Tribunals Ontario / Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario

Assessment Review Board / Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: November 10, 2022

FILE NO.: WR 181992

Assessed Person(s): Paul Peter Van Warmerdam; Aldis Mary Van Warmerdam

Appellant(s): Paul Van Warmerdam; Aldis Van Warmerdam

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 15

Respondent(s): Town of Oakville

Property Location(s): 2030 Granby Drive

Municipality(ies): Town of Oakville

Roll Number(s): 2401-010-020-20156-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3485891

Taxation Year(s): 2022

Hearing Event No.: 777065

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

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Paul Peter Van Warmerdam; Aldis Mary Van Warmerdam	Self-represented
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation	Terence Johnston
Town of Oakville	Leslie Jane Hisey

HEARD: October 26, 2022 by telephone conference call

ADJUDICATOR(S): Christopher Voutsinas, Vice-Chair

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1Paul Peter Van Warmerdam and Aldis Mary Van Warmerdam (“Appellants”) are the owners of 2030 Granby Drive (“Subject Property”) in the Town of Oakville. The Appellants take the position that the current value assessment for the 2022 taxation year of $882,000 is too high.

2The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) was represented by Terence Johnston, who took the position that the current value assessment should be $908,000.

3Leslie Jane Hisey appeared at the hearing representing the Town of Oakville but did not actively participate.

Issues for the Hearing

4At issue in this proceeding is:

1. What is the current value of the Subject Property for the 2022 taxation year?
2. Is an equity reduction of the current value required, and if so, how much?

Result

5The Assessment Review Board (“Board”) finds that the Subject Property’s correct current value for the 2022 taxation year is $908,000.

6The Board finds that with reference to similar lands in the vicinity no equity reduction is required for the 2022 taxation year.

ANALYSIS

Description of Subject Property

7The Subject Property is a single-family detached residence located at 2030 Granby Drive in the Town of Oakville. The residence, built in 1985, comprises a two-storey building with a total built area of approximately 2,388 square feet (“sq. ft.”) situated on a land area of 0.17 acres. The Subject Property has an attached garage and according to MPAC underwent a ‘B’ renovation (interior) in 2008.

Issue 1 – What is the current value of the Subject Property for the 2022 taxation year?

8Section 19(1) of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (“Act”) provides that the assessment of land shall be based on its current value. Section 1 of the Act defines current value 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”. For the 2022 taxation year, the valuation date is January 1, 2016.

9For value comparison purposes, MPAC presented its valuation report dated June 22, 2022, which used the direct comparison approach including both actual and time-adjusted sale prices. Time-adjusted sale prices estimate the value of a sale as of the January 1, 2016, valuation date based on changes that occurred in the market between the actual sale date and the valuation date. Given the degree of similarity between the sale properties used for value comparison purposes and the Subject Property, MPAC relied on an analysis based on a median time-adjusted sale price per square foot of total built area of the sale properties to determine the value of the Subject Property.

10MPAC’s valuation report consisted of five sale properties: property 1, 392 Hedgerow Lane; property 2, 427 Golden Oak Drive; property 3, 2054 Granby Drive; property 4, 2134 Glenora Drive; and property 5, 2091 Eighth Line. The sale properties are all located in the A75-15 neighbourhood like the Subject Property, were built between 1985 and 1987 compared to 1985 for the Subject Property, with lot sizes varying from 0.12 acres to 0.15 acres compared to 0.17 acres for the Subject Property, and total built areas between 2,209 sq. ft. and 2,376 sq. ft. compared to 2,388 sq. ft. for the Subject Property. Like the Subject Property, the sale properties are all two-storey properties with a quality of construction assigned by MPAC of 6.5 out of a possible 10. All properties have an attached garage. Sale properties 2 and 3 are located within 0.17 kilometres (“km”) of the Subject Property and sale properties 1, 4, and 5 are located within 0.69 km of the Subject Property.

11MPAC’s evidence indicated that the Subject Property had undergone a ‘B’ renovation (interior) in 2008, whereas sale property 1 had undergone an ‘A’ renovation (exterior) in 2012, and sale property 2 had undergone a ‘B’ renovation (interior) in 2016.

12When asked by the Board to rate the Subject Property against each of the sale properties used by MPAC for value comparison purposes, MPAC stated that, in its opinion, the Subject Property was superior to all the sale properties except for sale property 2, compared to which it was slightly inferior due primarily to that property having had a ‘B’ renovation (interior renovation) in 2016.

13The property sales used by MPAC for value comparison purposes occurred within a range of 14 months of the valuation date with four property sales occurring in 2015 and one occurring in 2016.

14In determining current value, MPAC calculated the median time-adjusted sale price of the sale properties as $380.46 per sq. ft. of total built area. MPAC then applied this figure to the total built area of the Subject Property resulting in a current value for the Subject Property of $908,546, which it rounded to $908,000.

15The Appellants presented evidence consisting of a statement of issues and analysis dated June 28, 2022 which included, among other things, printouts of MPAC’s “My Neighbourhood – My Favourites” with comparisons of the Subject Property to its immediate neighbours, 2034 Granby Drive and 2026 Granby Drive, as well as comparisons to “Identical ‘Hall’ Model Homes on Granby Drive” namely, 2054 Granby Drive, 2006 Granby Drive, 2018 Granby Drive, and 2009 Granby Drive, all built around the same time and by the same developer as the Subject Property, which the Appellants submit are “virtually identical to ours”. The Appellants also compared the Subject Property to 2059 Goldfinch Court, which they submit “is identical to our home…however it is located in a much more attractive location”.

16Of the foregoing seven comparison properties highlighted by the Appellants, their analysis showed assessed values that ranged from $757,000 to $841,000, compared to an assessed value for the Subject Property of $882,000. All seven comparison properties had lower assessed values than the Subject Property. Only two of the seven comparison properties included sales values, one in July 2012 (too far removed from the valuation date of January 1, 2016 to be of use) and the other in July 2015 (also MPAC’s sale property 3).

17The Appellants’ evidence did not include actual sale values for any other properties.

18In their evidence, the Appellants describe the five primary factors used in assessing residential property (as taken from MPAC’s website). The five factors are listed by the Appellants as: 1. Age, 2. Exterior Square Footage, 3. Location, 4. Lot Size, and 5. Quality of Construction. Given that the Appellants’ comparison properties were all built around the same time and by the same developer, based on similar, if not identical layouts, they submit that factors 1. Age, and 5. Quality of Construction, would not be significant drivers of value differences. However, factors 2. Exterior Square Footage, 3. Location, and 4. Size of Lot, would be drivers of value differences.

19The Appellants submit that Granby Drive is a feeder street into the immediate neighbourhood and as such is likely the least attractive location in the neighbourhood as it has the highest traffic flows.

20In their analysis, the Appellants conclude that the assessment of 2059 Goldfinch Court at $801,000, which is for an ‘identical’ home to the Subject Property located in a “significantly more attractive location” than the Subject Property, represents an “absolute maximum assessment value that could be potential[ly] considered realistic for our property”.

21The Board finds that “assessed values” as presented by the Appellants are not reliable indicators of current value, as such the Board prefers the actual sales evidence (using time-adjusted sales values) from within the relevant timeframe, on which to base its determination of current value. Therefore, in determining the current value of the Subject Property, the Board relies on the sale properties presented by MPAC for value comparison purposes (which includes one of the Appellants’ comparison properties, 2054 Granby Drive). All five of the sale properties submitted by MPAC share a high degree of similarity to the Subject Property and are located in close proximity to the Subject Property, and as such provide sufficient data to determine the value of the Subject Property.

22Notwithstanding the high degree of similarity among the properties, the Subject Property has the largest site area at 0.17 acres when compared to the five sale properties with site areas ranging from 0.12 acres to 0.15 acres, and the largest total built area of 2,388 sq. ft. when compared to the five sale properties with total built areas ranging from 2,209 sq. ft. to 2,379 sq. ft.

23Given the overall similarity among the properties including year built, quality of construction, number of bedrooms, number of storeys, attached garage, fireplace, and overall location, the Board accepts MPAC’s use of the median time-adjusted sale price per sq. ft. of $380.46 applied to the Subject Property’s total built area of 2,388 sq. ft., which results in a current value of $908,546.

Findings on Issue 1

24The Board finds that the current value of the Subject Property for the 2022 taxation year is $908,000 (rounded).

Issue 2 – Is an equity reduction in the current value required, and if so, how much?

25Section 44(3) 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.

26The Assessment to Sales Ratio (“ASR”) is a tool used to determine whether a reduction of the assessment is required to make it equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity. The ASR is determined by dividing the assessment as returned by the time-adjusted sale price.

27The Appellants did not present an equity analysis report. However, much of the Appellants’ evidence, discussion, and analysis focussed on the assessed values of similar properties in close proximity to the Subject Property including its immediate neighbours which all had lower assessed values than the Subject Property. However, without sales values to compare to the assessed values presented, no ASR can be determined, and as such the evidence does not assist the Board in establishing that an equity reduction is required.

28Of the five sale properties presented by MPAC for valuation comparison purposes (which included the Appellants’ 2054 Granby Drive with an ASR of 0.84), the Board calculated a median ASR of 0.93 based on the current assessed values and time adjusted sale amounts presented by MPAC. However, the limited sample size is neither comprehensive nor conclusive enough to be of use.

29The Appellants noted the broad range of ASRs in MPAC’s equity report which varied from 0.82 to 1.32.

30When questioned by the Appellants, MPAC attributed the Subject Property’s higher assessed value to its larger lot size and the fact that it had undergone a ‘B’ renovation.

31MPAC presented its equity analysis report using time-adjusted sales. MPAC analysed ASRs for single-family detached residences located within 1.5 km of the Subject Property. This represented a list of 30 properties. The resulting median ASR or level of assessment was 0.99 which is within MPAC’s acceptable target level of assessment of 0.95 – 1.05. MPAC also calculated the coefficient of dispersion (“COD”) at 9.2. The COD is measured by determining the average percentage deviation from the median ASR. MPAC argues that a COD of no more than 15 is acceptable for residential properties. MPAC submits that its ASR of 0.99 and COD of 9.2 indicate that similar properties in the vicinity have been assessed at or near their time-adjusted sale values and therefore, no equitable reduction of the current value is required.

Findings on Issue 2

32The Board accepts MPAC’s equity analysis.

33The Board finds that an equitable reduction in the current value of the Subject Property is not required.

CONCLUSION

34While MPAC did not request an increase in the assessment of the Subject Property, it is the Board’s obligation in accordance with the Act to determine the correct current value which MPAC presented as $908,000 and which the Board accepts.

35As such, the Board finds that the assessment of the Subject Property for the 2022 taxation year is $908,000.

ORDER

36The Board orders that the assessment of the Subject Property for the 2022 taxation year be increased from $882,000 to $908,000.