s position at the hearing was that the assessment of the Subject Property should be reduced to $482,000 and that there should be no adjustment in equity. The Appellant’s position was that the assessment should be reduced to in indeterminate amount in the low $300,000 range.

Issues for the Hearing

5At issue in this proceeding is:

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

2. Whether there should be an equitable reduction in the current value of the Subject Property.

Result

6The correct current value of the Subject Property is $456,250.

7The Board finds that an equitable reduction in the current value of the Subject Property is required and that the assessment is reduced to $415,187 or $415,000 rounded.

PRELIMINARY MATTER

8There was no evidence of any physical change to the Subject Property in either of the taxation years under appeal to explain the existence of the assessment pursuant to section 32 of the Act (number 3412395) referred to above. As the entire value of the Subject Property could be addressed by way of the two appeals pursuant to section 40 of the Act on the docket, that section 32 appeal is disposed of in this decision by reducing the assessment in that appeal to zero.

ANALYSIS

Issue 1 – Current Value of the Subject Property

MPAC

9MPAC proposed six comparable properties that had sold in the one-year period before and after the January 1, 2016 valuation date set out in section 19.2(1) of the Act. MPAC’s representative applied adjustments to the purchase prices of those properties to, in her evidence, make them more comparable to the Subject Property. These adjustments were for time (to approximate what each property would have sold for on January 1, 2016), age, size and for whether there was a basement and any detached structures. Apart from MPAC’s adjustments for time, which were substantiated with data in its valuation report, MPAC’s representative testified that the values used in these adjustments were derived entirely from her lengthy experience working for MPAC. Her testimony was also that, taken together, these adjustments effectively increased the purchase prices of MPAC’s proposed comparable properties.

10The Board finds two significant issues with MPAC’s approach. First, most of MPAC’s proposed comparable properties were substantially different from the Subject Property. The first proposed comparable property, located at 24 Lakeshore Drive, included half the land of the Subject Property and was more than 20 years older than the Subject Property. MPAC’s second proposed comparable property at 236 Friendly Acres Road included 5.9 acres of land compared to the Subject Property’s 0.45 acres. Its fifth and sixth proposed comparable properties at 17 Rosecliff Court and 4 Jackson Road were built in 1977 and 1972 respectively, when the Subject Property was built in 2018.

11Only two of MPAC’s proposed comparable properties were essentially comparable to the Subject Property, where the Board finds that one was superior to the Subject Property, and the other, inferior.

12The superior proposed comparable property was MPAC’s third property at 50 Fleming Bay Road, which sold on June 1, 2015 for $480,000. It had a very similar amount of land, a similar quality of construction and was built in 2007. However, it also had an additional bathroom, 300 sq. ft. more floor space, a finished basement and a boathouse.

13The inferior proposed comparable property was MPAC’s fourth property at 215 Homewood Road, which sold on February 29, 2016 for $432,500. Built in 2010, it had half the land of the Subject Property and over 200 sq. ft. less floor space, although it also had a detached garage.

14The second issue with MPAC’s approach was that there was no evidence to substantiate any of the adjustments made, apart from those accounting for the passage of time. The Board therefore disregards those adjustments. The Board also rejects MPAC’s time adjustments because they were unnecessary in this instance where both proposed comparable properties transacted within six months of the valuation date and when, taken together, the adjustments would have been negligible.

Appellant

15The Appellant argued that the Board should consider the mean and median sales prices of the 28 properties used by MPAC in its equity analysis in determining the current value of the Subject Property. These 28 properties were chosen, according to MPAC’s equity report, because they were similar to and in the vicinity of the Subject Property pursuant to section 44(3) (b) of the Act. In particular, MPAC’s report indicated that those 28 properties were chosen because they were either single family detached homes on water or seasonal or recreational dwellings on water within five kilometers of the Subject Property that sold within the same one-year period before and after January 1, 2016. Beyond that, there was no evidence of similarity between those properties and the Subject Property, whereas MPAC’s proposed comparable properties for valuation purposes had many more points of comparison.

16The Appellant also argued that there should be adjustments for issues with the Subject Property relating to the foundation and other aspects of the house, the absence of secondary structures (where all of MPAC’s properties had at least one), issues with the land and the Subject Property’s proximity to a trailer park. The Appellant did not, however, was unable to support any quantum or amount of any adjustment that would be required for any of these items when the Board could not determine amounts in a vacuum. No adjustments were therefore applied.

Findings on Issue 1

17MPAC’s evidence of proposed comparable properties in its valuation report was the best evidence before the Board. That evidence provided substantially more data to support similarities and differences than the properties used in MPAC’s equity report.

18In 1210299 Ontario Inc. v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 15, 2019 CanLII 18811 (ON ARB) at para. 44, the Board determined that “bracketing is very good method for comparing properties in the direct sales approach when very few properties are provided in evidence that can be considered directly comparable.” It went on to say that “bracketing is based on the general principle that a comparable property that has superior attributes to the subject (property) will sell for more, those that have similar attributes will sell for similar amounts, and inferior attributes will sell for less.”

19In this instance, the Board determined above that 50 Fleming Bay, MPAC’s third proposed comparable property, was superior to the Subject Property, and that MPAC’s fourth proposed comparable property, at 215 Homewood Avenue, was inferior to the Subject Property. The former sold for $480,000 and the latter for $432,500, without any adjustments. Using the bracketing method described above, the correct current value of the Subject Property was the point between these two amounts.

20Therefore, the Board finds that the correct current value of the Subject Property at the valuation date was $456,250.

Issue 2 – Equity

MPAC

21MPAC’s equity analysis referred to above compared 2016 current value assessments to time adjusted sales prices of 28 properties to arrive at a median assessment to sales ratio (“ASR”) of 0.925. Without time adjustments, the resulting ASR was slightly lower at 0.910.

22MPAC’s report said that: “MPAC does strive to have ASRs within 5%, however in rural waterfront areas with fewer sales and unique properties it is my opinion that reaching an ASR of 0.92 is acceptable, indicating the properties are slightly underassessed.” As a result, MPAC did not apply any adjustment in equity.

Appellant

23The Appellant argued that because the assessments of nine properties on the same street as the Subject Property were lower than hers, the assessment of the Subject Property should be adjusted downward. The only information in evidence to compare those properties with the Subject Property was square footage of the buildings on each, and the amount of land included with each. Unlike MPAC’s properties in the equity analysis, there was no evidence of sales data for any of those properties.

Findings on Issue 2

24The Board does not agree with MPAC’s argument that there should be no equitable reduction because there are fewer sales, when MPAC located 28 such sales for its equity report. Moreover, although MPAC routinely argues that, quoting from its report, “the International Association of Assessing Officers (IAAO) standards state that the LOA (or ASR) for all property types should fall between 0.90-1.10,” there was no reason in this instance to deviate from MPAC’s standard practice of adjusting when the ASR was less than 0.95. In addition, to ensure consistency with the result in the determination of current value above, the Board excludes all time adjustments in this instance.

25The Board also does not agree with the Appellant’s argument that there should be an adjustment based on lower assessments on the same street as the Subject Property. In a very recently released decision entitled Menard v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 28, 2021 CanLII 59499 (ON ARB) at par. 29, the Board wrote that:

Sales data, such as that relied upon by MPAC at the hearing, is not necessary in an equity analysis unlike in the direct comparison approach to determining value. Its absence, however, makes any conclusion significantly less reliable unless such properties are very similar to the property at issue in an appeal, so that their assessments can be compared to one another. The analogy would be comparing apples to oranges, instead of comparing apples to apples when comparing assessments alone.

26The Appellant had no evidence beyond floor space and acreage for her properties, whereas MPAC’s properties were all on water and, more importantly, had sales prices to be compared with assessments to ensure the equity of assessments.

27The best evidence before the Board was that relied upon by MPAC, therefore an ASR of 0.910 is applied to the correct current value of the Subject Property to make it equitable with similar properties in the vicinity of the Subject Property pursuant to section 44(3) (b) of the Act.

CONCLUSION

28The Board finds that the correct current value of the Subject Property is $456,250.

29The Board finds that an equitable adjustment is warranted and that the ASR of 0.910 should be applied to the correct current value of $456,250.

ORDER

30The appeal of the correcting assessment made pursuant to section 32 of the Act for the 2020 taxation year is reduced to zero.

31The Board orders that the assessment of 30 Trillium Lane, Northumberland County is reduced to $415,188 or $415,000 rounded in the Residential property class for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years.