Tribunals Ontario

Assessment Review Board

ISSUE DATE: April 26, 2022

FILE NO.: WR 177994

Assessed Person(s): Satnam Tamber

Appellant(s): Gurjit S. Grewal

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 15

Respondent(s): City of Brampton

Property Location(s): 34 Rosegarden Drive

Municipality(ies): City of Brampton

Roll Number(s): 2110-120-003-39900-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3475555, 3475556, 3466355, and 3489184

Taxation Year(s): 2020, 2021 and 2022

Hearing Event No.: 763571

Legislative Authority: Sections 33 and 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Gurjit S. Grewal	Self-represented
Satnam Tamber	No one appeared
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation	Olivia Medeiros
City of Brampton	No one appeared

HEARD: April 7, 2022, by telephone conference call

ADJUDICATOR(S): Jennifer Griffith, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1Satnam Tamber the (“Assessed Person”) is the owner of 34 Rosegarden Drive (the “Subject Property”) in the City of Brampton (the “City”). Gurjit S. Grewal (the “Appellant”) filed appeals for the returned assessment of $10,000 for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years, $4,758,000 for the 2021 taxation year, and $4,768,000 for 2022 taxation year with the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”), pursuant to s. 33 and 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 $4,768,000 (s. 40 plus s. 33) is too high and that the correct current value should be $3,500,000 based on sales evidence. MPAC takes the position that the correct current value should be $6,945,000. However, MPAC is not seeking an increase in assessment and is asking to have the returned assessment of $4,768,000 confirmed. No one appeared on behalf of the City.

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 2020 through 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, 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 that an equity reduction is required and that the equitable value should be $3,357,000 based on the returned assessments of two proposed comparable properties. This value is an alternative approach to value based on equity.

Issues for the Hearing

6The issues to be determined on this appeal are:

1. Is the Quality of Construction rating of 9 incorrect?
2. Is the vicinity for selecting the sales of comparable properties only limited to the City?
3. What is the determination of the current value of the Subject Property for the 2020, 2021 and 2022 taxation years based on a direct comparison approach?
4. 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 of the Subject Property is $4,546,000 as of the valuation date January 1, 2016, which is applicable to the 2020, 2021, and 2022 taxation years

8The Board also finds that an equity reduction pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) is not required.

9Therefore, the Board orders the following:

1. Section 33 returned assessment of $10,000 is reduced to $0. for the 2020 taxation year.
2. Section 33 returned assessment of $10,000 is reduced to $0. for the 2021 taxation year.
3. Section 40 returned assessment of $4,758,000 is reduced to $4,546,000 for the 2021 taxation year: and
4. Section 40 returned assessment of $4,768,000 is reduced to $4,546,000 for the 2022 taxation year.

ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Is the Quality of Construction rating of 10 incorrect?

10The Appellant presents photographs of the Subject Property in support of his argument that the quality of construction rating of 9 is too high for the Subject Property and believes it should be a rating of 7.5 or maximum 8 rating. The Appellant submits that the Subject Property is made of normal construction material like oak hardwood floors, drywall walls and ceiling, some marble, iron rail, upgraded closet, and upgraded laundry room.

11The Appellant also argues that the total building area of the Subject Property is only 9,531 square feet (“sq. ft”) which appears to be based on copies of two pages from a building classification and construction documents, as opposed to MPAC’s stated total building area of 12,215 sq. ft.

12MPAC’s Representative states that the Subject Property was fully inspected on September 17, 2019, by two MPAC Assessors prior to the COVID-19 Pandemic, and the photographs taken at the time of the inspection forms part of MPAC’s evidentiary report. MPAC’s Representative testifies that a permit was taken out in 2020 with the City of Brampton for the construction of a gazebo which impacted the returned assessment $4,758,000 by an additional value of $10,000 (for a revised total returned assessment of $4,768,000). Therefore, a s. 33 supplementary assessment was returned effective October 28, 2020, and s. 33 supplementary assessment was returned effective January 1, 2021, for the Subject Property.

13MPAC’s Representative testifies that photographs of the Subject Property demonstrate the high quality of construction rating 9. The photographs show that the structure is a very large custom-built home with 12,215 sq. ft., designed specifically to the owner’s requests, and is situated on a lot size of 2.14 acres, of what would be considered an estate sized lot. MPAC’s Representative testifies that the photographs also demonstrate the quality of construction materials used as stone veneer throughout the exterior, premium roof finishing, copper downspouts, large custom windows, oak hardwood floors, marble, iron staircase, elevator, upgraded bathrooms, closets and kitchen with island, elevator, and with superior design, and craftsmanship of the Subject Property.

14Regarding the total building area of 12,215 sq. ft. of the Subject Property, MPAC’s Representative presents copies of floor plans which support the total building area. She testifies that MPAC has a standardized process of using exterior measurements to maintain consistency across all properties in Ontario. MPAC’s Representative also testifies that interior designs such as open to below areas (between the ceiling and ground floor) are not factored into the total square footage of the Subject Property, because MPAC’s standardize process is exterior measurement.

15MPAC’s Representative argues that the Appellant’s total building area of 9,531 sq. ft. do not include open to below areas, which was confirmed by MPAC’s copy of the floor plan for the Subject Property. MPAC’s Representative again argues that MPAC consistently uses exterior measurements for all structures when assessing properties in Ontario.

16Based on the above evidence, MPAC’s Representative argues that the Subject Property is a custom-built home with 12,215 sq. ft. on a 2.14-acre estate sized lot and that all of the unique characteristics, design, materials, and craftsmanship support the quality of construction rating of 9.

Findings on Quality of Construction Rating

17In reviewing the above evidence, the Board finds that the quality rating of 9 is correct for the Subject Property. The Board finds that MPAC’s Representative has presented photographs to show the interior finishes, design, quality of materials, and quality of workmanship, which together with the total building area and lot size support the definition of a quality of construction rating of 9 for the Subject Property.

18In reviewing the evidence regarding the total building area of the Subject Property, the Board accepts MPAC’s measurement of 12,215 sq. ft. The Board finds that MPAC’s Representatives has presented the best evidence of copies of the official floor plan, which demonstrate the total building area of 12,215 sq. ft. based on exterior measurements for the Subject Property. The Board also finds that MPAC’s exterior measurement is a standardized process for measuring properties, while at the same time, ensuring consistency across all properties.

19The Board rejects the Appellant’s argument that the Subject Property should have a rating in the range of 7.5 and 8, based solely on his opinion of the photographs. The Board finds that the Appellant only highlighted a few characteristics like oak floor, chandelier, marble tiles, iron rail, hardwood floor, upgraded closet, bathrooms, faucets, and laundry room, and failed to recognize that the Subject Property is a custom-built home, with 12,215 sq. ft. of living space, situated on a 2.14-acre lot, with excellent workmanship and design which impacts the overall quality of construction rating.

20The Board also rejects that the Appellant total building area of 9,531 sq. ft. for the Subject Property, because it is based on copies of two pages of a document, which provided no factual evidence to show how the total building area was arrived at and whether it was based on interior or exterior measurement. Therefore, the Board puts no weight on the Appellant’s argument.

Issue 2 – Is the vicinity for selecting the sales of comparable properties only limited to the City?

21MPAC’s Representative testifies that she was unable to find sales of comparable properties with similar characteristics as the Subject Property in the City. She therefore extended the vicinity to Region 15, in neighbouring vicinities of Mississauga, Milton, and Caledon in search of sales of comparable properties with similar characteristics (quality, lot size, total building area, year built, finished basement, secondary structures etc.) located in neighbourhoods similar to the Subject Property. In support of expanding the vicinity, MPAC cited the following two cases:

I. Mann v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp., Region No. 15, [2021] O.A.R.B.D. No. 108 at paragraphs 20, 21 and 22.

II. Brown v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp. Region No. 9, [2008] O.A.R.B.D. No. 132 at paragraph 18(4); and

III. Tuckernuck Mortgage Administration Inc. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region No. 18, [2012] O.A.R.B.D. No. 295 at paragraph 37.

22The Appellants’ Representative argues that the vicinity should be the City in which the Subject Property is located asserting that there are enough sold comparable properties with similar characteristics to Subject Property in the City.

Findings on Vicinity

23In reviewing the issue of vicinity, the Board finds that “vicinity” is not defined in the Act. In order to make a finding of current value it is necessary for the Board to review open market sale of the Subject Property which occurred at or around the valuation date of January 1, 2016. In the absence of any sale of the Subject Property, the Board reviews the sales of proposed comparable properties by the parties to determine which properties are similar in characteristics to the Subject Property which occurred within the shoulder years of the valuation date of January 1, 2016, in the vicinity.

24The Board finds that the Subject Property is a very large unique custom-built home in terms of (quality of construction, size, design, workmanship etc.) and accepts MPAC’s argument that due to a lack of sales with similar characteristics to the Subject Property in the immediate neighbourhood of the Subject Property, MPAC was forced to extend its search to the neighbouring vicinities of Mississauga, Caledon, and Milton.

25This finding of expanding the vicinity is supported by:

I. Mann v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp., Region No. 15, [2021] O.A.R.B.D. No. 108 at paragraphs 20, 21, and 22 which states:

20The Board finds that “vicinity” is not defined in the Act. In order to make a finding of current value it is necessary for the Board to review open market sale of the Subject Property which occurred at or around the valuation date of January 1, 2016. In the absence of any sale of the Subject Property, the Board reviews the sales of proposed comparable properties by the parties to determine which properties are similar in characteristics to the Subject Property which occurred within the shoulder years of the valuation date of January 1, 2016, in the vicinity.

21The Board recognizes the fact that there are instances where there are limited or no sales of similar comparable properties in the immediate neighbourhood of the Subject Property. In such cases, the Board takes the position that it is necessary to expand the vicinity to find a reasonable number of sales with similar characteristics as the Subject Property which occurred at or around the valuation date for the determination of current value.

22The Board finds that the Subject Property is a very large unique custom-built home in terms of (quality, size, design, workmanship etc.) and accepts MPAC’s argument that expanding the vicinity in search of sales of comparable properties with similar characteristics to the Subject Property is necessary, when there are no sales in the immediate neighbourhood of the Subject Property.

II. Brown v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp. Region No. 9, [2008] O.A.R.B.D. No. 132 at paragraph 18(4) which states:

The Board must first of all deal with the primary issue which is to determine the appropriate vicinity. Since the Act does not describe the word “vicinity”, the Board must look to the facts in each case. As the Act requires that properties be assessed at current value, there is no longer any reason to limit the vicinity, even to one municipality, provided that properties are similar and market characteristics do not differ: and

III. Tuckernuck Mortgage Administration Inc. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region No. 18, [2012] O.A.R.B.D. N0. 295 at paragraph 37 which states:

The Board would be remiss if it did not explain the word “vicinity”. Vicinity could mean more than in close proximity and, if necessary, could be extended over a large area outside municipal boundaries to obtain a sufficient number of properties that could be compared to the subject property. There is no reason to limit vicinity to a single municipality if the market to ascertain current value extends over two or more municipalities as is the case in the appellants’ report.

26The Board rejects the Appellants’ argument that the vicinity should be confined to the City in which the Subject Property is located. The Board takes the position that when there are no sales of comparable properties with similar characteristics in the same neighbourhood as the Subject Property, the vicinity should be extended as far as is necessary, to finds a reasonable number of sales of comparable properties to assist the Board in its determination of current value.

Issue 3 - What is the determination of the current value of the Subject Property for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years based on a direct comparison approach?

Direct Comparison Approach Based on Sales

27The 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.

28In 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”.

29For the reasons discussed below, the Board finds the correct current value at the valuation date of January 1, 2016, is $4,546,000.

30Reviewing the evidence in support of current value, the Board finds the three sales presented by MPAC to be the best evidence of current value as determined by the Direct Comparison Approach and pursuant to s. 19(1) of the Act.

MPAC’s Evidence in Support of Current Value

31MPAC’s Representative presents a Valuation Report dated December 17, 2021, which she prepared and testified to the information contained in the report.

32In support of current value, MPAC’s Representative presents five proposed comparable properties, which sold in 2015 and 2016, located in the neighbouring vicinities of Mississauga, Milton, and Caledon.

33MPAC’s Representative asserts that land values in the City of Mississauga are significantly higher, and land values in the Town of Caledon, and the Town of Milton are significantly lower than land value in the neighbourhood of the Subject Property. MPAC’s Representative takes the position that an adjustment should be made to reflect the differences in land values between these five comparable properties and the Subject Property. MPAC’s Representative also asserts that these five proposed comparable properties are older in year built ranging from 2005 – 2016 and that an adjustment is also necessary for differences in year built to the Subject Property. These adjustments for land and year built are shown on the following sales analysis in Table 1 below.

34MPAC’s Representative provides both the actual and time-adjusted sale prices; however, she relies on the time-adjusted sale prices in her analysis by utilizing the Direct Comparison Approach to value. The following Table 1 is the analysis of the five proposed comparable properties:

TABLE 1

MPAC’s Sales Analysis

5 PROPOSED COMPARABLE PROPERTIES	LOT SIZE (acre)	TOTAL BUILDING AREA (sq. ft.)	QUALITY RATING	YEAR BUILT	SALE DATE	SALE PRICE	SALE PRICE (time adjusted)	TAS Adjusted for LAND / YEAR BUILT	SALE PRICE (time adjusted per sq. ft.)
1025 Wenleigh Court (Mississauga)	2.1	8,310	9	2005	2016	$6,290,000	$5,698,660	$4,725,429	$568.64
120 Pinewood Trail (Mississauga)	0.83	7,060	9	2012	2015	$4,750,000	$5,159,410	$4,606,613	$652.49
110 Pinewood Trail (Mississauga)	0.72	6,398	9	2016	2016	$5,450,000	$4,883,616	$4,307,174	$673.21
41 George Crescent (Caledon)	2.19	5,759	9	2007	2016	$2,525,000	$2,339,366	$2,495,272	$433.28
5147 Trafalgar Road (Mississauga)	1.91	5,038	9	2008	2016	$2,285,000	$2,141,229	$2,276,975	$451.96
Median									$568.64
Subject Property	2.14	12,215	9	2019	NIL	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

35Based on the above analysis of the sales of these five proposed comparable properties, MPAC’s Representative is of the opinion that median adjusted (for time, land and year built) sale price of $568.64 per sq. ft. represents the best sales evidence. When this adjusted sale price is applied to the Subject Property, it results in a current value of $6,945,000 rounded ($568.64 x 12,215 sq. ft. of total building area).

36Based on the evidence, MPAC’s Representative is of the opinion that the current value is $6,945,000.

Appellant’s Evidence in Support of Current Value

37In support of current value, the Appellant presents a spreadsheet analysis of three sales of proposed comparable properties located in the same vicinity as the Subject Property. The following is an analysis of the three sales based on actual sale prices:

Appellants’ Sales Analysis

5 PROPOSED COMPARABLE PROPERTIES	LOT SIZE (acre)	TOTAL BUILDING AREA (sq. ft.)	YEAR BUILT	SALE DATE	SALE PRICE	SALE PRICE per (sq. ft.)
27 Bellini Avenue	2.07	11,435	2010	2017	$4,630,000	$404.90
7 Manswood Crescent	3.01	10,259	1996	2015	$2,175,000	$212.01
10 Angelbluff Court	1.91	12,500	2015	2017	$4,207,000	$336.56
Median						$336.56
Subject Property	2.14	12,215	2019	N/A	N/A	N/A

38The above analysis shows that these three proposed comparable properties sold at a median sale price of $336.56 per sq. ft. based on total building area. However, the Appellant is of the opinion that the best evidence is the average sale price of $370.73 (27 Bellini Avenue, sold at $404.90 per sq. ft., and 10 Angelbluff Court, sold at a $336.56 per sq. ft.). When the average sale price is applied to the Subject Property it results in a value of $3,500,000 rounded ($370.73 x 12,215 sq. ft. based on total building area).

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

39Reviewing the evidence presented in support of current value, the Board finds the best evidence are the three sales located at 1025 Wenleigh Court, 120 Pinewood Trail, and 110 Pinewood Trail, which occurred in 2015 and 2016 and presented by MPAC in the above Table 1. The sale prices of these three comparable properties were time adjusted to the valuation date of January 1, 2016, adjusted for differences in land value, and adjusted for differences in year built, which result in an average adjusted sale price of $4,546,000 rounded.

40The Board finds that although these three comparable properties are significantly smaller in total building area than the Subject Property, MPAC presents no adjustment for differences to the Subject Property. Therefore, the Board did not rely on the adjusted sale price per sq. ft. as suggested by MPAC and finds that the Subject Property would sell at the average adjusted sale price of $4,546,000.

41Based on the above analysis, the Board finds the correct current value is $4,546,000, and that this correct current value 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.

42The remaining two sales located at 41 George Crescent, sold in 2016, and 5147 Trafalgar Road were not relied on because they are significantly smaller in total building area, and the Trafalgar Road property abuts medium traffic, which the Subject Property does not abut.

43The Appellant presents the sales of three comparable properties located at 27 Bellini Avenue, sold in 2017 for $4,630,000, at 7 Manswood Crescent, sold in 2015 for $2,175,000, and at 10 Angelbluff Court, sold in 2017 for $4,207,000.

44The Board did not rely on these three sales, because the sale prices were not time adjusted to the valuation date of January 1, 2016. Instead, the Board relies on the time adjusted sale prices as stated above. The Board finds that it is necessary to adjust these sales to the valuation date of January 1, 2016, because the sales occurred outside of the valuation date in 2015 to 2017 and do not represent a meaningful test current value.

45The Board also did not rely on the sale of the comparable property at 7 Manswood Crescent, because it is significantly older (built in 1996) than the Subject Property which was built in 2019. The Board finds that the sale price $2,175,000 also supports the Board’s finding, because it is significantly lower, even though it has a significantly larger lot and, in some cases, larger total building area than the other sales presented into evidence.

46The Board finds that the Appellant presents limited information (e.g., no quality rating, finished basement area, secondary structures, Multiple Listing of Sales (“MLS^®”) etc.) about the three comparable properties he presented in support of current value. This information is necessary to carry out a proper comparison to the Subject property and to establish the added value these features contribute to the current value.

47Based on the evidence, the Board find the correct current value is $4,546,000.

Issue 4 – 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

48Section 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.

49MPAC’s Representative presents an Equity Analysis Report in which the assessments of 30 similar comparable properties (similar in general nature, character, or 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 values of the property sold by its sale price.

50MPAC’s Representative states that these 30 comparable properties are Property Code 301- single family detached not on water, are similar property type (Residential), sold over the period January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2016, and located 2.5 kilometres of the Subject Property.

51MPAC’s Representative states that the analysis of the sale of these 30 comparable properties shows a Level of Appraisal (“LOA”) of 1.01 and a Coefficient of Dispersion (“CoD”) of 10.2.

52MPAC’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. Based on this finding, MPAC’s opinion is that an equity reduction is not required, and the equitable value is $6,945,000.

53In support of Equity, the Appellant presents two proposed comparable properties that are not sold. They are located at 23 Ryckman Lane, assessed at $4,208,000, and at 34 Cheval Court, assessed at $4,444,000 and an assessed value of $357.66 per sq. ft.

54These two proposed comparable properties have on average year built 2013, assessed value of $4,326,000, total building area of 12,281 sq. ft., lot size of 2.125 acres and assessed at a value of $357.66 per sq. ft. When this value assessed value per sq. ft. is applied to the Subject property it results in an equitable value of $4,365,000 rounded. The Appellant is of the view that the equitable value should be $3,357,000.

Finding on 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

55Based 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 (similar in nature, character, or function) as the Subject Property, and located within 2.5 kilometres of the Subject Property. The analysis shows that these 30 sales of similar properties have a LOA of 1.01 which falls within MPAC’s standard of 0.95 – 1.05 and within the International Association of Assessing Officers (“IAAO”) standards of 0.90 – 1.10 which the Board accepts and finds that this evidence does not support an equity reduction.

56The Board rejects the Appellant’s two proposed comparable properties for the following reasons:

a) The sample size of two comparable properties is too small to accurately determine equity: and

b) the Appellant provided limited information and no supporting documentation in regard to quality of construction, finished basement and secondary structures etc. for comparison to the Subject Property.

CONCLUSION

57Based on the evidence, the Board finds the correct current value for the Subject Property at the valuation date January 1, 2016, is $4,546,000 for the 2020, 2021 and 2022 taxation years

58The Board also finds that an equity reduction pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) is not required.

ORDER

59The Board orders the following:

1. Section 33 returned assessment of $10,000 is reduced to $0. effective October 28, 2020, taxation year.
2. Section 33 returned assessment of $10,000 is reduced to $0. effective January 1, 2021, taxation year.
3. Section 40 returned assessment of $4,758,000 is reduced to $4,546,000 for the 2021 taxation year: and
4. Section 40 returned assessment of $4,768,000 is reduced to $4,546,000 for the 2022 taxation year.

"Jennifer Griffith"

JENNIFER GRIFFITH

MEMBER

Assessment Review Board

Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb