Tribunals Ontario
Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario
Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: February 22, 2022
FILE NO.: WR 176100
Assessed Person(s): David Wade McGill Farwell; Stephanie Ann Bowman
Appellant(s): Stephanie Bowman; David Farwell
Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 09
Respondent(s): City of Toronto
Property Location(s): 84 Dawlish Avenue
Municipality(ies): City of Toronto
Roll Number(s): 1904-104-500-01800-0000
Appeal Number(s): 3436478 and 3441043
Taxation Year(s): 2020 and 2021
Hearing Event No.: 758079
Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31
APPEARANCES:
Parties Representative
Stephanie Bowman and David Farwell Surin Toor
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Jessie Yu
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 $3,101,000 on the subject property at 84 Dawlish Avenue in the City of Toronto.
2Stephanie Bowman and David Farwell (the “Appellants”) 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 Appellants believe the current value of the subject property is $2,790,740, with a reduction in that value to make the assessment of the subject property equitable with the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity. The Appellants believes this reduced, equitable assessment is $2,551,000, rounded.
3In preparation for the hearing, MPAC amended its opinion of current value to $3,367,520.
Areas of Agreement
4The parties agree that the current value determined needs to be reduced to be considered equitable, when reference is made to the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity. The parties agreed that a reduction factor of 0.91 should be applied to the current value determined
Issues for the Hearing
5At 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 similar lands in the vicinity, and the factor to be used in reducing the current value is necessary.
Result
6The Assessment Review Board (“Board”) finds that the current value of the subject property is $3,313,000.
7The Board also finds that a downward adjustment to the current value determined is necessary for it to represent equitable assessment when reference is made to the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity. That adjustment is nine percent, on consent of the parties at the hearing, resulting in a reduced assessment of $3,014,830 ($3,015,000 rounded).
8Therefore, the assessment of the subject property at 84 Dawlish Avenue is reduced from $3,101,000 to $3,015,000 for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years, in the Residential property class.
ANALYSIS
Description of Subject Property
9The subject dwelling was constructed on the property in 1922. It has undergone renovations in the past, including the addition of 1,179 square feet of living area in 2015. MPAC applied an effective year built to the property of 2005. It sits on a 50 foot by 150 foot lot.
10The dwelling has 3,451 square feet of living area on two storeys, with a quality of construction rating applied by MPAC of 8.0.
Issue 1 – What is the current value of the subject property for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years?
MPAC’s Evidence
11MPAC compared the subject property with five other properties in the same neighbourhood. MPAC’s comparison used sales of properties that occurred between July 2015 and December 2016. Based on a time-adjustment study of 245 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 in the Act for the years under appeal.
12The comparable sales cited by MPAC have lot sizes ranging from 6,450 square feet to 7,500 square feet. Lot frontages range from 43 feet to 50 feet. The five proposed comparable properties in MPAC’s sample have a quality of construction ratings ranging from 7.5 to 8.5. Construction dates of these six sales range from 1929 through 1959 with effective year-built dates from 2003 to 2007. All five of MPAC’s proposed comparable properties had renovations in the past.
13Time adjusted sale (“TAS”) values of the five proposed comparable sales ranged from $2,738,460 to $3,846,414, with a median of $3,079,172. Building total areas of MPAC’s comparable properties ranged from 3,021 square feet to 3,887 square feet, with a median of 3,050. TAS values per square foot ranged from $906.47 to $1,070.23 with a median of $975.81.
14To determine the current value of the subject property from this data, MPAC took the median TAS price per square foot of building area ($975.81) and applied it to the 3,451 square feet at the subject property for a final opinion of $3,667,520.
Appellants’ Evidence
15The Appellants also compared the subject property to other properties that sold in the subject neighbourhood. The Appellants selected six proposed comparable properties to represent the best indication of the current value of the subject property.
16The Appellants’ comparable properties have lot areas ranging from 7,344 square feet to 9,563 square feet. Three of these six comparable properties have the same size lot as the subject property at 7,500 square feet. The quality of construction rating applied by MPAC to theses six properties are either 7.0 or 7.5. The dwellings were constructed between 1925 and 1942 with effective years built from 1967 to 1988. All six of these comparable properties had renovations in the past.
17TAS values of the Appellants’ six proposed comparable properties range from $2,365,720 to $3,016,000, with a median of $2,576,665. The total living areas of the six comparable properties range from 2,988 square feet to 3,603 square feet with an average of 3,242 square feet. TAS values per square foot range from $759.74 to $849.93 with an average of $808.73.
18By applying this average value to the 3,451 square feet of living area at the subject property, the Appellants arrived at a current value of $2,790,940.
Findings on Issue 1
19There is a sample of eleven proposed comparable properties in evidence that have sold in proximity to the valuation day. In determining the current value of the subject property, the Board must decide what the best evidence is from the submissions made at the hearing.
20The Board disregards MPAC’s proposed comparable #1 because it has a lower quality of construction, a smaller building area and an outdoor pool.
21The Board disregards MPAC’s proposed comparable #2 because it has a larger lot, a higher quality of construction, a larger dwelling and two and ½ storeys, whereas the subject property is a two-storey dwelling.
22The Board disregards MPAC’s proposed comparable #3 because it has a lower quality rating, 2 and ¼ storeys, and a smaller dwelling.
23The Board disregards MPAC’s proposed comparable #5 because it has a smaller dwelling.
24The Board disregards the Appellant’s proposed comparables #2, #3 and #4 because they all have lower quality ratings and smaller dwellings than the subject property.
25The Board disregards the Appellant’s proposed comparables #5 and #6 because they have lower quality of construction ratings and because they are 2 and ¼ storeys and 3 storey dwellings respectively.
26The remaining two properties provide a meaningful context to derive a current value for the subject property.
27MPAC comparable property #4 at 42 Cheltenham Avenue (‘Cheltenham’) is a slightly larger dwelling, with a slightly higher 8.5 quality of construction rating. Cheltenham’s effective year built is 2 years newer than the subject property and, in 2010, it underwent a ‘D’ renovation which is a more intense renovation as compared to the subject property’s ‘C’ renovation that took place in 2015.
28On balance, the Board considers Cheltenham to be superior to the subject property. Cheltenham’s TAS value per square foot was $1,070.23.
29The Appellant’s comparable #1 at 200 Dawlish Avenue (‘Dawlish’) is a smaller dwelling, with a lower quality of construction rating. Dawlish’s effective year built is 1970 as opposed to the subject property’s 2003. In 1994 Dawlish underwent a ‘B’ renovation which is a less transformative renovation than the renovation at the subject property.
30On balance, the Board considers Dawlish to be inferior to the subject property. Dawlish’s TAS value per square foot was $849.93.
31The current value range determined from the TAS values per square foot for Cheltenham and Dawlish suggest a range of value for the subject property of $2,933,108 and $3,693,364 when the two TAS per square foot values are applied to the subject property’s 3,451 square feet of living area.
32The midpoint of that range is $3,313,236. As a result, the Board finds that, on a balance of probabilities, the correct current value of the subject property is $3,313,000, 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?
33The Parties agreed that the sales of similar lands in the vicinity of the subject property indicated assessments that are, on a median basis, approximately nine percent below the current values determined by those sales.
Findings on Issue 2
34The Board finds that the current value determined requires a downward adjustment when reference is made to the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity, and that the adjustment is nine percent.
CONCLUSION
35The Board finds that the current value of the subject property is $3,313,000.
36The Board also finds that an 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 Board also finds that the downward adjustment required is 9 percent, resulting in an assessment of $3,015,000.
ORDER
37The Board orders that the assessment of 84 Dawlish Avenue is reduced from $3,101,000 to $3,015,000, 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