Tribunals Ontario
Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario
Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: February 17, 2022 FILE NO.: WR 176093
Assessed Person(s): Carole Donna Ogus Appellant(s): Carole Ogus Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 09 Respondent(s): City of Toronto
Property Location(s): 2 Millbank Avenue Municipality(ies): City of Toronto Roll Number(s): 1904-111-200-00700-0000 Appeal Number(s): 3435775 and 3440812 Taxation Year(s): 2020 and 2021 Hearing Event No.: 756313
Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Representative |
|---|---|
| Carole Ogus | Surin Toor |
| Municipal Property Assessment Corporation | Helene Blackburn |
| City of Toronto | No one appeared |
HEARD: January 19, 2022 by telephone conference call
ADJUDICATOR(S): Dan Weagant, Member
DECISION
OVERVIEW
1For the 2020 and 2021 taxation years, the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) returned an assessment of $2,299,000 on the subject property at 2 Millbank Avenue in the City of Toronto.
2Carole Ogus (the “Appellant”) believed this returned assessment was too high and filed an appeal under s. 40 of the Assessment Act R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (“Act”). The Appellant believes the current value of the subject property is $2,026,606, with a reduction in that value to make the assessment of the subject property equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity. The Appellant believes this reduced, equitable assessment is $1,882,717.
3In preparation for the hearing, MPAC amended its opinion of current value to $2,666,500.
Issues for the Hearing
4At issue in this proceeding is:
- A determination of the current value of the subject property; and
- Whether an equity reduction in the current value is necessary for it to be equitable when reference is made to the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity.
Result
5The Assessment Review Board (“Board”) finds that the current value of the subject property is $2,659,000.
6The Board also finds that a downward adjustment to the current value determined is necessary for the assessment to represent equitable assessment when reference is made to the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity. That adjustment is 7%, on consent of the parties at the hearing, resulting in an assessment of $2,472,870 ($2,473,000, rounded).
7Therefore, the assessment of the subject property at 2 Millbank Avenue is increased for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years, from $2,299,000 to $2,473,000 in the Residential property class.
ANALYSIS
Description of Subject Property
8The subject dwelling was constructed on the property in 1924. It sits on a corner lot, measuring 5,500 square feet.
9The dwelling has 3,206 square feet of living area on two and one quarter storeys, with a quality of construction rating applied by MPAC of 7.5.
Issue 1 – What is the current value of the subject property for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years?
MPAC’s Evidence
10MPAC compared the subject property with six other property sales in the same neighbourhood. MPAC’s comparison used sales of properties that occurred between June 2015 and December 2016. Based on a time-adjustment study of 246 sales of single family dwellings in the area, these six comparable sale values were adjusted so they could be compared as though they all took place on January 1, 2016; the valuation day stipulated it the Act for the years under appeal.
11The comparable sales cited by MPAC have lot sizes ranging from 5,460 square feet to 6,895 square feet. Lot frontages range from 50 feet to 60 feet. All six proposed comparable properties in MPAC’s sample have a quality of construction rating of 7.5, the same as the subject property. Construction dates of these six sales range from 1929 through 1935.
12Time adjusted sale (“TAS”) values of the six proposed comparable sales ranged from $2,532,231 to $3,145,036, with a median of $2,851,000, rounded. Building total areas of MPAC’s comparable properties ranged from 2,926 square feet to 3,918 square feet, with a median of 3,328. TAS values per square foot ranged from $639.84 to $1,064.11 with a median of $831.75, after a 1% downward adjustment to account for the difference in value of corner lots. This adjustment was necessary according to MPAC, because the subject property is a corner lot and the six proposed comparable properties are not corner lots.
13To determine the current value of the subject property from this data, MPAC took the median TAS price per square foot of building area and applied it to the 3,206 square feet at the subject property for a final opinion of $2,666,500.
Appellant’s Evidence
14The Appellant also compared the subject property to other properties that sold in the subject neighbourhood. The Appellant selected five proposed comparable properties, including two that were also selected by MPAC.
15The median per square foot value of these five proposed comparable properties is $632.13 after a time-adjustment. By applying this value to the 3,206 square feet of living area at the subject property, the Appellant arrived a current value of $2,026,606.
Findings on Issue 1
16The Board must decide what the best evidence of current value is from the sample of other properties that sold in the same area as the subject property. A total of nine properties are before the Board as sales comparables; four from MPAC, three from the Appellant and two that were cited by both Parties.
17In determining the most comparable properties in evidence, the Board disregards the following properties form consideration:
- MPAC comparables #1, #2, #6 (also Appellant comparable #2) and Appellant comparable #3. These four properties have larger lots and larger building areas when compared to the subject property.
- MPAC comparables #4 and #5. These are two sales of the same property occurred in 2015 and 2016. When compared to the subject property, this property as a smaller dwelling on larger lot when compared to the subject property.
- Appellant’s comparables #4 and #5. These two properties have a quality of construction rating of 7.0 whereas the subject property has a rating of 7.5. These lots are smaller than the subject property. Appellant comparable #4 has a larger dwelling than the subject property and Appellant comparable # 5 has a smaller dwelling than the subject property.
18From the sample of properties available for comparison advanced by both parties, the Board finds the best comparable property in evidence is MPAC comparable #3, also cited by the Appellant as comparable #1. The address of this best comparable is 23 Elderwood Drive (“Elderwood”).
19Elderwood is approximately 600 metres from the subject property. It has a dwelling size of 3,209 square feet (three square feet larger than the subject property), and a lot size that is 40 square feet smaller. Elderwood has a partial third level, like the subject property. Elderwood differs from the subject property in that it has a partially finished basement, whereas the subject property does not have a finished basement. Elderwood also differs from the subject property in that is does not have an attached garage whereas the subject property has an attached one-car garage. The subject property is a corner lot, whereas Elderwood is not a corner lot.
20The Board finds that the presence of a garage at the subject property and the presence of a finished basement area at Elderwood have the effect of balancing each other with respect to value. This leaves the subject property’s presence on the corner lot to account for.
21Elderwood sold for a time-adjusted sale value per square foot of living area of $837.70. When the -1% adjustment for the subject property corner lot submitted in evidence by MPAC, and uncontested at hearing, is applied to this figure, the result is $829.32.
22When applied to the 3,206 square feet at the subject property, the result is $2,658,800. The Board finds that the current value of the subject property is $2,659,000, rounded.
Issue 2 – Does the current value determined need to be reduced for it to be equitable when reference is made to the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity?
23The Parties agree that the current value determined should be reduced by a factor of 0.93 for it to reflect equitable assessment when reference is made to the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity.
Findings on Issue 2
24By applying the agreed-to factor of 0.93 to the current value determined of $2,659,000, the result is an assessment of $2,472,870 ($2,473,000 rounded).
CONCLUSION
25The Board finds that the current value of the subject property is $2,659,000.
26The Board also finds that a downward adjustment to the current value is necessary for it to represent equitable assessment when reference is made to the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity. The result of that adjustment is an assessment of $2,473,000.
ORDER
27The Board orders that the assessment of 2 Millbank Avenue is increased from $2,299,000 to $2,473,000 in the Residential property class, for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years.
"Dan Weagant"
DAN WEAGANT MEMBER Assessment Review Board
Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb