Levitt v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 09, 2022 CanLII 28257

Tribunals Ontario / Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario

Assessment Review Board / Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: April 04, 2022

FILE NO.: WR 177692

Assessed Person(s): Kori Levitt; Mark Appleby

Appellant(s): Kori Levitt; Mark Appleby

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 09

Respondent(s): City of Toronto

Property Location(s): 205 Hillhurst Boulevard

Municipality(ies): City of Toronto

Roll Number(s): 1908-061-020-00900-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3462517and 3487978

Taxation Year(s): 2021 and 2022

Hearing Event No.: 763676

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

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Kori Levitt and Mark Appleby	Surin Toor
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation	Gregory Tom
City of Toronto	No one appeared

HEARD: March 29, 2022 by telephone conference call

ADJUDICATOR(S): Carly Stringer, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1Mark Appleby and Kori Levitt (the “Appellants”) brought an appeal before the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) relating to the returned assessment of $3,514,000 for 205 Hillhurst Boulevard (the “Subject Property”) in the City of Toronto for the 2021 taxation year. Pursuant to s. 40(26) of the Assessment Act R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”), the Appellants are deemed to have brought the same appeal in respect of the 2022 taxation year.

2It is the Appellants’ position that the returned assessment is too high. The Appellants request that the Board reduce the assessment to $2,642,220.

3The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) asks the Board to confirm the returned assessment.

Areas of Agreement

4The parties agree that the direct comparison approach is the appropriate valuation methodology to determine the current value of the Subject Property.

5The parties also agree with the assessment to sale ratio (“ASR”) of 0.93 derived by MPAC’s equity analysis.

Issues for the Hearing

6At issue in this proceeding is:

1. What is the current value of the Subject Property as of the statutory valuation date of January 1, 2016?; and

2. Is the current value equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity?

Result

7For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that the correct current value of the Subject Property for the 2021 and 2022 taxation years is $3,958,689.41.

8The Board also finds that a reduction is required to make this current value equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity, resulting in a current value assessment of $3,681,581.15, rounded to $3,680,000.

ANALYSIS

Description of Subject Property

9The Subject Property consists of a two storey, 4,667 square foot (“sq. ft.”) single family detached residence that sits on a 0.15 acre lot in the City of Toronto. The quality of construction of the residence is 8. It was built in 2012. In addition to the residence, the Subject Property is improved by a basement garage built in 2012.

Issue 1 - What is the current value of the Subject Property as of January 1, 2016?

Applicable Law

10In accordance with s. 44(3)(a) of the Act, the Board must first determine “the current value of the land”. Section 1 of the Act defines current value 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”.

11Accordingly, the Board must first determine what the Subject Property would have sold for in an arm’s length transaction on the statutory valuation day. Section 19.2(1) of the Act confirms that the valuation day for the 2021 and 2022 taxation years is January 1, 2016.

Evidence on Current Value

12The best evidence of current value would be the sale of the Subject Property on or close to the valuation day of January 1, 2016. If no such sale occurred, the Board will consider sales of comparable properties to establish the current value of the Subject Property.

13MPAC provided the Board with evidence regarding sales of proposed comparable properties at or within one year of January 1, 2016. MPAC performed a time adjustment to reflect what the properties would have sold for on January 1, 2016.

MPAC’s Proposed Comparable Properties and Sales Information

Property Address	450 Glencairn Avenue	418 Lytton Boulevard	119 Strathallan Boulevard	324 Cortleigh Boulevard
Sale Date	October 2015	September 2015	March 2016	October 2015
Time Adjusted Sale Amount	$3,436,972	$4,271,947	$3,761,054	$3,582,343
Building Area (sq. ft.)	4,569	4,600	4,434	4,581
Effective Site Area (acres)	0.15	0.15	0.15	0.15
Year Built	2015	2015	2014	2007
Quality of Construction	8.5	9	9	8.5
Storeys	2	2	2	2
Secondary Structures	Shed and basement garage	Basement garage and attached garage	Detached garage	Attached garage
Adjustments	Traffic Pattern – Light
Time Adjusted Sale Amount per Building Area Sq Ft	$752.24	$928.68	$848.23	$782.00

14MPAC determined the median time adjusted sale amount per square foot of building area for the above-noted properties to be $815.12. MPAC then multiplied that median of $815.12 by the 4667 sq. ft. of the residence on the Subject Property to arrive at an opinion of value of $3,804,143.36, or $3,804,000 rounded.

15The Appellants contested 450 Glencairn Avenue and 418 Lytton Boulevard on the basis that these were new builds that were previously unoccupied at the time of sale, as compared to the Subject Property that was built in 2012. The Appellants further contested that Lytton Boulevard, Strathallan Boulevard and Cortleigh Boulevard are of a different nature than Hillhurst Boulevard, as there are no sidewalks on Cortleigh Boulevard and both Lytton Boulevard and Strathallan Boulevard are in quieter “pockets” than Hillhurst Boulevard.

16Despite taking issue with 450 Glencairn Avenue and 324 Cortleigh Boulevard, the Appellants included these properties in their analysis. The Appellants also provided evidence regarding one additional sale.

Appellants’ Proposed Comparable Property and Sale Information

Property Address	216 Hillhurst Boulevard
Sale Date	January 8, 2016
Time Adjusted Sale Amount	$2,687,689
Building Area (sq. ft.)	4415
Effective Site Area (sq. ft.)	6750 sf (0.15 acres)
Year Built	2004
Quality of Construction	8
Storeys	Information not provided
Secondary Structures	Information not provided
Time Adjusted Sale Amount per Building Area Sq Ft	$608.76

17The Appellants did not rely on 450 Glencairn Avenue and 324 Cortleigh Boulevard in their calculation of current value, for the same reasons they disputed these properties in MPAC’s analysis. Rather, the Appellants stated that 216 Hillhurst Boulevard is the most comparable property, as it is on the same street and it was sold very close to the valuation date. The Appellants relied on the $608.76 time adjusted sale price per building area sq ft of 216 Hillhurst Boulevard. Applying this $608.76 to the 4667 sq ft building area of the Subject Property, the Appellants suggested a current value of $2,841,097.

Findings on Issue 1

18The Board has analyzed the proposed comparable sales submitted by the parties and finds that all five property sales relied on by the parties are sufficiently comparable to the Subject Property because they are within 1km of the Subject Property; they all sold within the shoulder years of the valuation date; they are all two storeys; they are very close in terms of building area; they have virtually identical lot sizes; they are within 0.5 of the quality of construction of the Subject Property; and, with the exception of 216 Hillhurst Boulevard, they were constructed within five years of the Subject Property. Although 216 Hillhurst Boulevard is eight years older than the Subject Property, the Board is satisfied that it has sufficient other elements of commonality with the Subject Property to be comparable, although slightly inferior.

19The Board does not accept the Appellants’ submissions that MPAC’s properties should not be relied upon because they were previously unoccupied at the time of sale, or because the streets have a different “fundamental nature” than Hillhurst Boulevard where the Subject Property is located. There are enough elements of commonality between the properties, as outlined above, that the Board finds them all to be comparable for the purposes of the direct comparison approach to determining value.

20The median time adjusted sale amount per sq. ft. of all five properties is $848.23. Multiplying this amount by the 4667 sq ft building area of the Subject Property results in $3,958,689.41.

21Sales information can also be useful insofar as it provides a range of reasonable values. In this instance, the comparable properties ranged in sale price from $2,687,689 to $4,271,947. A current value of $3,958,689.41, as calculated above, fits comfortably within that range.

22Based on the best available evidence, the Board finds the correct current value of the Subject Property is $3,958,689.41.

Issue 2 - Is the current value equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity?

Applicable Law

23Section 44(3)(b) of the Act directs that, after determining current value, the Board shall have reference to the value at which similar lands in the vicinity are assessed and “adjust the assessment of the land to make it equitable with that of similar lands in the vicinity if such an adjustment would result in a reduction of the assessment of the land”.

Evidence on Equity

24The ASR of a sample of sold properties is a tool often used to determine if a property in the vicinity is assessed below its current value. If sold properties are assessed below their current value, a reduction in the subject assessment below current value is required to make the subject assessment equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity. The ASR is determined by comparing the assessment as returned to the time adjusted sale price, expressed as a mathematical ratio.

25MPAC provided an equity analysis report detailing the sales of 18 detached residential properties located within 1 kilometre of Subject Property, occurring between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2016. The analysis reflected a median ASR of 0.93. The parties are in agreement that for residential properties, the median ASR should fall between 0.95 and 1.05. In this case, the median ASR falls below this range which, the parties agree, demonstrates an inequity. The parties are in agreement that the Board should reduce the current value to make the assessment of the Subject Property equitable with those of similar properties in its vicinity.

Findings on Issue 2

26The Board finds that the best evidence on equity is the equity analysis report presented by MPAC. The Board has analyzed MPAC’s evidence, and is satisfied that the properties submitted by MPAC are within the vicinity of the Subject Property; are detached residences and therefore of a similar nature and character to the Subject Property; were sold within the shoulder years of the valuation day; and the sale prices were appropriately time adjusted.

27The Board is satisfied that the median ASR of 0.93 indicates that a downward adjustment should be made to correct the current value of the Subject Property to ensure it is equitable with the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity.

28The Board has found that the correct current value is $3,958,689.41. Multiplying that by an ASR of 0.93 results in a current value assessment of $3,681,581.15, or $3,680,000 rounded.

CONCLUSION

29The correct current value of the Subject Property is $3,958,689.41. The Board has had reference to the value at which similar lands in the vicinity are assessed, and determines that a reduction in this current value is required to make it equitable, resulting in a current value of $3,681,581.15, rounded to $3,680,000.

ORDER

30The Board orders that that the returned assessment for the 2021 and 2022 taxation years be increased to $3,680,000.