Tribunals Ontario
Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario
Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE:
February 14, 2022
FILE NO.:
WR 176099
Assessed Person(s):
Guiseppe Macera
Appellant(s):
Guiseppe Macera
Respondent(s):
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 18
Respondent(s):
City of Niagara Falls
Property Location(s):
5792 Stanley Avenue
Municipality(ies):
City of Niagara Falls
Roll Number(s):
2725-030-007-14900-0000
Appeal Number(s):
3141927
Taxation Year(s):
2014
Hearing Event No.:
757965
Legislative Authority:
Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Representative
Guiseppe Macera
Self-represented
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
Michael Radan
City of Niagara Falls
Stephanie Young, Amber Ferguson and Miranda Adamson
HEARD:
January 13, 2022 by telephone conference call
ADJUDICATOR(S):
Dan Weagant, Member
DECISION
OVERVIEW
1This matter came to the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) from an appeal filed for the 2014 taxation year. The appeal is a remnant of several appeals that were filed for the years 2013 through 2016.
2Two appeals were filed for each of the 2013 and 2014 taxation years. These appeals pertained to omitted assessments applied by MPAC, under s. 33 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”). Those appeals gave way to a 2014 appeal of the subject property’s assessment under s. 40 of the Act, prior to the value of the omitted assessments in 2014. That 2014 s. 40 appeal was subsequently deemed for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years, pursuant to s. 40(24) of the Act.
3In December 2016, all of the appeals, except the subject appeal, were disposed of through executed minutes of settlement. For a reason unknown to the Board, this appeal was excluded from those minutes and was set to hearing for resolution.
4The original Schedule of Events (“SOE”) for this appeal established a commencement date of February 15, 2018, with a view to having a full hearing scheduled in 2019. That hearing was adjourned. The original SOE was then replaced when the Board adopted a rule, expediting the scheduling of appeals that concerned taxation years before 2017.
5The hearing was subsequently scheduled and adjourned and re-scheduled three additional times, bringing it to this hearing.
6Neither the City of Niagara Falls (“City”) nor the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) were represented at this hearing by anyone who had firsthand knowledge of the issues at hand. Those involved during the time of settlement of the 2012 current value assessment (“CVA”) appeals as described above, had either retired or moved on between that time and the time of the hearing.
7During opening remarks, the Board learned that the settlement of the 2013 and 2014 appeals set the assessment of the subject property at $283,000 ($176,000 omitted assessments plus the original $107,000 returned for those years before the addition of the omitted assessments).
8In addition, the Parties were able to confirm that the 2015 and 2016 assessments were also increased and resolved at $283,000. For a reason that no one in attendance could explain, the assessment on the roll for the 2014 taxation year, according to the City, is $274,500. There is no evidence before the Board to support this value.
9The assessment value subject to this appeal is the original $107,000 that represented the 2012 CVA before the omitted assessments form 2013 and 2014 were applied.
Issues for the Hearing
10At issue in this proceeding is:
A determination of the current value of the subject property, prior to the 2013 and 2014 omitted assessments.
Whether a reduction in the current value should be made for the purposes of equitable assessment.
Result
11The Board finds that the assessment of the subject property, including the 2014 omitted assessment is $176,000. The Board therefore finds that the current value of the subject property under appeal, prior to the addition of the omitted assessments, is $0 for the 2014 taxation year.
PRELIMINARY MATTERS
12At the outset of the hearing, the Appellant’s intention was to seek a further adjournment. The Board sought submissions from the Appellant as to why a further adjournment was required, and responses from the other Parties on the same question.
13In considering the motion to adjourn, the Board conducted an exploratory session with the parties to determine the question that need to be answered at the hearing. Once the reason for the hearing was established, it was evident that the only documentary evidence that would ever be produced for the purpose was the evidence already submitted, and on the Board’s record.
14Since all Parties were present, and the documentary evidence was available, the Board found there was no reason to adjourn the matter.
ANALYSIS
Description of Subject Property
15The subject property is a two-storey residential building with 2,702 square feet (“sq. ft.”) of floor area. The building sits on a lot of 6,113 sq. ft. Sometime before 2013, renovations were initiated at the property. It was this renovation effort that lead to MPAC’s addition of omitted assessment for 2013 and 2014, totalling $176,000.
Issue 1 – What is the current value of the subject property for the 2014 taxation year, prior to the addition of omitted assessments?
MPAC’s Evidence
16MPAC’s disclosure included a valuation report, prepared by a property valuation analyst who was not in attendance at the hearing. The report was dated December 17, 2018 and was based on a property inspection that took place in March of 2016.
17The property valuation specialist in attendance declined to take a position on his predecessor’s report, citing the approach, findings and the change in character and use of the property since the report was prepared.
18The value determined by MPAC’s valuation report was $283,000, based on the original property value returned for 2014 of $107,000, plus the addition of the value of the omitted assessments applied by MPAC of $176,000.
Appellant’s Evidence
19The Appellant relied on a letter from RBC Royal Bank indicating that it had commissioned an appraisal and that the value determined as of February 16, 2012 was $160,000. The Appellant submitted that this is the best indication of what the property would have sold for on or near the valuation day and given its condition during the year under appeal.
Findings on Issue 1
20There is evidence before the Board that a value equal to the values agreed to by the parties in minutes of settlement of associated appeals could be applied to the subject property for the 2014 taxation year. That value is $283,000 and is derived from the original current value of $107,000 added to the value of omitted assessments for 2013 and 2014. The Board notes that the resultant value for 2015 and 2016, also agreed to by the parties, is $283,000.
21However, the Board has only the 2014 appeal before it. While the results of settlements for the years before and after 2014 provide context, the Board must use the evidence before it to determine the current value of the subject property. The Board finds MPAC’s evaluation report to be no assistance in the determination of current value, not only because the author was not present, but also because the valuation analyst currently assigned could not speak to the methodology or findings of the report.
22The Appellant presented a letter from RBC indicating its appraiser saw the value of the property to be $160,000. In presenting this appraisal, the Appellant conceded that the report was dated in 2012 and for it to apply to the 2014 taxation year, it should be somewhat higher. In this context the Appellant submitted the current value ought to be between $170,000 and $180,000.
23The City filed no evidence of the current value of the subject property.
24Having no evidence from either MPAC or the City, the Board finds the best evidence of the current value of the subject property is that of the Appellant. The Board finds the current value of the subject property is best reflected by the RBC appraisal letter, indicating a value of $160,000. The Board applies a 10% increase to that appraisal value to account for the passage of time and the value in 2014 and in line with the Appellant’s submission. The result is $176,000.
25This result indicates that the value of the subject property, before the omitted assessments of $176,000 were applied by MPAC is $0.
26Therefore, the current value, before the omitted assessments in 2014, which is the subject of the appeal before the Board is $0.
Issue 2 – Should the current value determined be reduced for it to represent equitable assessment when reference is made to the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity?
27The Appellant did not advance an opinion on whether the current value determined should be reduced for the purposes of equitable assessment.
28MPAC prepared an equity study that compared the assessments of 66 similar properties in the vicinity to their respective time adjusted sale values. The result of this study was a median assessment to sale ratio of 1.049, according to PAC, this median assessment indicates that similar properties in the vicinity are assessed at a rate that is slightly higher than their respective time adjusted sale values.
29Accordingly, the Board finds there is no evidence to support a reduction in the current value determined for the subject property, when reference is made to the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity.
ORDER
30The Board orders that the assessment of the subject property, for the 2014
taxation year, before the addition of omitted assessments, is reduced from $107,000 to $0.