Tribunals Ontario / Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario

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

ISSUE DATE: May 20, 2022

FILE NO.: WR 177742

Assessed Person(s): D’OR Investments Ltd.

Appellant(s): Edward C. Carter

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 06

Respondent(s): City of Quinte West

Property Location(s): Plan 1883 Lot 11

Municipality(ies): City of Quinte West

Roll Number(s): 1204-211-070-03811-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3385078, 3397972, 3440205 and 3486769

Taxation Year(s): 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022

Hearing Event No.: 763174

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

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
D’OR Investments Ltd.	Edward C. Carter
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation	Charmaine Siddle
City of Quinte West	No one appeared

HEARD: March 24, 2022 by telephone conference call

ADJUDICATOR(S): Anthony LaRegina, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1The property owner, D’OR Investments Limited, represented by Edward Carter (the “Appellant”), filed a property assessment appeal for the 2019 taxation year with the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) regarding his property located at Plan 1883 Lot 11, also known as Trentside Lane (“Subject Property”) in the City of Quinte West (“City”). Pursuant to s. 40(26) of the Act, the Appellant is deemed to have brought the same appeal in respect of the 2020, 2021 and 2022 taxation years.

2Pursuant to the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (“Act”), the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) conducted a general reassessment of the Subject Property and determined that its current value assessment (“CVA”) is $5,300 for each of the 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 taxation years. It is the Appellant’s position that MPAC’s CVA is too high and that the correct CVA should be $0 for all years. At this hearing, MPAC takes the position that the CVA should be confirmed at $5,300 for all the taxation years.

3Pursuant to s. 40(11) of the of the Act, the City is a party to this proceeding. No one attended the hearing on behalf of the City.

4Section 44(3)(b) of the Act directs the Board to reduce the current value of the Subject Property if similar lands in the vicinity have been assessed at a lower value (“equitable reduction”). The Appellant presents no evidence and asserts no position on equitable reduction; and therefore, equity is not at issue in these proceedings.

Issues for the Hearing

5The issue in this proceeding is:

1. a determination of the current value of the Subject Property.

Result

6The Board finds that the correct current value of the Subject Property for the 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 taxation years is $13,400.

Description of the Subject Property

7The Subject Property is vacant waterfront residential/recreational land on water located at Lot 11, Trentside Lane in the City of Quinte West. The Subject Property is an unbuildable waterfront property that abuts the Trent River with an effective frontage of 84.99 feet and an effective depth of 265.75 feet. The effective site area is 0.518 acres. The site variables include poor site quality, nonconforming use, and level topography.

ANALYSIS

Issue 1 – A determination of the current value of the Subject Property

8The first issue to be determined on this appeal is the correct current value of the Subject Property for the 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 taxation years. Pursuant to s. 19(1) of the Act, the assessment of land shall be based on its current value. The Act also provides that, for the 2017 to 2022 taxation years, MPAC is required to assess this value as of the valuation day, January 1, 2016. As defined in the Act, “current value means in relation to land, 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.”

9MPAC introduced Jean-Paul Maurice as an expert witness in the field of property valuation. Mr. Maurice has 25 years of experience as an MPAC employee with 22 years in his current position as Property Valuation Analyst. The Board swears in Mr. Maurice as an expert witness in property valuation with no objection on qualification from the Appellant.

10MPAC submitted two exhibits as part of its evidence package, the first is the statement of response and second is the valuation report.

11To determine market value, MPAC utilizes the direct sales comparison approach. MPAC submits into evidence the sales of four similar lots all located within 2.8 kilometers of the Subject Property that sold between June 2016 and May 2017. Comparable properties are rarely sold on the valuation day of January 1, 2016, so their sale values are typically time-adjusted to greater or reduced values depending on whether the date of the sale occurred before or after the valuation day. In this case, MPAC has time-adjusted the sale values of the properties based on the sale of 363 properties between January 2014 and December 2017 in the neighbourhood and adjacent areas to the Subject Property. Over the 47-month period MPAC has demonstrated that there has been an increase of 38.78% in market value. MPAC has developed Time Adjustment Factors based on the study and applied these factors to the actual sale values of the four comparable properties to reflect the January 1, 2016 valuation date. In support of the direct sales comparison approach and the use of time adjustments MPAC cited Reid v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp., Region No. 7, [2014] O.A.RB.D. No. 485, (“Reid”)

[10] The very best gauge of current value would be the amount of money paid for the property in an arm’s length sale occurring on or near the valuation day. Where no sale has taken place, as in this case, the next best tool for determining value is by comparing the sales of similar lands in the vicinity. The closer to the valuation day that the sales took place will give the sales more validity; the farther away from the valuation day means that time adjustments must be made in order to bring the values in line with the current value of comparable properties on January 1, 2012. Direct sales comparisons should include similar lands upon which are built similar structures. In the case of lakefront and cottage properties, where each parcel of land and each structure will no doubt exhibit unique qualities and features, the sales of similar properties are used in order to determine a range of acceptable values.

Table 1 - MPAC’s Comparable Property Sales

Feature	Subject Property	Property No. 1	Property No. 2	Property No. 3	Property. No 4
Roll Number	120421107003811	120421107003842	120421107014415	435304000950000	120421107014416
Address	Trentside Lane	Trentside Lane	Cedar Lane	Cedar Lane	Cedar Lane
Neighbourhood	W85-600	W85-600	W85-600	W85-600	W85-600
Property Code & Desc.	(110) Vacant Residential/ Recreational Land On Water	(110) Vacant Residential/ Recreational Land On Water	(110) Vacant Residential/ Recreational Land On Water	(110) Vacant Residential/ Recreational Land On Water	(110) Vacant Residential/ Recreational Land On Water
Distance in km.		0.524	2.6677	2.6694	2.8011
CVA $	5,300	30,000	15,000	15,000	29,500
Sale Date		20160908	20170519	20170519	20160603
Sale Amount $		44,900	15,000	15,000	24,000
Time Adjusted Sale $		42,295	13,410	13,410	23,088
Effective Frontage (F)	84.99	84	100	100	73.65
Eff Depth	265.75	196.42	192.5	200	407.75
Eff Site Area (Acres)	0.518	0.46	0.44	0.46	0.69
On Site Variable(s)	(10) Unbuildable Lot Nonconforming use, Quality of site=Poor Topography is level	(10) Unbuildable Lot Gravel Road, Nonconforming Use	(10) Unbuildable Lot Nonconforming Use, No Street Lights, Quality of Site=Poor No Curbs or Gutters, Topography – Slight Slope No sidewalks	(10) Unbuildable Lot Nonconforming use, Quality of site=Poor Topography – Slight Slope Gravel road with no curbs or sidewalks, No Street Lights	(10) Unbuildable Lot Nonconforming Use, Topography – Steep Slope

12MPAC takes the position that all four comparable properties are unbuildable lots located on the Trent River, have similar lot sizes, and all sold within 18 months of the valuation day of January 1, 2016. MPAC further submits that the unadjusted sale range is between $15,000 and $44,900, and therefore the current value of the Subject Property should fall within that range.

13MPAC submits that the current value of the Subject Property should be based on the median unadjusted sale value of Properties 3 and 4 of $15,000 and $24,000 resulting in a value of $19,500. MPAC also notes that Properties 2 and 3, which sold for $15,000, are inferior lots because they each have a steep slope from the road towards the water.

14MPAC submits that the correct current value for the Subject Property should be $19,500 rounded. MPAC’s position is to confirm the assessment value at $5,300, as it is not requesting an increase in assessment value.

15During cross-examination, Mr. Maurice confirmed that there were homes built on each side of the Subject Property and that these homes were built before the Municipality changed the zoning to unbuildable, as a result of regulation changes by the Ministry of the Environment. Mr. Maurice also confirmed that the Subject Property had a depression close to the road that carried on through the property.

The Appellant’s Evidence

16The Appellant entered only oral evidence and no documentary evidence was filed with the Board.

17The Appellant submits that he purchased the property 50 years ago when the Municipality allowed the building of homes, as can be witnessed on both lots adjoining to the Subject Property. The Appellant also submits that the zoning on the Subject Property changed to unbuildable over 20 years ago because of changes to regulations by the Ministry of the Environment.

18The Appellant further submits that he has attempted to sell the Subject Property on two occasions, once using a local real-estate agent and the second time privately through the Kijiji website. The Appellant claims he did not receive any offers, and therefore concluded that there are no willing buyers of the Subject Property. When asked by the Board, the Appellant could not remember the listing price he set on the Subject Property.

19The Appellant submits that he is tired of paying taxes on properties that have been contaminated by Municipal by-laws and zoning changes resulting in the Subject Property having no market value. The Appellant requests that the assessment of the Subject Property be reduced from $5,300 to zero for the 2019, 2020 and 2021 taxation years.

20The Appellant stated that he had no other quantitative evidence to support his claim of a zero value on the Subject Property.

Findings on Issue 1 - Current Value of the Subject Property

21To establish a current value for the Subject Property, the Board has always held that the best evidence is the sale of the Subject Property close to the valuation day. If there is no sale of the Subject Property, then the next best evidence is the sale of the similar properties in the vicinity of the property.

22The Board has analyzed all the evidence submitted by both Parties and concludes that the best evidence in support of current value is the four comparable property sales submitted by MPAC. The first comparable property is located on the same street as the Subject Property, Trentside Lane, and the other three comparable properties are located on Cedar Lane within 2.8 kilometers of the Subject Property. All four properties are unbuildable lots of similar size to the Subject Property, and all are located on the Trent River.

23MPAC has entered the time-adjusted sales values of the four comparable properties into evidence however, MPAC uses only the actual sale values of comparables 3 and 4 to determine the current value. The Board prefers the time-adjusted sales evidence to establish the current value of the Subject Property as of the valuation day, especially since Properties 2 and 3 sold in May of 2017 which is 17 months removed from January 1, 2016.

24The Board also finds that the comparable properties submitted by MPAC are all similar to the Subject Property, but the best comparables are Properties 2 and 3 located on Cedar Lane. Per MPAC’s Appendix A, both Properties 2 and 3 have a poor-quality site variable as does the Subject Property, they both have steep slopes at the entrance, while the Subject Property has a depression running through the property. Furthermore, the Subject Property has a narrow frontage/entrance at the street which opens up to its full width as you approach the water. This is clearly viewed on the topographic map submitted by MPAC in its valuation report. Based on these characteristics, the Board finds that the Subject Property should fall at the bottom of the time-adjusted sale range of the comparable properties, in line with the time-adjusted sale values of Properties 2 and 3 or $13,410.

25Regarding the Appellant’s claim that there is no market for the Subject Property, it has been proven by MPAC that this type of property does sell to willing buyers as has been established by the sales of the four properties in evidence. Furthermore, one of the sales is on Trentside Lane located on the same street only 0.52 kilometers from the Subject Property.

CONCLUSION

26Based on the best available evidence, the Board finds the correct current value of the Subject Property to be $13,400 for the 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 taxation years. Based on the assessments of the properties in evidence the Board also finds that the correct current value of $13,400 is equitable with the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity.

ORDER

27The Board orders the assessment of the Subject Property be increased from $5,300 to $13,400 for the 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 taxation years.