Marcin Ozgo v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 09, 2022 CanLII 18618

Tribunals Ontario

Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: March 10, 2022

FILE NO.: WR 176792

Assessed Person(s): Marcin Ozgo

Appellant(s): Marcin Ozgo

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 09

Respondent(s): City of Toronto

Property Location(s): 57 Lavinia Avenue

Municipality(ies): City of Toronto

Roll Number(s): 1904-011-400-01200-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3441411

Taxation Year(s): 2021

Hearing Event No.: 762165

Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Marcin Ozgo	Self-represented
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation	Erin Comeau
City of Toronto	No one appeared

HEARD: February 22, 2022, by telephone conference call

ADJUDICATOR(S): Jennifer Griffith, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1Marcin Ozgo (the “Assessed Person/Appellant”) is the owner of 57 Lavinia Avenue (the “Subject Property”) in the City of Toronto (the “City”). The Appellant filed appeals for the returned assessment of $1,942,000 for the 2021 taxation year 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 $1,942,000 is too high and that the correct current value should be $1,578,000. MPAC takes the position that the correct current value should be $1,815,000 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 2021 taxation year, 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 no position and presents no evidence in support of equity. As the onus to demonstrate that an equitable reduction is required rests with the Appellant, the Board accepts the Appellant’s position and finds that equity is not at issue and no reduction is required.

Issues for the Hearing

6The issue to be determined on these appeals is:

1. What is the determination of the current value of the Subject Property for the 2021 taxation year based on a direct comparison approach?

Result

7The Board finds the correct current value for the Subject Property at the valuation date January 1, 2016, is $1,723,000.

8The Board also finds that an equity reduction pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) is not required, because equity is not at issue in this appeal.

9Therefore, the Board finds that the returned assessment of $1,942,000 be reduced to $1,723,000 for the 2021 taxation year.

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 3,999 square feet (“sq. ft.”) with a total building area of 2,691 sq. ft., a quality of construction rating 7.5 and built in 1920.

Issue 1 - What is the determination of the current value of the Subject Property for the 2021 taxation year 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 $1,723,000.

14Reviewing the evidence in support of current value, the Board finds that MPAC presents the best evidence of current value with the median time adjusted sale price of $1,723,000, based on three comparable properties and determined by Direct Comparison Approach to value.

MPAC’s Evidence in Support of Current Value

15MPAC’s Representative, Erin Comeau, presents a Valuation Report dated April 16, 2021, which he prepared and testifies to the information contained in the report.

16MPAC’s Representative testifies that the Subject Property was inspected on January 21, 2021, and the data on the Subject Property was verified and found to be current and complete.

17The MPAC’s Representative also testifies that the Subject Property had undergone a major renovation, where the structure was gutted and rebuilt in 2018 reflecting a renovation code D.

18Because of the 2018 renovation, MPAC’s Representative states that s. 33 omitted assessments were executed for the applicable years (2018 – 2020) and the appeals were settled by signed Minutes of Settlement (“MOS”). However, the s. 40 appeal for the 2021 taxation year was not settled and is the subject of today’s appeal.

19In support of current value, MPAC’s Representative relies on the Direct Comparison Approach and presents 10 proposed comparable properties, sold in 2015 and 2016 in the same homogeneous neighbourhood identified as (E04) 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.

20The following Table 1 is the analysis of the 10 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 ($)	Time Adjusted SALE PRICE (TAS) ($)	TAS per sq. ft. ($)
70 Lavinia Avenue	3,225	2,514	7.5	2015	2016	1,625,000	1,595,447	634.62
56 Lavinia Avenue	3,741	2,140	7.5	2007	2015	1,600,000	1,609,940	752.30
62 Lavinia Avenue	3,225	2,326	8	2016	2016	2,002,000	1,832,303	787.74
35 Kennedy Avenue	3,275	1,942	7.5	1913	2015	1,680,000	1,877,016	966.53
21 Ostend Avenue	2,977.48	2,140	7.5	1990	2016	1,670,000	1,563,792	730.74
22 Mayfield Avenue	3,105	2,094	7.5	2011	2016	1,740,000	1,708,356	815.83
91 Mayfield Avenue	3,240	2,409	7	1936	2015	1,627,500	1,723,258	715.34
44 Mayfield Avenue	3,105	1,851	7.5	2016	2016	1,655,000	1,624,902	877.85
78 Mayfield Avenue	2,970	2,116	7.5	2014	2015	1,652,500	1,662,766	785.80
38 Lavinia Avenue	3235.5	2,179	7	2007	2016	1,410,00	1,320,327	605.93
Median								769.05
Subject Property	3,999	2,691	7.5	1920	NIL	N/A	N/A	N/A

21The above analysis shows that the median time adjusted sale price is $769.05. When this rate is applied to the Subject Property it results in a current value of $2,069,513 ($769.05 x 2,691 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 $2,069,513 which is higher than the returned assessment of $1,942,000 for the Subject Property. However, MPAC is not seeking a higher assessment, and recommends that the current value should be $1,815,000 determined by bracketing the sale prices of the most similar properties to the Subject Property.

Appellant’s Evidence in Support of Current Value

22In support of current value, the Appellant presents no sales evidence. The Appellant relies on copies of the following four documents:

I. Property Assessment Notice issued on June 1, 2016, for the 2017 to 2020 taxation years, showing the assessed value for the Subject Property as of January 1, 2016, was $1,200,000.

II. Property Assessment Notice as of October 12, 2012, for the 2013 to 2016 taxation years, showing the assessed value for the Subject Property as of January 1, 2012, was $854,000;

III. Email to the Erica Murchison from Mr. Ozgo dated April 5, 2021; and

IV. Email to Mr. Ozgo from Clarke A. Merritt, Barrister and Solicitor, dated April 30, 2008.

23The Appellant states that he is only relying on the Property Assessment Notice issued on June 1, 2016, for the 2017 to 2020 taxation years, and the Property Assessment Notice as of October 12, 2012, for the 2013 to 2016 taxation years. The above two emails dated April 5, 2021, and dated April 30, 2008, are not relied on by the Appellant.

24The Appellant’s main argument is that the correct current value should be $1,578,000 which was the value he received in response to his Request for Reconsideration (“RFR”) and for which signed Minutes of Settlement (“MOS”) was executed for the 2018 through 2020 taxation years.

25Regarding the Property Assessment Notice issued on June 1, 2016, for the 2017 to 2020 taxation years, showing the assessed value for the Subject Property as of January 1, 2016 was $1,200,000. The Appellant argues that assessed value was determined by the MPAC’s Model which he believes was correct, and argues that the current value for today’s appeal should also be based on MPAC’s Model and not based on sales evidence.

26Regarding the Property Assessment Notice as of October 12, 2012, for the 2013 to 2016 taxation years, again, the Appellant believes that MPAC’s value sets expectation that the values determined by the MPAC’s Model is correct, and that the current value should not be determined based on sales evidence.

27On cross-examination, the Appellant confirms that he was advised by MPAC that the value of $1,578,000 accepted in response to the RFR request with signed MOS, was a partial assessment for the years 2018 to 2020. However, the Appellant argues that that the correct current value for today’s appeal for the 2021 taxation year should also be $1,578,000.

Finding of the current value of the Subject Property for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years

28Reviewing the evidence presented in support of current value, the Board finds the best evidence are the three sales of comparable properties located at 70 Lavinia Avenue, sold in 2016 for at a time adjusted sale price of $1,595,447, 62 Lavinia Avenue, sold in 2016 for $1,832,303, and at 91 Mayfield Avenue, sold in 2015 for $1,723,258 presented by MPAC.

29These three comparable properties located in the same homogeneous area, including two of the comparable properties on the same street as the Subject Property. These three comparable properties have a median total building area of 2,409 sq. ft., median lot size 3,225 sq. ft., median year built 2015, quality of construction 7.5 and sold at a median time adjusted sale price of $1,723,000 rounded. This is compared to the Subject Property with a total building area of 2,691 sq. ft., lot size of 3,999 sq. ft., year built 1920 and renovated in 2018 (Renovation Code D) and a quality of construction rating 7.5.

30Based on the above analysis, the Board finds that the median time-adjusted sale price of $1,723,000 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 $1,723,000.

31Regarding the sales of the remaining seven 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, year built, renovation and in quality of construction.

32Regarding the Appellant’s evidence, the Board did not rely on the evidence for the following reasons:

1. The Property Assessment Notice issued on June 1, 2016, for the 2017 to 2020 taxation years, showing the assessed value for the Subject Property as of January 1, 2016, was $1,200,000. The Board did not rely on this notice, because these taxation years are not under appeal at this hearing, and the document provides no evidence to assist the Board in its determination of current value for the 2021 taxation year.

2. The Property Assessment Notice as of October 12, 2012, for the 2013 to 2016 taxation years. The Board did not rely on this notice, because it is not relevant to the appeal at hand. This notice was for a different valuation date of January 1, 2012, and for the period 2013 to 2016 taxation years, whereas, today’s appeal is based on the valuation date of January 1, 2016, and for the period 2017 to 2021 taxation years.

33Regarding the Appellant’s argument that the correct current value should be based on MPAC’s Model as opposed to sales evidence, the Board rejects this argument, because s. 19(1) of the Act clearly 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”.

34Based on all the evidence, the Board finds the correct current value is $1,723,000.

CONCLUSION

35The Board finds the correct current value for the Subject Property at the valuation date January 1, 2016, is $1,723,000.

36The Board also finds that an equity reduction pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) is not at issue and no equity reduction is required.

ORDER

37The Board orders the returned assessment of $1,942,000 be reduced to $1,723,000 for the 2021 taxation year.