Tribunals Ontario
Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario
Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE:
April 19, 2022
WR 177943
Assessed Person(s):
Tanya Chinner and Jerome Chinner
Appellant(s):
Tanya Chinner and Jerome Chinner
Respondent(s):
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 13
Respondent(s):
Town of Whitby
Property Location(s):
1Benington Court
Municipality(ies):
Town of Whitby
Roll Number(s):
1809-010-041-00761-0000
Appeal Number(s):
3466955 and 3488178
Taxation Year(s):
2021 and 2022
Hearing Event No.:
763866
Legislative Authority:
Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Representative
Tanya Chinner and Jerome Chinner
Jerome Chinner
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
Carl Goodrich
Town of Whitby
No one appeared
HEARD:
April 4, 2022, by telephone conference call
ADJUDICATOR(S):
Jennifer Griffith, Member and Christopher Voutsinas, Vice Chair
DECISION
OVERVIEW
1Tanya Chinner and Jerome Chinner (the “Assessed Persons/Appellants”) are the owner of 1 Benington Court (the “Subject Property”) in the Town of Whitby (the “Town”). The Appellants filed appeals for the returned assessment of $857,000 for the 2021 and 2022 taxation years with the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”), pursuant to s. 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”). ”). Pursuant to s. 40(26) of the Act, the Appellant is deemed to have brought the same appeal in respect of the 2022 taxation year.
2It is the Appellants’ position that the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation’s (“MPAC”) current value assessment of $857,000 is too high and that the correct current value should be in the range of $712,000 and $762,000. MPAC takes the position that the correct current value should be $950,000 based on sales evidence. However, MPAC is not seeking an increase and is asking to have the returned assessment confirmed.
3Pursuant to s. 19(1) of the Act, the assessment of land shall be based on its current value; and s. 19.2(1) provides that, for the 2021 and 2022 taxation years, 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, the Town indicated that it is not actively participating, and no one appeared on behalf of the Town.
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 that an equity reduction is required.
Issues for the Hearing
6The issues to be determined on these appeals are:
What is the determination of the current value of the Subject Property for the 2021 and 2022 taxation years based on a direct comparison approach?
Whether there should be an equitable reduction of the current value pursuant to s. 44(3) of the Act, and, if so, what the amount of this reduction should be?
Result
7The Board finds the correct current value for the Subject Property at the valuation date January 1, 2016, is $857,000.
8The Board also finds that an equity reduction pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) is not required.
9Therefore, the Board finds that the returned assessment of $857,000 be confirmed for the 2021 and 2022 taxation years.
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 0.15 acres, with a total building area of 3,469 sq. ft., a quality of construction rating 7 and built in 2012.
Issue 1 - What is the determination of the current value of the Subject Property for the 2021 and 2022 taxation years based on a direct comparison approach?
Direct Comparison Approach Based on Sales
11The Direct Comparison Approach estimates the market value of a Subject Property 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 $857,000.
14Reviewing the evidence in support of current value, the Board finds the four sales of comparable properties presented by MPAC and located in the same homogeneous area (S22) as the Subject Property, at 74 Wycombe Street, sold in 2015, 85 Wycombe Street, sold in 2015, 25 Jarrow Crescent, sold in 2015, and 7 Wycombe Street, sold in 2015 represent 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, Carl Goodrich, presents a Valuation Report dated December 17, 2021, which he prepared and testifies to the information contained in the report.
16MPAC’s Representative testifies that the Subject Property is located in the Brooklin area, bounded by Columbus Road to the north, Winchester Golf Club to the east Highway 407 to the south and Ashburn Road to the west. Homes in the area are mainly a mixture of detached, semi-detached and townhouses built since the late 1990s. He also states that prior to and after the effective date of this report prices of homes range from $280,000 to $1,290,000.
17In support of current value, MPAC’s Representative relies on the Direct Comparison Approach and presents six proposed comparable properties, sold in 2015 and 2016 in the same homogeneous neighbourhood identified as (S22) as the Subject Property. MPAC’s Representative provides both the actual and time-adjusted sale prices and relies on the time-adjusted sale prices in his analysis.
18MPAC’s Representative further confirms that due to the COVID pandemic, internal inspection of properties was restricted. However, MPAC’s Representative states that he had conversations with the Appellants, and they confirmed that MPAC’s data on file for the Subject Property was accurate.
19The following Table 1 is the analysis of the six proposed comparable properties:
Table 1
MPAC’s Sales Analysis
SIX PROPOSED COMPARABLE PROPERTIES
LOT SIZE (acres)
TOTAL BUILDING AREA (sq. ft.)
YEAR BUILT
SALE DATE
SALE PRICE ($)
SALE PRICE (time adjusted (TAS) ($)
74 Wycombe Street
0.15
3,036
2012
2015
745,000
863,623
85 Wycombe Street
0.12
3,036
2012
2015
790,000
875,939
25 Jarrow Crescent
0.11
3,140
2012
2015
749,900
819,589
70 Burning Springs Place
0.19
3,036
2013
2016
999,999
910,654
7 Wycombe Street
0.16
3,036
2012
2015
757,500
852,265
9 Covington Drive
0.18
3,474
2005
2015
910,000
980,548
Subject Property
0.15
3,469
2012
NIL
N/A
N/A
20The above analysis shows that the adjusted sale prices range from $819,589 to $980,548. MPAC’ Representative testifies that four of the above comparable properties each with total building area of 3,036 sq. ft. are approximately 12% smaller than the total building area of the Subject Property, and that he excluded the comparable property located at 25 Jarrow Crescent, because it appears to be anomaly with a lower sale price of $261.10 per sq. ft. than the other comparable properties which range from $280.71 to $299.95.
21Based on the above analysis and taking into consideration the differences in total building area, MPAC’s Representative estimates that the current value should be $950,000 based on the most similar properties for the Subject Property.
Appellants’ Evidence in Support of Current Value
22The Appellants submit that they are presenting no sales of comparable properties in support of current value. Therefore, the Board accepts the Appellants’ submission.
23Appellants assert that none of MPAC comparable properties are similar to the Subject Property. He argues that two of the comparable properties are ravine lot properties with walkout basements; three comparable properties have tandem garages, and none are corner lots like the Subject Property, which structure takes up most of the lot.
Finding of the current value of the Subject Property for the 2021 and 2022 taxation years
24Reviewing the evidence presented in support of current value, the Board finds the best evidence are the four sales of comparable properties which occurred in 2015 and presented by MPAC’s Representative. These four comparable properties are as follows:
a. 74 Wycombe Street, sold in 2015 at a time adjusted sale price of $863,623.
b. 85 Wycombe Street, sold in 2015 at a time adjusted sale price of $875,939.
c. 25 Jarrow Crescent, sold in 2015 at a time adjusted sale price of $819,589.
d. 7 Wycombe Street, sold in 2015 at a time adjusted sale price of $852,265.
25These four comparable properties are from the same homogeneous neighbourhood (S22), with similar lot size and year built, however, the total building areas are smaller by approximately 12 percent than the Subject Property and sold at a median time adjusted sale price of $857,944 or $857,000 rounded. This is compared to the Subject Property with a lot size 0.15 acres, total building area of 3,469 sq. ft., year built 2012 and assessed at $857,000.
26Based on the above analysis, the Board finds that the Subject Property would sell at the median time adjusted sale price of $857,000, which 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 $857,000.
27The remaining two comparable properties at 70 Burning Springs Place, sold in 2016 at a time adjusted sale price of $910,654 and at 9 Covington Drive, sold in 2015 at a time adjusted sale price of $980,548 were not relied on, because these two comparable properties are not similar to the Subject Property. These two comparable properties are Ravine Type two properties, with walk-out basement, and sold at sale prices significantly higher than the other comparable properties that are not Ravine Type two and without walk-out basements like the Subject Property.
28The Appellants submit that they are presenting no sales evidence in support of current value. The Board, therefore, accepts the Appellants’ submission.
29Based on all the evidence, the Board finds the correct current value is $857,000.
Issue 2 - Whether there should be an equitable reduction of the current value pursuant to [s. 44(3)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-a31/latest/rso-1990-c-a31.html#sec44subsec3_smooth)(b) of the [Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-a31/latest/rso-1990-c-a31.html), and, if so, what the amount of this reduction should be?
30Section 44(3)(b) of the Act provides that “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.” In essence, the Board looks to similar lands in the vicinity to determine whether their assessed values are lower than their current values. If so, then it would be equitable to lower the assessed value of the Subject Property by a proportionate amount.
MPAC’s Evidence
31MPAC’s Representative presents an Equity Analysis Report in which the assessments of 30 similar comparable properties (similar in general nature, character and function as the Subject Property) are compared to their respective sale prices to determine the Assessment to Sales Ratio (“ASR”). The ASR is computed by dividing the assessed value of the property sold by its sale price.
32MPAC’s Representative states that these 30 comparable properties with Property Code 301- Single-Family Detached (not on water) are similar property type residential homes as the Subject Property, sold over the period January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2016, and located within 0.34 kilometre of the Subject Property.
33MPAC’s Representative states that the analysis of the sales of these 30 comparable properties shows a Level of Appraisal (“LOA”) of 0.98 and a Coefficient of Dispersion (“COD”) of 7.4.
34MPAC’s Representative explains that the LOA measures central tendency and the mid-point of the ASR ratios, and the median ASR is the preferred measure to determine the LOA, because it is not affected by very low or high ratios. MPAC’s Representative also explains that the COD measures appraisal uniformity by determining the average deviation from the median ASR.
35MPAC’s Representatives explains that the International Association of Assessing Officers (“IAAO”) standards for achieving equity for all property types the LOA should fall between 0.90 and 1.10. MPAC takes the position that equity is achieved if the median ASR falls between 0.95 and 1.05.
36MPAC’s Representative argues that the Appellants’ 13 comparable properties should not be relied on because these comparable properties are located approximately three to five kilometres away in a different homogeneous area (vicinity) identified as (S20) and do not reflect the same market influences as the Subject Property which is located in homogeneous area (vicinity) identified as (S22).
37In support of this argument that MPAC’s 30 comparable properties in the Subject Property’s vicinity are the best evidence, as opposed to the Appellants’ 13 comparable properties in the extended vicinity, MPAC’s Representative cited Trimble v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp., Region 15 [2019] O.A.R.B.D. No. 308 at paragraphs 54 and 59.
38Based on the above evidence, MPAC’ s Representative is of the opinion the ASR of 0.98 does not support an equity reduction, because it falls within the IAAO standard and also within MPAC’s standard as stated above.
Appellants’ Evidence
39In support of equity, the Appellants present the returned assessments of 13 similar type single-family comparable properties as the Subject Property, located three to five kilometres away in the neighbouring homogeneous area identified as S20 in support of an equity reduction. The following is an analysis of the 13 comparable properties in Table 2 below:
Table 2
Appellants’ Returned Assessment Analysis
13 PROPOSED COMPARABLE PROPERTIES
LOT SIZE (square foot) (sq. ft.)
TOTAL BUILDING AREA (sq. ft.)
QUALITY RATING
YEAR BUILT
Returned Assessment
80 Holsted Road
5,595
3,400
6.5
2007
697,000
200 Montgomery Avenue
6,827
3,530
6.5
2010
762,000
2 Montana Crescent
10,037
3,319
6.5
2009
717,000
6 Montana Crescent
10,037
3,319
6.5
2010
712,000
1 Montana Crescent
8,288
3,319
6.5
2010
714,000
62 Montana Crescent
8,656
3,319
6.5
2009
733,000
61 Montana Crescent
6,842
3,319
6.5
2010
694,000
1 Bellhouse Place
5,895
3,530
6.5
2009
709,000
302 Montgomery Avenue
6,190
3,040
6.5
2009
656,000
32 Bellhouse Place
6,220
3,530
6.5
2010
781,000
46 Bellhouse Place
6,006
3,319
6.5
2009
712,000
73 Joshua Boulevard
5,969
3,319
6.5
2012
698,000
2 Gerry Ravary Place
5,889
3,530
6.5
2011
740,000
Subject Property
6,730
3,469
7
2012
857,000
40The analysis shows that these 13 comparable properties are assessed in the range of $656,000 and $781,000. However, the Appellants are of the view that the equitable value should be in the range of $712,000 and $762,000 for the Subject Property.
41On cross-examination, the Appellants testify that these 13 comparable properties are located approximately three to five kilometres from the Subject Property.
42The Appellants also submit that the Subject Property’s homogeneous area (S22) is a highly sought-after area and that is why they chose to expand the vicinity to (S20) in search of comparable properties for comparison to the Subject Property.
Findings on Equity
43Based on the above evidence, the Board finds that MPAC presents the best evidence in support of equity, with the analysis of 30 sales of similar type properties Property Code 301 – Single Family Detached (not on water) as the Subject Property. They are similar in nature, character, function, Property Type 301 and located within 0.34 kilometres, in the same homogeneous area (vicinity) as the Subject Property.
44The analysis shows that these 30 sales of similar properties have a LOA (ASR) of 0.98 which falls within MPAC’s standard of 0.95 – 1.05 and within the IAAO standards of 0.90 – 1.10, which the Board accepts and finds that this evidence does not support an equity reduction.
45The Board rejects the Appellants’ equity analysis of 13 proposed comparable properties, because these comparable properties are located in a different homogeneous area (vicinity) identified as S20 further away from the Subject Property.
46The Board also finds that the returned assessments of these 13 proposed comparable properties are assessed significantly lower than the Subject Property, which the Board finds is not reflective of the same market influences in the Subject Property’s homogeneous neighbourhood (vicinity) identified as S22. This finding is also supported by the Appellants’ own testimony that the Subject Property’s homogeneous area is a highly sought-after area, which is why they have chosen to rely on comparable properties from the extended vicinity, further away from the Subject Property.
47Regarding MPAC’s argument that the Appellants’ 13 comparable properties should not be relied on because they are located in the extended vicinity approximately three to five kilometres away from the Subject Property. The Board finds that the vicinity in which the proposed comparable properties are located is not defined in the Act. The Board takes the approach that comparable properties closest to the Subject Property are preferred. However, if there are insufficient comparable properties closest to the Subject Property, then the vicinity should be expanded in order to find a sufficient number of comparable properties to assist the Board in its determination of equity. This finding is supported by Trimble v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp., Region 15 [2019] O.A.R.B.D. No. 308 paragraphs 54 and 59 which states:
Paragraph 54:
Like the term 'similar', the term 'vicinity' is not defined in the Act. In relation to equity, it is widely accepted that vicinity refers to the appropriate geographical area that will yield meaningful comparable properties. That vicinity could mean an entire municipality or a smaller portion thereof (see Ontario Regional Assessment Commissioner, Region No. 3 v. Graham, 1993 CanLII 8621 (ON CA)). In other words, vicinity has no set parameters, but one ought to stay as close as possible to the Subject Property to find sufficient number of comparable properties.
Paragraph 59:
Based on the evidence provided, I find that the vicinity of the Subject Property is MPAC’s HGNH of E60.
48Based on the above evidence, the Board finds that an equity reduction is not required.
CONCLUSION
49The Board finds the correct current value for the Subject Property at the valuation date January 1, 2016, is $857,000.
50The Board also finds that an equity reduction pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) is not required.
ORDER
51The Board orders the returned assessment of $857,000 be confirmed for the 2021 and 2022 taxation years.
"Jennifer Griffith"
JENNIFER GRIFFITH
MEMBER
Assessment Review Board
Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb