Tribunals Ontario
Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario
Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE:
September 07, 2021
FILE NO.:
WR 172842
Assessed Person(s):
Pauline Werrel D’Souza
Appellant(s):
Werrel D’Souza
Respondent(s):
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 25
Respondent(s):
Town of The Blue Mountain
Property Location(s):
291 Yellow Birch Crescent
Municipality(ies):
Town of The Blue Mountain
Roll Number(s):
4242-000-002-13170-0000
Appeal Number(s):
3432487 and 3448541
Taxation Year(s):
2020 and 2021
Hearing Event No.:
751465
Legislative Authority:
Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Representative
Werrel D’Souza
Peter Lobo
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
Mauro Pistillo
Town of The Blue Mountain
Kris Couture
HEARD:
August 5, 2021 by telephone conference
ADJUDICATOR:
Anthony LaRegina, Member
DECISION
OVERVIEW
1The property owner, Werrel D’Souza (the “Appellant”), represented by Peter Lobo, filed a property assessment appeal for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years with the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) regarding her property located at 219 Yellow Birch Crescent (“Subject Property”) in the Town of The Blue Mountain (“Town”).
2Pursuant to the provisions of the Assessment Act (“Act”), the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) conducted a general reassessment of the Subject Property and determined that its current value assessment was $455,000. It is the Appellant’s position that MPAC’s current value assessment is too high and that the correct current value assessment should be $435,000 and no more than $444,000. At this hearing, MPAC has taken the position that the current value assessment should be confirmed at $455,000.
3Pursuant to s. 40(11) of the of the Act, the Town is a party to this proceeding. Kris Couture attended the hearing on behalf of the Town as an observer.
Issues for the Hearing
4The issues in this proceeding are:
a determination of the current value of the Subject Property; and
whether an equity reduction in the current value should be made to compensate for the assessment of similar lands in the vicinity.
Result
5The Board finds that the correct current value of the Subject Property for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years is $451,000. Pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act, no equitable reduction is required to compensate for the assessment of similar lands in the vicinity. The Board orders a reduction from the returned assessment value from $455,000 to $451,000 for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years.
Description of Subject Property
6The Subject Property is a residential single-family semi-detached (not on water), located at 219 Yellow Birch Crescent in the Town of The Blue Mountain. The Subject Property is a two-storey home of quality 7 construction built in 2017 and known as the Bedford Model when it was purchased. The structure has a building area of 1,674 square feet with 721 square feet of unfinished space in the basement. The lot has 26.07 feet of frontage by 115.64 feet of depth for a total effective area of 0.07 acres. The Subject Property has a two-storey structure with a 236 square foot attached garage and a utility box located on the front lawn. The Subject Property has been returned at $455,000 based on a valuation day of January 1, 2016 for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years which are under appeal.
Sale of the Subject Property
7According to MPAC, the Subject Property was sold on November 16, 2018 for $498,716 without upgrades or harmonized sales tax (“HST”). According to Mr. Lobo, the Appellant paid a total of $498,716 including HST and all the upgrades. Mr. Lobo did not produce the statement of adjustment as requested from MPAC to verify the upgrades that were included in the purchase price. The plans obtained by MPAC from the Town show a finished basement which was denied by Mr. Lobo. MPAC also used the building plans to establish the building area of 1,674 square feet. The plans were not produced by MPAC as part of their evidence package. MPAC did not do an on-site property inspection to verify any of the upgrades because of the Covid-19 restrictions not allowing property inspections.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Issue 1 – A determination of the current value of the Subject Property
8The first issue to be determined on this appeal is the correct current value of the Subject Property for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years. Pursuant to s. 19(1) of the Act, the assessment of land shall be based on its current value. The Act also provides that, for the 2017 to 2021 taxation years, MPAC is required to assess this value as of the valuation day, January 1, 2016 (“current value”). As defined in the Act, “current value means in relation to land, 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.”
9Crystal Brum was sworn in as MPAC’s property valuations specialist without any objections from Mr. Lobo.
10MPAC submitted two exhibits as part of their evidence package, the first is a valuation report and the second is the equity report.
11To determine market value, MPAC has utilized the direct sales comparison approach and submitted into evidence the builder’s sales of seven comparable properties in the same development as the Subject Property. The comparable properties are rarely sold on the valuation day of January 1, 2016, so their sale values are time-adjusted to greater or reduced values depending on whether the date of the sale occurred before or after the valuation day. According to the time-adjusted evidence submitted by MPAC, there was a 23.34% increase in market value over a 23-month period starting January 5, 2015 and ending December 29, 2016. MPAC created a time-adjustment factor table and graph by month covering the same period and applied these values to time-adjust four of the seven comparable property sales provided in evidence that were sold during 2016. The other three sales occurred in 2017 and 2018 and were therefore not time adjusted as the time adjustment factors did not extend beyond December 2016.
MPAC’s Comparable Properties
12The Board has reviewed the details of the Subject Property as well as the seven suggested comparable properties, sold between July 27, 2016 and September 14, 2017 submitted by MPAC (see Table 1 below).
Table 1 - MPAC’s Comparable Property Sales
Subject Property
Property 1
Property 2
Property 3
Roll Number
424200000213170
424200000212977
424200000212992
424200000212980
Address
219 Yellow Birch Cres
154 Yellow Birch Cres
140 Yellow Birch Cres
142 Yellow Birch Cres
Neighbourhood
E25-92 (311) Semi-Detached
E25-92 (311) Semi-Detached
E25-92 (311) Semi-Detached
E25-92 (311) Semi-Detached
Subject Property
Property 1
Property 2
Property 3
Property Code & Decs.
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Distance in km
0.2681
0.3171
0.3097
Valuation
Current Value Assessment
$455,000
$457,000
$455,000
$455,000
Sale
Sale Date
20181116
20161104
20160727
20160727
Sale Amount
$564,000
$449,000
$419,000
$417,000
Time Adjusted Sale Amount
$468,000
$432,000
$430,000
Site
Effective Frontage(F)
26.07
25
25
25
Effective Depth (F)
115.64
104.97
127.86
130.66
Effective site Area (Acres)
0.07
0.06
0.07
0.07
Actual Site Area (Acres)
0.07
0.06
0.07
0.07
Effective Lot Size Unit of Measurement
A
A
A
A
Abuts Variable(s)
(U) Abuts Utility Box
Residential Structure
Year Built
2017
2017
2016
2016
Quality of Construction
7
7
7
7
Full Storeys
2 Storeys
2 Storeys
2 Storeys
2 Storeys
Building Total Area (SF)
1.674
1,639
1,617
1,617
Basement Area (SF)
721
712
698
698
Finished Basement Area (SF)
Secondary Structure(s)
Structure Description
(116) Attached Garage
(116) Attached Garage
(116) Attached Garage
(116) Attached Garage
Year Built
2017
2017
2016
2016
Building Total Area (SF)
236
206
236
236
Quality of Construction
4
4
4
4
Subject Property
Property 4
Property 5
Property 6
Roll Number
424200000213170
424200000213024
424200000212973
424200000212975
Address
219 Yellow Birch Cres
144 Yellow Birch Cres
139 Yellow Birch Cres
147 Yellow Birch Cres
Neighbourhood
E25-92 (311) Semi-Detached
E25-92 (311) Semi-Detached
E25-92 (311) Semi-Detached
E25-92 (311) Semi-Detached
Property Code & Decs.
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Distance in km
0.3025
0.3037
0.2738
Valuation
Current Value Assessment
$455,000
$471,000
$454,000
$460,000
Sale
Sale Date
20181116
20161220
20170728
20170914
Sale Amount
$564,000
$475,000
$434,000
$498,000
Time Adjusted Sale Amount
$434,000
Site
Effective Frontage(F)
26.07
25
25.2
25.62
Effective Depth (F)
115.64
130.69
114.19
111.51
Effective site Area (Acres)
0.07
0.08
0.07
0.07
Actual Site Area (Acres)
0.07
0.08
0.07
0.07
Effective Lot Size Unit of Measurement
A
A
A
A
Abuts Variable(s)
(U) Abuts Utility Box
Subject Property
Property 4
Property 5
Property 6
Residential Structure
Year Built
2017
2017
2017
2017
Quality of Construction
7
7
7
7
Full Storeys
2 Storeys
2 Storeys
2 Storeys
2 Storeys
Building Total Area (SF)
1,674
1,662
1,674
1,674
Basement Area (SF)
721
728
721
721
Finished Basement Area (SF)
458
463
Secondary Structure(s)
Structure Description
(116) Attached Garage
(116) Attached Garage
(116) Attached Garage
(116) Attached Garage
Year Built
2017
2017
2017
2017
Building Total Area (SF)
236
206
236
236
Quality of Construction
4
4
4
4
Subject Property
Property 7
Roll Number
424200000213170
424200000213016
Address
219 Yellow Birch Cres
149 Yellow Birch Cres
Neighbourhood
E25-92 (311) Semi-Detached
E25-92 (311) Semi-Detached
Property Code & Decs.
Residential
Residential
Distance in km
0.2666
Valuation
Current Value Assessment
$455,000
$463,000
Sale
Sale Date
20181116
20170825
Sale Amount
$564,000
$471,000
Time Adjusted Sale Amount
Site
Effective Frontage(F)
26.07
25.79
Effective Depth (F)
115.64
110.75
Effective site Area (Acres)
0.07
0.07
Actual Site Area (Acres)
0.07
0.07
Effective Lot Size Unit of Measurement
A
A
Abuts Variable(s)
(U) Abuts Utility Box
Residential Structure
Year Built
2017
2017
Quality of Construction
7
7
Full Storeys
2 Storeys
2 Storeys
Building Total Area (SF)
1.674
1,674
Basement Area (SF)
721
721
Finished Basement Area (SF)
463
Secondary Structure(s)
Structure Description
(116) Attached Garage
(116) Attached Garage
Year Built
2017
2017
Building Total Area (SF)
236
236
Quality of Construction
4
4
13MPAC has taken the position that the seven builder’s sales are the best evidence of current value for the Subject Property and that no other similar open market sales were found in the vicinity of the subject property. MPAC submits that these comparable property sales are all very similar to the Subject Property in terms of age, quality, building area, lot size and are all part of the same residential development. MPAC recommends that the current value of the Subject Property should be $455,000 which falls within the sale value range of the seven comparable property sales of $419,000 and $498,000.
14During cross examination, MPAC was challenged on the accuracy of the building area of the Subject Property of 1,674 square feet. Mr. Lobo produced the price list and the model sales plans showing that the Subject Property, the Bedford Model, was listed as having 1,585 square feet which he asserted is the correct square footage. Ms. Brum, MPAC’s valuation witness, assured the representative that while the building plans were not part of MPAC’s evidence package, MPAC secured the building plans from the Town and determined that the total building area of the Subject Property is 1,674 square feet representing the outside measurements of the home while the model sales plans showing 1,585 square feet represent the inside measurements or the living area within the home.
15In addition, MPAC was also challenged on the fact that it did not present any sales earlier than 2016 in the Windfall Development. Mr. Lobo submitted that 2015 sales exist but were not introduced by MPAC. Ms. Brum assured Mr. Lobo that MPAC attempted to get all sales in that period and could not find any 2015 valid sales.
16MPAC submits that the correct current value for the Subject Property should be $455,000 rounded.
The Appellant’s Evidence
17Mr. Lobo entered exhibit three which consists of three emails sent to MPAC and copied to the Board one dated March 19, 2021 and two dated March 23, 2021. Attached to these emails included the Land Transfer Statement, My Neighbourhood Favourites report, the Builder’s Price list and the building layouts from the sales brochures.
18Mr. Lobo submits that the Subject Property should be valued between $435,000 and $444,000 because the neighbouring properties at 215 Yellow Birch Crescent, 221 Yellow Birch Crescent, 209 Yellow Birch Crescent and 211 Yellow Birch Crescent are all assessed at values between $435,000 and $444,000 and are all similar to the Subject Property.
19Mr. Lobo further submits that when valuing the Subject Property, MPAC has not taken into consideration the fact that the Subject Property has an electrical box located on the front lawn with a size of 2 metres by 3 metres that produces a humming noise throughout the day and night. Mr. Lobo believes that this electrical box also has a negative impact on the market value of the Subject Property. MPAC has taken the position that it collects site information for these utility boxes but at this time does not have sufficient market data to suggest an adjustment is required.
20Mr. Lobo produced no market evidence or sales of comparable properties in support of a position on current value.
Findings on Issue 1 - Current Value of the Subject Property
21In order to establish a current value for the Subject Property, the Board has analysed all the evidence submitted by both parties and concludes that the best evidence in support of current value for the Subject Property are the first four time adjusted builder sales submitted by MPAC located at 154 Yellow Birch Crescent, 140 Yellow Birch Crescent, 142 Yellow Birch Crescent and 144 Yellow Birch Crescent. These properties are all located in the same vicinity, have similar lot sizes, quality of construction and year built as the Subject Property. Furthermore, they are all part of the same Windfall Blue Mountain development.
22The Board will not rely on the sales of comparable properties 5, 6 and 7 which includes 139 Yellow Birch Crescent,147 Yellow Birch Crescent and 149 Yellow Birch Crescent to support current value of the Subject Property as these were sold outside the shoulder years and have not been properly time adjusted to reflect a January 1, 2016 valuation.
23The Board will rely on the building areas determined by MPAC from the building plans as being accurate. It is clear from the evidence submitted by Mr. Lobo which the Appellant received when the home was purchased that the layouts represent the inside dimensions of the home and do not reflect the outside measurements and therefore the building area of the structure on the Subject Property.
24Mr. Lobo did not submit any market sales evidence of any property sold during 2015 or earlier in the same development as he claimed during cross examination of MPAC’s witness. The Board will therefore rely on the time adjusted comparable builder sales submitted by MPAC for properties 1 to 4 as the only market evidence in support of current value.
25Comparable property sales 1 to 4 are very similar in most respects furthermore the building areas are all within 60 square feet. The Board will therefore rely on the average time adjusted sale value per square foot of $269.93 of comparable sales properties 1 to 4 which includes 154 Yellow Birch Crescent, 140 Yellow Birch Crescent, 142 Yellow Birch Crescent and 144 Yellow Birch Crescent.
26The Board determines the current value of the Subject Property to be $451,862 based on multiplying the average time adjusted sale value per square foot of $269.93 by the building area for the Subject Property of 1,674 square feet.
27The Board has not heard any evidence to substantiate a quantitative adjustment for the utility box located in front of the Subject Property and therefore will make no value adjustment for the utility box.
28Based on the best available evidence, the Board finds the correct current value of the Subject Property to be $451,862 rounded to $451,000 based on a January 1, 2016 valuation day.
Issue 2 – Whether an adjustment to the assessment of the land should be made to compensate for the assessment of similar lands in the vicinity
29Section 44(3)(b) of the Act directs that, after determining 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 the land.”
30The Assessment to Sales Ratio (“ASR”) of a sample of sold properties is a tool often used to determine if a property in the vicinity is assessed below its current value. If other properties are assessed below their current value, a reduction in the assessment below current value is required to make the assessment equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity. The ASR is determined by comparing the assessment as returned to the time-adjusted sale price, expressed as a mathematical ratio.
31MPAC presented an equity analysis of 30 property sales of single-family detached homes with a property code of 311: Semi Detached Residential, Property Code 301: Single-Family Detached (Not on Water), Property Code 395 Seasonal/Recreational Dwellings (Not on Water) that occurred from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2016, located within five kilometres of the Subject Property. This equity analysis of the 30 properties results in a median ASR of 0.99 with a Coefficient of Dispersion (“COD”) of 13.4. MPAC submits that its standards indicate that for residential properties, the median ASR should fall between 0.95 and 1.05, and the COD should be less than 15. In this case, the median ratio of 0.99 is within the acceptable range, and therefore MPAC has recommended no downward adjustment to the current value assessment of the Subject Property in order to compensate for the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity.
32MPAC has also produced the assessment information of six identical Bedford Model properties to the Subject Property all having the identical building areas and very similar lot sizes. These properties include 217 Yellow Birch Crescent, 139 Yellow Birch Crescent, 141 Yellow Birch Crescent, 147 Yellow Birch Crescent, 149 Yellow Birch Crescent and 228 Yellow Birch Crescent with assessment values between $454,000 and $463,000. MPAC asserts that the best indication of the assessed value of the Subject Property is 217 Yellow Birch Crescent which is the identical property attached to the Subject Property and assessed at $454,000.
33Mr. Lobo introduced the assessment of four similar properties located at 215 Yellow Birch Crescent, 221 Yellow Birch Crescent, 209 Yellow Birch Crescent and 211 Yellow Birch Crescent. These properties have a range of assessment values between $435,000 and 444,000. Mr. Lobo submits that the assessed value of the Subject Property should also fall within this range in order to achieve an equitable valuation.
34Mr. Lobo also objected to the equity study of the 30 comparable sales presented by MPAC citing that all the properties in MPAC’s study were existing properties which were used as short term rentals in the Blue Mountain area while the properties in the Windfall development were not designated for resort or short term rentals. Mr. Lobo requested that MPAC’s Equity Study should therefore not be considered by the Board.
Findings on Issue 2 - Equitable Reduction in Assessed Value
35As a result of reviewing the evidence in support of equity, it is the Board’s position that equity has been achieved at a current value of $451,000.
36First, the Board finds that the best evidence in support of an equitable reduction in the assessment value is MPAC’s equity study of 30 property sales with the same form ,fit and function as the Subject Property located within 5 kilometres of the Subject Property. This study resulted in the ASR of 0.99 and a COD of 13.4 which are both within the acceptable parameters. Based on the ASR of 0.99, the Board agrees with MPAC that no additional downward adjustment is warranted to the current value of the Subject Property to ensure that the assessment is equitable with the assessment of similar properties in the vicinity. With regards to Mr. Lobo’s assertion that MPAC has only used properties from other parts of Blue Mountain that are able to do short term rentals, MPAC has indicated that the short term rentals do not impact their valuations and do not skew the ASR and therefore the integrity of the study. Furthermore, the properties in the Windfall Blue Mountain Development are all builder sales which are not normally added to the sample of 30 property sales for the purposes of equity.
37The Board has analysed the approach used by Mr. Lobo of comparing the four similar properties in the area concluding that the assessed value of the Subject Property should be between $435,000 and $444,000. The Board notes that the building areas of 215 Yellow Birch Crescent, 221 Yellow Birch Crescent, 209 Yellow Birch Crescent and 211 Yellow Birch Crescent referred to by Mr. Lobo are between 1,617 and 1,639 square feet which is smaller than the building area of the Subject Property at 1,674 square feet, therefore justifying a slightly higher assessment value for the Subject Property. Furthermore, when comparing these four properties presented by Mr. Lobo to the assessment values of the six properties supplied by MPAC for 217 Yellow Birch Crescent, 139 Yellow Birch Crescent, 141 Yellow Birch Crescent, 147 Yellow Birch Crescent, 149 Yellow Birch Crescent and 228 Yellow Birch Crescent which are identical Bedford models to the Subject Property, it is clear that assessment values in the range of $454,000 to $463,000 are more appropriate for the Bedford Model and also in-line with the correct current value of $451,000.
38The Board will therefore make no further downward adjustment to the correct current value of $451,000 to compensate for the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity.
CONCLUSION
39The Board finds that the correct current value of the Subject Property is $451,000 for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years. Furthermore, the Board finds that no equity reduction is required under s. 44(3)(b) of the Act.
ORDER
40The Board orders that the assessment of the Subject Property be reduced from $455,000 to $451,000 for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years.
“Anthony LaRegina”
ANTHONY LaREGINA
MEMBER
Assessment Review Board
Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb
Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248