Tribunals Ontario
Assessment Review Board
ISSUE DATE: January 14, 2022
FILE NO.: WR 175399
Assessed Person(s): Thomas O’Malley; Vernonique O’Malley
Appellant(s): Thomas O’Malley
Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 14
Respondent(s): Town of Newmarket
Property Location(s): 184 Parkview Crescent
Municipality(ies): Town of Newmarket
Roll Number(s): 1948-030-120-19300-0000
Appeal Number(s): 3451162
Taxation Year(s): 2021
Hearing Event No.: 756073
Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Representative |
|---|---|
| Thomas O’Malley, Vernonique O’Malley | Roman Andrzejewski |
| Municipal Property Assessment Corporation | Lisa Williams |
| Town of Newmarket | No one appeared |
HEARD: November 9, 2021 by telephone conference call
ADJUDICATOR(S): Dan Weagant, Member
DECISION
OVERVIEW
1For the 2021 taxation year, the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) returned an assessment of $1,543,000 on the subject property at 184 Parkview Crescent in Newmarket.
2Thomas O’Malley and Vernonique O’Malley (the “Appellants”) believe this returned assessment is too high and filed an appeal under s. 40 of the Assessment Act (“Act”). The Appellants believe the current value of the subject property is $1,212,000, 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 believe this reduced, equitable assessment is $1,115,000.
Areas of Agreement
3The parties agree that a portion of the subject property is regulated by the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (“LSRCA”), although they disagree about the effect of the regulation on the current value.
4The parties also agree that the current value determined should be reduced for it to be considered equitable when reference is made to the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity. They further agree that the downward adjustment factor to be applied to the current value is 0.92.
Issues for the Hearing
5At issue in this proceeding is:
- A determination of the current value of the subject property; and
- What the reduction in the current value should be for the assessment to be equitable, when reference is made to the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity.
Result
6The Board finds that the current value of the subject property is $1,437,000. The Board also finds that a reduction of this value, by a factor of 0.92, is necessary for it to be considered equitable when reference is made to the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity.
7Accordingly, the Board finds that the assessment of the subject property for 2021, is reduced from $1,437,000 to $1,322,000 in the Residential property class.
ANALYSIS
Description of Subject Property
8The subject dwelling was constructed on the property in 2018. It is newer and larger than most of the dwellings in the area. The dwelling sits on an exterior corner lot, backing on to public green space. The land is also improved by a swimming pool and retaining wall.
9The dwelling has 3,312 square feet of living area on a single storey. It also has a partially finished basement. The land comprises an area of 24,970 square feet. A portion of the land is regulated by the LSRCA.
Issue 1 - What is the current value of the subject property?
MPAC’s Evidence
10MPAC compared the subject property to six properties that sold between January 2015 and December 2016. The sale values ranged from $590,600 to $1,760,000, with time adjusted sale values ranging from $569,393 to $1,981,382. MPAC considered five of the six properties to be inferior to the subject property, with only one, 237 Park Avenue (“Park Avenue”) being comparable for the purposes of determining the current value of the subject property.
11MPAC submitted that the subject property and Park Avenue were comparable in that they are both custom built homes with a quality of construction rating of 7.5; that they were built only five years apart; and that both have an outdoor pool. The greatest distinctions between the two properties are that Park Avenue is a two-storey structure and the subject property is a single-storey structure, and the subject property has a larger land area.
12Park Avenue sold for a time adjusted value of $1,981,382. From that value, MPAC undertook a qualitative comparison, to arrive at a value for the subject property of $1,900,000. It submitted this value as support for the value returned. MPAC was not seeking an increase in assessment in this case.
Appellant’s Evidence
13The Appellants compared the subject property to three other properties in Newmarket:
| Subject Property – Parkview Crescent | 898 Gorham Street | 913 Southwind Court | 237 Park Avenue | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dwelling size | 3312 | 3454 | 3454 | 4567 |
| Lot size | .57 acres | 3.02 acres | 2.01 acres | |
| Sale price | N/A | $1,529,000 (July 2015) | N/A | $1,760,000 (July 2015) |
| Sale price / square foot | N/A | $435 | N/A | $385 |
| Assessment | $1,543,000 | Not provided | $1,471,000 | $1,675,000 |
| Assessment / square foot | $ 466 | $465 | $425 | $ 366 |
14The Appellants submitted that a good comparison is Park Avenue. By applying the unadjusted sale value per square foot ($366) to the 3,312 square feet at the subject property, the Appellants arrived at a current value of $1,275,000. As an alternative, the Appellants also used the assessment per square foot value of Park Avenue and applied that value to the subject property ($366 x 3,312 square feet) to arrive at a current value of $1,212,000.
Findings on Issue 1
15The Act requires the board to determine current value and defines current value as the amount of money that would change hands between a willing seller and a willing buyer, on the valuation day. In this case the valuation day is January 1, 2016.
16The Board has widely held that when the subject property has not sold on or near the valuation day, the next best means of determining current value is a comparison of the subject property with comparable properties that have sold on or near the valuation day.
17It is important to highlight the importance of using information from sales in this kind of analysis. Sales evidence is the best evidence in determining current value because the current value definition in the Act refers the sale value. For that reason, the Board rejects the Appellants submission that the assessment value of $366 per square foot, based on the assessment of the Park Avenue property, results in the best indication of current value.
18The Board finds however, that the sale of Park Avenue represents the best evidence of current value for the subject property. By reviewing the photographic evidence at the hearing and through oral testimony the Board finds that both Park Avenue property and the subject property are superior to all of the other properties in evidence.
19Park Avenue had a time adjusted sale price of $1,981,382. This figure was applied by MPAC to reflect its time adjustment factor for the month in which Park Avenue sold. The Board notes that the time adjustment factors submitted by MPAC were not refuted by the Appellants. The Appellants did not make a time adjustment to the sale of Park Avenue.
20The time-adjusted Park Avenue sale represents a value of $434 per square foot. When that value is applied to the 3,312 square feet at the subject property, the result is $1,437,408. The Board finds that the current value of the subject property is $1,437,000 (rounded).
Issue 2 – Does the current value determined need to be reduced for it to reflect equitable assessment when reference is made to the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity?
21The Act requires the Board to reduce the current value determined if it finds that the assessment should be lower than the current value when reference is made to the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity. This process is referred to as an ‘adjustment for the purposes of equitable assessment’.
22The parties agreed that any current value determined for the subject property should be reduced by applying a factor of 0.92. This factor was derived from MPAC’s Equity Analysis Report. That report compared the time adjusted sale value of 30 single family dwellings in the vicinity of the subject property to their respective assessments and arrived at an assessment to sale ratio (“ASR”) for each sale.
23According to MPAC, the median ASR indicates that the level of assessment in the vicinity was approximately 8% below the current values determined by sales.
Findings on Issue 2
24The Appellants submitted that by using the assessment returned for the Park Avenue property, a reasonable current value can be determined. In this case however, the Appellants further reduced a current value based on assessment (not sales) by the agreed to factor of 0.92 to arrive at an equity reduction assessment of $1,115,000.
25MPAC applied the agreed-to reduction factor of 0.92 to its opinion of current value of $1,900,000 to arrive at an equitable assessment of $1,748,000. MPAC submitted that since it was not seeking a higher assessment, the value returned of $1,543,000 was already equitable by comparison.
26The Board prefers the approach whereby an equity adjustment is applied to the current value previously determined. The equity adjustment factor was accepted by both parties in the hearing. When this factor is applied to the current value determined of $1,437,000, the result is $1,322,000 (rounded).
CONCLUSION
27The Board finds that the current value of the subject property is $1,437,000. The Board also finds that a reduction of this value, by a factor of 0.92, is necessary for it to be considered equitable when reference is made to the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity.
ORDER
28The Board orders that that the assessment of the subject property is reduced from $1,543,000 to $1,322,000 in the residential property class, for the 2021 taxation year.