Tribunals Ontario Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario Assessment Review Board Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: March 23, 2022 FILE NO.: WR 177342
Assessed Person(s): Fiorella Niceforo Appellant(s): Fiorella Niceforo and Remo Niceforo Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 09 Respondent(s): City of Toronto Property Location(s): 104 Meadowbank Road Municipality(ies): City of Toronto Roll Number(s): 1919-035-130-02300-0000 Appeal Number(s): 3460856 Taxation Year(s): 2021 Hearing Event No.: 762566
Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Representative |
|---|---|
| Fiorella Niceforo and Remo Niceforo | Remo Niceforo |
| Municipal Property Assessment Corporation | Young Woo Kim |
| City of Toronto | No one appeared |
HEARD: March 14, 2022, by telephone conference call
ADJUDICATOR(S): Jennifer Griffith, Member
DECISION
OVERVIEW
1Fiorella Niceforo (the “Assessed Person”) is the owner of 104 Meadowbank Road (the “Subject Property”) in the City of Toronto (the “City”). Fiorella Niceforo and Remo Niceforo, the Appellants (the “Appellants”) filed appeals for the returned assessment of $3,757,000 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 Appellants’ position that the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation’s (“MPAC”) current value assessment of $3,757,000 is too high and that the correct current value should be in the range of $2,801,000 and $2,957,000. MPAC takes the position that the correct current value should be $3,113,000 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 Appellants assert no position and present no evidence in support of equity. As the onus to demonstrate that an equitable reduction is required rests with the Appellants, the Board accepts the Appellants’ 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:
- 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 $3,113,000.
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 orders that the returned assessment of $3,757,000 be reduced to $3,113,000 for the 2021 taxation year.
ANALYSIS
Description of the Subject Property
10The Subject Property is a two storey Single-Family Detached (not on water) residential property. It is situated on a lot size of 21,747 square feet (0.5 acres), with a total building area of 6,598 square feet (“sq. ft.”), built in 2020, with a finished basement of 2,538 sq. ft., and with a quality of construction rating 9.
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 $3,113,000.
14Reviewing the evidence in support of current value, the Board finds the sale at 13 Warwood Road in the same homogeneous area, presented by MPAC is the best evidence of current value determined by the Direct Comparison Approach to value.
MPAC’s Evidence in Support of Current Value
15MPAC’s Representative, Young Woo Kim, presents a Valuation Report dated October 18, 2021, which he prepared and testifies to the information contained in the report.
16MPAC’s Representative testifies that the Subject Property was inspected digitally because MPAC was prohibited from conducting internal inspection of properties due to the COVID pandemic. However, the Appellants provided MPAC with internal and external photographs of the Subject Property which demonstrated such things like the finishes, workmanship, construction materials etc. of the newly built Subject Property.
17MPAC’s Representative also testifies that the Subject Property was assessed as having a quality of construction rating 9 and after reviewing the photographs received from the Appellants, he agrees that the quality of construction rating should be 8.5 rating, the impact of which is $232,000 on the returned assessment. Therefore, MPAC’s Representative states that the Subject Property’s data will be changed to reflect the change in quality of construction from a rating 9 to a rating 8.5 reflecting a revised returned assessment value of $3,525,000 ($3,757,000 - $232,000).
18In support of current value, MPAC’s Representative relies on the Direct Comparison Approach and presents four proposed comparable properties, sold in 2015 and 2016 in homogeneous neighbourhoods identified as (A52, A59, A58 and A65), three of which are located in different homogeneous neighbourhood to the Subject Property’s which is A52. MPAC’s Representative further testifies that due to limited sales of larger size comparable properties in the Subject Property’s neighbourhood, he was forced to extend his search for sale of comparable properties within five kilometres in the vicinity.
19MPAC’s Representative provides both the actual and time-adjusted sale prices and relies on the time-adjusted sale prices in his analysis.
20The following Table 1 is the analysis of the four proposed comparable properties:
Table 1
MPAC’s Sales Analysis
| 4 PROPOSED COMPARABLE PROPERTIES | LOT SIZE (square foot) (acre) | TOTAL BUILDING AREA (sq. ft.) | QUALITY RATING | YEAR BUILT | SALE DATE | SALE PRICE ($) | Time Adjusted SALE PRICE (TAS) ($) | TAS per sq. ft. ($) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13 Warwood Road | 0.5 | 5,574 | 8.5 | 2013 | 2015 | 2,500,000 | 2,630,295 | 471.89 |
| 12 Pheasant Lane | 0.35 | 5,076 | 9 | 2004 | 2015 | 2,500,000 | 2,511,309 | 494.74 |
| 3 Benedict Road | 0.33 | 5,369 | 8.5 | 2012 | 2016 | 3,325,000 | 3,088,551 | 575.26 |
| 14 Edgevalley Drive | 0.31 | 5,030 | 8.5 | 2000 | 2016 | 2,500,000 | 2,341,811 | 465.57 |
| Median | 483.31 | |||||||
| Subject Property | 0.5 | 6,598 | 9 | 2020 | NIL | N/A | N/A | N/A |
21Based on the above analysis MPAC’s Representative states that the four sales have time adjusted sale prices range from $2,341,811 to $3,088,551, reflecting a rate per sq. ft. ranging from $465.57 to $575.26, and a median time adjusted sale price of $483.31 per sq. ft.
22In determining the current value, MPAC’s Representative relies on the comparable property at 13 Warwood Roads, sold at a rate of $471.89 per sq. ft. as the best comparable property located in the same homogeneous neighbourhood as the Subject Property. When this rate is applied to the Subject Property it results in a current value of $3,113,000 ($471.89 X 6,598 of total building area). Based on this analysis, MPAC’s Representative is of the opinion that the current value is $3,113,000 for the Subject Property.
Appellants’ Evidence in Support of Current Value
23In support of current value, the Appellants present an evidentiary package including a documented list of issues, copies of Google maps, copies of real estate listing prepared by Royal LePage Real Estate Services Limited and a spreadsheet analysis of five sales. However, the Appellants only rely on the following two items:
List of issues – The Appellants testify that MPAC’s comparable properties located in the Royal York and Thorncrest Village neighbourhoods are not similar to the Subject Property Glen Park neighbourhood, because they are in highly sought-after areas recognized as Toronto’s most prestigious neighbourhoods, with mostly high valued estate homes and on lots greater than an acre.
The Appellants only rely on the sale of one comparable property located at 13 Warwood Road, sold in 2015 at a time adjusted sale price of $2,630,295 at a rate of $471.89 per sq. ft. The Appellants argue that although this comparable property is located in the same neighbourhood as the Subject Property, it is the Appellants’ view that 13 Warwood Road is superior to the Subject Property, because it is situated on the most prestigious street in the neighbourhood, with little traffic and no sidewalks, private, and with very large style homes, many of which were built in the past 10 years. Whereas the Subject Property is situated on a through street with more traffic, sidewalk, and less luxurious smaller homes. Therefore, the Appellants are of the view that a 5 – 10% adjustment to the current value is warranted for differences and associated nuisances in street locations between13 Warwood Road and the Subject Property.
24The Appellants also disagree with the quality of construction rating 9, and argues that the quality rating should be lower, because the internal finishes and material are average, the kitchen and bathroom are made from laminates, the floor and bathrooms are porcelain tiles, and the flooring is a combination of hardwood and vinyl.
Finding of the current value of the Subject Property for the 2021 taxation year
25Reviewing the evidence presented in support of current value, the Board finds the best evidence is the sale of the comparable property located at 13 Warwood Road, sold in 2015 for at a time adjusted sale price of $2,630,295 or $471,89 per sq. ft. presented by MPAC and the Appellants.
26This comparable property is located in the same homogeneous area as the Subject Property and has the most similar characteristics to the Subject Property, with a total building area of 5,574 sq. ft., lot size of 0.5 acres, quality of construction rating 8.5, year built 2013 and sold at a time adjusted sale price of $471.89 per sq. ft. When this rate is applied to the Subject Property it results in a current value of $3,113,000. This is compared to the Subject Property with a total building area of 6,598 sq. ft., lot size of 0.5 acres, year built 2020 and a quality of construction rating 9.
27Based on the above analysis, the Board finds the current value of $3,113,000 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 $3,113,000.
28The remaining three sales presented by MPAC at 12 Pheasant Lane, homogeneous area (A59), at 3 Benedict Road, homogeneous area (A58) and 14 Edgevalley Drive, homogeneous area (A65), the Board did not rely on these three sales because they are not sufficiently similar to the Subject Property, because they are located in different homogeneous areas approximately 2 – 3 kilometres away, are significantly smaller in total building, smaller in lot size and are older are than the Subject Property.
29Regarding the Appellants’ argument, that the Royal York and Thorncrest Village neighbourhoods are superior to Glen Park the Subject Property’s neighbourhood. The Board did not rely on the three sales located in these neighbourhoods for the reasons stated above.
30Regarding the Appellants’ argument that a 5 – 10% adjustment for its location on a less desirable street, with traffic and sidewalk, the Board puts little weight on this argument, because the Appellants presents no quantifiable evidence to demonstrate that an adjustment is required for the location of the Subject Property.
31Regarding the Appellants’ argument that the quality of construction rating 9 for the Subject Property is too high, the Board accepts MPAC evidence that the quality of construction rating will be changed to a quality of construction rating of 8.5. The impact of this change does not impact the current values of $3,113,000 determined by the Board, because this value is based on the sale of 13 Warwood Road which is a quality of construction rating 8.5.
32Based on all the evidence, the Board finds the correct current value is $3,113,000.
CONCLUSION
33The Board finds the correct current value for the Subject Property at the valuation date January 1, 2016, is $3,113,000.
34The Board also finds that an equity reduction pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) is not at issue and no equity reduction is required.
ORDER
35The Board orders the returned assessment of $3,757,000 be reduced to $3,113,000 for the 2021 taxation year.
"Jennifer Griffith"
JENNIFER GRIFFITH MEMBER Assessment Review Board Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb