Tribunals Ontario
Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario
Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: February 14, 2022
Assessed Person(s): Mary Agnes Akin
Appellant(s): Mary Akin
Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 09
Respondent(s): City of Toronto
Property Location(s): 23 Glenallan Road
Municipality(ies): City of Toronto
Roll Number(s): 1908-081-170-01000-0000
Appeal Number(s): 3435305 and 3447463
Taxation Year(s): 2020 and 2021
Hearing Event No.: 753397
Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Representative
Mary Agnes Akin
Surin Toor
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
Carlo Bassi
City of Toronto
No one appeared
HEARD: November 23, 2021 by telephone conference call
ADJUDICATOR(S): Jennifer Griffith, Member
DECISION
OVERVIEW
1Mary Agnes Akin (the “Assessed Person/Appellant”) is the owner of 23 Glenallan Road (the “Subject Property”) in the City of Toronto (the “City”). The Appellant filed appeals for the returned assessment of $3,587,000 for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years with the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”), pursuant to s. 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”).
2It is the Appellant’s position that the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation’s (“MPAC”) current value assessment of $3,587,000 is too high and that the correct current value should be $2,890,685. MPAC takes the position that the correct current value should be $3,459,324 based on sales evidence.
3Pursuant to s. 19(1) of the Act, the assessment of land shall be based on its current value; and s. 19.2(1)4 provides that, for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years, MPAC is required to assess this value as of the valuation date, January 1, 2016.
4Pursuant to s. 40(11) of the Act, the municipality in which the land is located is a party to this proceeding; however, no one appeared on behalf of the City.
5Pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act, MPAC takes the position that an equitable reduction of the current value is not required. The Appellant asserts that an equity reduction is required.
Issues for the Hearing
6The issues to be determined on these appeals are:
What is the determination of the current value of the Subject Property for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years based on a direct comparison approach?
Whether there should be an equitable reduction of the current value pursuant to s. 44(3) of the Act, and, if so, what the amount of this reduction should be?
Result
7The Board finds the correct current value for the Subject Property at the valuation date January 1, 2016 is $3,304,000.
8The Board also finds that an equity reduction pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) is not required.
9Therefore, the Board finds that the returned assessment of $3,587,000 be reduced to $3,304,000 for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years.
ANALYSIS
Description of the Subject Property
10The Subject Property is a Property Code 301 Single-Family Detached (not on water) residential property. It is situated on a lot size of 10,125 square feet (“sq. ft.”) with a total building area of 4,308 sq. ft., a quality of construction rating 8 and built in 1992.
Issue 1 - What is the determination of the current value of the Subject Property for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years based on a direct comparison approach?
Direct Comparison Approach Based on Sales
11The Direct Comparison Approach estimates the market value by comparing the sale prices of similar properties (in terms of lot size, total building area, year built, quality of construction, etc.) that have sold within a reasonable timeframe of the valuation date to the Subject Property. In this case the valuation date is January 1, 2016.
12In determining the correct current value, the Board references s. 19(1) of the Act, which states that the assessment of land shall be based on its current value, which is defined 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”.
13For the reasons discussed below, the Board finds the correct current value at the valuation date of January 1, 2016 is $3,304,000.
14Reviewing the evidence in support of current value, the Board finds the six sales of comparable properties, located in the same homogeneous area as the Subject Property, and presented by MPAC and the Appellant represent the best evidence of current value determined by the Direct Comparison Approach to value.
MPAC’s Evidence in Support of Current Value
15MPAC’s Representative, Carlo Bassi, presents a Valuation Report dated April 28, 2021, which he prepared and testifies to the information contained in the report.
16MPAC’s Representative testifies that the Subject Property is located in the Lawrence Park neighourhood, which is an affluent residential neighbourhood, along with Rosedale, The Bridle Path, and Forest Hill. He testifies that the Lawrence Park neighbourhood is located in a very peaceful and tranquil setting that includes amongst other things, gently rolling hills, several parks, a ravine, and lush topography. It was one of Toronto’s first planned garden suburbs with a variety of architectural style houses including English Cottage, Tudor Revival, Georgian and Colonial designs. Most of these homes were built between 1910 and the late 1940s.
17In support of current value, MPAC’s Representative relies on the Direct Comparison Approach and presents 20 proposed comparable properties, sold in 2015 and 2016 in the same homogeneous neighbourhood identified as (C66) as the Subject Property. MPAC’s Representative provides both the actual and time-adjusted sale prices and relies on the time-adjusted sale prices in his analysis. He further confirms that that no adjustment was made for differences in characteristics such as total building area, quality, and year built to the Subject Property. Instead, he only adjusted for site variables and applied a minus 1 percent for corner lot.
18The following Table 1 is the analysis of the 20 proposed comparable properties:
Table 1
MPAC’s Sales Analysis
| 20 PROPOSED COMPARABLE PROPERTIES | LOT SIZE (square foot) (sq. ft.) | TOTAL BUILDING AREA (sq. ft.) | QUALITY RATING | YEAR BUILT | SALE DATE | SALE PRICE ($) | SALE PRICE (time adjusted (TAS) ($) | TAS ($) (adjusted for site variables and corner lot) per sq. ft. based on total building area) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 Stratheden Road | 9,825 | 4,498 | 8 | 1994 | 2016 | 4,120,000 | 3,685,040 | 819 |
| 88 Stratford Crescent | 7,869.40 | 3,722 | 8 | 1998 | 2016 | 3,350,000 | 2,996,331 | 805 |
| 41 Daneswood Road | 12,080.80 | 4,497 | 9 | 1969 | 2016 | 4,782,000 | 4,330,942 | 963 |
| 36 Daneswood Road | 9,990 | 3,592 | 7.5 | 1964 | 2016 | 3,485,000 | 3,156,280 | 887 |
| 36 Glenallan Road | 9,307.16 | 3,892 | 7.5 | 1963 | 2015 | 2,824,000 | 2,844,248 | 731 |
| 30 Glenallan Road | 9,308.52 | 3,749 | 7.5 | 1964 | 2016 | 3,420,000 | 3,261,484 | 870 |
| 267 St Leonard’s Avenue | 7,500 | 4,229 | 8 | 1937 | 2015 | 3,000,008 | 3,199,969 | 757 |
| 281 St Leonard’s Avenue | 7,500 | 2,552 | 8 | 1942 | 2015 | 3,050,000 | 3,352,610 | 1,314 |
| 223 St Leonard’s Avenue | 7,500 | 4,246 | 8 | 1991 | 2015 | 3,385,000 | 3,557,922 | 846 |
| 119 Rochester Avenue | 7,500 | 4,651 | 8.5 | 1998 | 2015 | 3,460,000 | 3,533,603 | 760 |
| 155 Rochester Avenue | 7,500 | 4,161 | 8 | 1991 | 2016 | 3,050,000 | 3,028,969 | 728 |
| 6 Lewes Crescent | 8,667 | 4,606 | 8.5 | 1998 | 2015 | 3,400,000 | 3,573,689 | 776 |
| 236 St Leonard’s Avenue | 7,500 | 4,048 | 8 | 1991 | 2016 | 3,350,000 | 3,112,298 | 769 |
| 264 St Leonard’s Avenue | 7,500 | 4,114 | 8 | 1995 | 2016 | 3,680,000 | 3,251,112 | 790 |
| 262 St Leonard’s Avenue | 7,500 | 4,190 | 8 | 1986 | 2016 | 3,010,000 | 2,760,806 | 659 |
| 14 Lewes Crescent | 7,500 | 4,188 | 8 | 1990 | 2015 | 3,100,000 | 3,514,874 | 839 |
| 121 Cheltenham Avenue | 7,500 | 3,025 | 8 | 1959 | 2016 | 3,250,000 | 2,906,888 | 961 |
| 113 Buckingham Avenue | 7,500 | 4,258 | 8 | 1982 | 2016 | 3,800,000 | 3,357,126 | 788 |
| 115 Buckingham Avenue | 7,500 | 3,783 | 8 | 1983 | 2016 | 3,308,000 | 3,034,135 | 802 |
| 140 Buckingham Avenue | 7,500 | 2,733 | 8 | 1949 | 2015 | 3,300,000 | 3,323,072 | 1,183 |
| Median | 803 | |||||||
| Subject Property | 10,125 | 4,308 | 8 | 1992 | NIL | N/A | N/A | N/A |
19The above analysis shows that the median adjusted sale price is $803.00. When this rate is applied to the Subject Property it results in a current value of $3,459,324 ($803.00 x 4,308 sq. ft. of total building area). Based on the above analysis, MPAC’s Representative is of the opinion that the current value for the Subject Property is $3,459,324.
Appellant’s Evidence in Support of Current Value
20In support of current value, the Appellant’s Representative, Surin Toor, presents 13 proposed comparable properties sold over the period 2015 to 2017 and located in homogeneous neighbourhoods identified as C59, C66, and C70. The Appellant’s Representative provided both the actual sale prices and the time adjusted sale prices and relies on the time adjusted sale prices.
21The following Table 2 is an analysis of the 13 proposed comparable properties:
Table 2
Appellant’s Sales Analysis
| 13 PROPOSED COMPARABLE PROPERTIES | LOT SIZE (square foot) (sq. ft.) | TOTAL BUILDING AREA (sq. ft.) | QUALITY RATING | YEAR BUILT | SALE DATE | SALE PRICE ($) | SALE PRICE (time adjusted (TAS) ($) | TAS ($) (adjusted) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 Stratheden Road | 9,825 | 4,498 | 8 | 1994 | 2016 | 4,120,000 | 3,685,040 | 818.87 |
| 5 Mildenhall Road | 7,967.40 | 4,615 | 8 | 1985 | 2017 | 3,430,000 | 2,809,916 | 608.87 |
| 2 Blyth Hill Road | 10,720 | 4,500 | 9 | 2004 | 2016 | 3,550,000 | 3,297,950 | 754.86 |
| 264 St Leonard’s Avenue | 7,500 | 4,114 | 8 | 1995 | 2016 | 3,680,000 | 3,249,440 | 789.85 |
| 113 Buckingham Avenue | 7,500 | 4,258 | 8 | 1982 | 2016 | 3,800,000 | 3,355,400 | 788.02 |
| 4 Ridgefield Road | 10,519 | 4,769 | 8.5 | 1998 | 2015 | 3,200,000 | 3,718,750 | 732.99 |
| 152 Highland Crescent | 11,600 | 5,032 | 9 | 2002 | 2016 | 3,460,000 | 3,342,360 | 664.22 |
| 111 Rochester Avenue | 10,500 | 4,865 | 8 | 1955 | 2016 | 4,350,000 | 3,749,700 | 770.75 |
| 139 Highland Crescent | 9,409 | 5,172 | 8 | 1990 | 2016 | 3,350,000 | 3,283,000 | 634.76 |
| 4 Ivor Road | 8,292.80 | 4,799 | 8.5 | 2000 | 2016 | 2,950,000 | 2,705,150 | 529.87 |
| 262 St Leonard’s Avenue | 7,500 | 4,190 | 8 | 1986 | 2016 | 3,010,000 | 2,760,170 | 658.75 |
| 36 Glenallan Road | 9,307.16 | 3,892 | 7.5 | 1963 | 2015 | 2,860,000 | 2,880,020 | 739.98 |
| 6 Lewes Crescent | 8,667 | 4,606 | 8.5 | 1998 | 2015 | 3,400,000 | 3,573,400 | 775.81 |
| Average | 709.31 | |||||||
| Subject Property | 10,125 | 4,308 | 8 | 1992 | NIL | N/A | N/A | N/A |
22The Appellant’s Representative testifies that the analysis of the above 13 proposed comparable properties demonstrates that the average adjusted sale price is $709.31. When this rate is applied to the Subject Property it results in a current value of $3,055,693. Therefore, the Appellant’s Representative is of the opinion that the current value is $3,055,693.
Finding of the current value of the Subject Property for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years
23Reviewing the evidence presented in support of current value, the Board finds that MPAC and the Appellant have both presented three separate comparable properties which the Board determines the best evidence of current value. These six comparable properties located in the same homogeneous area (identified as C66) are all similar in building area, lot size and quality of construction as the Subject Property. The six properties are as follows:
7 Stratheden Road, sold in 2016 at a time adjusted sale price of $3,685,040.
267 St. Leonard’s Avenue sold in 2015 at a time adjusted sale price of $3,199,969.
236 St. Leonard’s Avenue sold in 2016 at a time adjusted sale price of $3,112,298.
264 St. Leonard’s Avenue sold in 2016 at a time adjusted sale price of $3,251,112.
14 Lewes Crescent, sold in 2015 at a time adjusted sale price of $3,514, 874.
113 Buckingham Avenue sold in 2016 at a time adjusted sale price of $3,357,126.
24The sale of these six comparable properties have a median lot size of 7,500 sq. ft., median total building area of 4,208 sq. ft., median finished basement 1,267 sq. ft., median effective year built 1993, two-storey homes, similar quality of construction rating 8, and sold at a median time adjusted sale price of $3,304,000 rounded. This is compared to the Subject Property with a lot size of 10,125 sq. ft, total building area of 4,308 sq. ft., finished basement of 1,661 sq. ft., effective year built 1992, a two-storey home, quality of construction rating 8, not sold, and assessed at $3,587,000.
25Based on the above analysis, the Board finds that the median time-adjusted sale price of $3,304,000 represents the best evidence of arm’s length transaction between a willing buyer and a willing seller pursuant to s. 19(1) of the Act. Therefore, the Board determines the current value to be $3,304,000.
26Regarding the sales of the remaining 14 comparable properties presented by MPAC (shown in the above Table 1), the Board did not rely on these sales because a number of these comparable properties are less similar to the Subject Property, in total building, lot sizes, quality of construction, corner lot, and effective age due to renovation.
27Regarding the sales of the remaining 10 comparable properties presented by the Appellant (shown in the above Table 2), the Board did not rely on these sales for the following reasons:
The Board did not rely on the sale at 5 Mildenhall Road which occurred in 2017, because it is too far removed from the valuation date of January 1, 2016 to reflect a true test of open market transaction. The Board relies on the time adjusted sales which occurred in 2015 and 2016 which is one year on either side of the valuation date.
The four sales of comparable properties which occurred in homogeneous areas C59 and C70 were not relied on, because the homogeneous areas are different than that of the Subject Property which is C66. The Board finds that there are enough sales in the homogeneous area of the Subject Property and that there is no need to expand the vicinity beyond the Subject Property’s neighbourhood.
The remaining five sale of comparable properties were not relied on because they are less similar with differences in total building area, lot size, quality of construction rating, year built and effective year built due to renovation, as compared to the Subject Property.
28Based on the above reasons, the Board finds that these varied differences in characteristics to the Subject Property would require substantial adjustments in order to make them similar to the Subject Property. As no quantifiable evidence was adduced before this Board to adjust for the majority of these differences, the Board will only rely on the sale of the six comparable properties located in the same homogeneous area as Subject Property listed in point 25 as the best evidence in support of current value.
29Based on all the evidence, the Board finds the correct current value is $3,304,000.
Issue 2 - Whether there should be an equitable reduction of the current value pursuant to [s. 44(3)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-a31/latest/rso-1990-c-a31.html)(b) of the [Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-a31/latest/rso-1990-c-a31.html), and, if so, what the amount of this reduction should be?
30Section 44(3)(b) of the Act provides that “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.” In essence, the Board looks to similar lands in the vicinity to determine whether their assessed values are lower than their current values. If so, then it would be equitable to lower the assessed value of the Subject Property by a proportionate amount.
MPAC’s Evidence
31MPAC presents an Equity Analysis Report in which the assessments of 30 similar comparable properties (similar in general nature, character and function as the Subject Property) are compared to their respective sale prices to determine the Assessment to Sales Ratio (“ASR”). The ASR is computed by dividing the assessed value of the property sold by its sale price.
32MPAC states that these 30 comparable properties with Property Code 301- Single-Family Detached (not on water) are similar property type residential homes as the Subject Property, sold over the period January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2016 and located within 1.0 kilometre of the Subject Property.
33MPAC states that the analysis of the sales of these 30 comparable properties shows a Level of Appraisal (“LOA”) of 0.979 and a Coefficient of Dispersion (“COD”) of 8.4.
34MPAC explains that the LOA measures central tendency and the mid-point of the ASR ratios, and the median ASR is the preferred measure to determine the LOA, because it is not affected by very low or high ratios. MPAC also explains that the COD measures appraisal uniformity by determining the average deviation from the median ASR. Based on this finding, MPAC’s opinion is that an equity reduction is not required.
Appellant’s Evidence
35In support of equity, the Appellant’s Representative presents an Equity Analysis Report in which the assessments of 269 residential comparable properties from neighbourhoods and adjoining neighbourhoods are compared to their respective sale prices to determine the ASR.
36The Appellant’s Representative testifies that these 269 sales which occurred in 2015 to 2016 have a median ASR of 0.966. The Appellant’s Representative performs another two analyses which show that the ASR when capped at an ASR of 1.70 reflects a median ASR of 0.956, and when the ASRs are capped within a 50% error range between ASR of 0.5 and ASR of 1.50 the median ASR is 0.946. Based on these two capping approaches of the ASR, the Appellant’s Representative is of the opinion that the correct ASR is 0.946 which supports an equity reduction.
37On cross-examination, the Appellant’s Representative states that the 269 sales used in his report include all residential properties except for (condominiums) and was unable to say exactly which neighbourhoods the sales were from, and how far away they are located in relation to the Subject Property.
Findings on Equity
38Based on the above evidence, the Board finds that MPAC presents the best evidence in support of equity, with the analysis of 30 sales of similar type properties Property Code 301 – Single Family Detached (not on water) as the Subject Property. They are similar in nature, character, function, Property Type 301 and located within 1.0 kilometre of the Subject Property.
39The analysis shows that these 30 sales of similar properties have a LOA (ASR) of 0.979 which falls within MPAC’s standard of 0.95 – 1.05 and within the International Association of Assessing Officers (“IAAO”) standards of 0.90 – 1.10, which the Board accepts and finds that this evidence does not support an equity reduction.
40The Board rejects the Appellant’s equity analysis of 269 proposed comparable properties for the following reasons:
The sales are from distances not defined in the report, which does not demonstrate their location in relation to the Subject Property.
The sales include residential properties such as townhouses and semi-detached that are not similar to the Subject Property, which is a single family detached home (Property Type 301).
The Appellant’s Representative relies on ASRs capped within a 50% error range (between ASR of 0.5 and ASR of 1.50) with a median ASR 0.946. The Board finds that this approach of capping seems to demonstrate a lack of confidence in the entire report presented in support of an equity reduction. Therefore, the Board rejects the report and puts no weight on it because the results of two of the three analysis reflect ASRs of 0.966 and 0.956 which does do not support an equity reduction.
41Based on the above evidence, the Board finds that an equity reduction is not required.
CONCLUSION
42The Board finds the correct current value for the Subject Property at the valuation date January 1, 2016 is $3,304,000.
43The Board also finds that an equity reduction pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) is not required.
ORDER
44The Board orders the returned assessment of $3,587,000 be reduced to $3,304,000 for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years.
"Jennifer Griffith"
JENNIFER GRIFFITH
MEMBER
Assessment Review Board
Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb