Tribunals Ontario
Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario
Assessment Review Board Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: January 27, 2022
Assessed Person(s): Peter Lobo, Werrel D’Souza
Appellant(s): Peter Lobo, Werrel D’Souza
Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 09
Respondent(s): City of Toronto
Property Location(s): 5101 Dundas Street West Unit 601
Municipality(ies): City of Toronto
Roll Number(s): 1919-021-040-03171-0000
Appeal Number(s): 3419955 and 3442319
Taxation Year(s): 2020 and 2021
Hearing Event No.: 750875
Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Representative |
|---|---|
| Peter Lobo, Werrel D’Souza | Self-represented |
| Municipal Property Assessment Corporation | Helene Blackburn |
| City of Toronto | No one appeared |
HEARD: August 19, 2021 by telephone conference call
ADJUDICATOR(S): Joanne Laws, Member
DECISION
OVERVIEW
1For the 2020 and 2021 taxation years, the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) returned an assessed value of $306,000 for the property located at unit 601 - 5101 Dundas Street West (the “Subject Property”) in the City of Toronto. Peter Lobo and Werrel D’Souza (the “Appellants”) filed an appeal with the Assessment Review Board (this “Board”), taking the position that the assessed value is too high.
2In reviewing the assessment data applicable to the Subject Property, MPAC’s opinion of current value was $314,000 but sought a confirmation of the returned assessment of $306,000.
3The Appellants took the position that this value is still too high and that the correct current value is the February 2014 sale price of $236,396.
Issues for the Hearing
4At issue in this proceeding is:
- A determination of the current value of the subject property.
- Whether an equity reduction in the current value should be made?
Result
5The current value of the property for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years is $306,000 in the residential property class.
6An equity reduction pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) is not required.
ANALYSIS
Description of Subject Property
7The Subject Property is a one bedroom, 721 square foot (“sq. ft.”) condominium unit with a parking space and a locker.
Issue 1 – What is the current value?
8MPAC presented six sales located in the same condominium building as the Subject Property. All of the sales occurred in 2015 or 2016, near the January 1, 2016 valuation date, and all are re-sales rather than purchased directly from the builder. Based on these six sales, MPAC calculated a current value of $314,000 but is not seeking a higher assessment.
9In response to MPAC’s six sales the Appellants argued that, although they are all located in the same building as the Subject Property, they are superior because they are located on higher floors which have superior finishes and higher ceilings and that sales 4, 5 and 6 are superior because they have two bedrooms whereas Subject Property has only one. The Appellants also challenged MPAC’s data for the six sale properties because it did not provide proof of the sales such as land transfer documents. MPAC responded that its sale data is extracted from the recorded transactions.
10The Appellants purchased the Subject Property directly from the builder for $239,396, moved in in November 2013, and the sale closed afterwards in February 2014. Peter Lobo testified that the following were included in the purchase price: upgrades, development charges, appliances, window coverings, parking unit, locker and real estate commissions paid by the builder/developer.
11The Appellants argued that the best evidence for current value is the purchase of the Subject Property from the builder and that the current value should not exceed that value.
12MPAC submitted a Sales Used in Price Change of Time Analysis in Appendix C of its valuation report. This analysis contained 294 sales of “vacant and/or improved land from the subject property’s neighbourhood and adjacent areas” which occurred over a 23-month period of January 2015 to December 2016. It was used to create time adjustment factors (Appendix B of Valuation Report) to estimate sale values as though they occurred on the January 1, 2016 valuation date.
13The Appellants argued that some of the 294 properties used in MPAC’s analysis are not directly comparable to the Subject Property and consideration ought to be included for differences such as: quieter locations, commercial space on the ground floor, abutting green space, more or different amenities, the size of the buildings and condominium fees. The Appellants also argued that because these differences were not taken into consideration MPAC’s analysis is flawed and the resulting time adjustment factors should be disregarded.
Findings on Issue 1
14Section 1(1) of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (“Act”) defines current value as: “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.” Section 19.2(1)4. provides that the valuation date for 2020 and 2021 taxation years is January 1, 2016.
15There is no dispute that the Subject Property’s purchase price was $239,000 (rounded), that it was purchased directly from the builder and that the price included development charges, upgrades, appliances, window coverings, real estate commission, one parking unit and one locker unit. The Appellants argued that this sale is the best indication of the Subject Property’s current value.
16Regarding builder sales, the Board prefers re-sales over builder sales, where available, due to the fact that builder sales often include incentives or other factors that alter a sale price (see Roitman v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp. Region No. 9, [2013] O.A.R.B.D. No. 138). Based on the list of incentives or inclusions in evidence, the Board does not consider the Subject Property’s sale reflects its current value as defined in s. 1 of the Act.
17The Appellants challenged MPAC’s Sales Used in Price Change of Time Analysis because the properties contained in the study are not identical to the Subject Property. The study does not compare the properties to the Subject Property but compares the sales to assessment values for each property for the purpose of calculating market changes over time. Accordingly, the Board rejects the Appellants’ argument that the study and the resulting time adjustment factors should be disregarded.
18The best evidence of the Subject Property’s current value are the six sales submitted by MPAC. They are re-sales which, as noted above, the Board finds are more reliable that builder sales. They are located in the same building as the Subject Property and, like the Subject Property, have one parking space and one locker space. The sales occurred less than one year from the January 1, 2016 valuation date and, therefore, better reflect the current value as of that date.
19All six sales are superior to the Subject Property. Sales 1, 2 and 3 are the most similar. They are the same layout as the Subject Property with one bedroom and 721 sq. ft. in size. The Appellants’ undisputed evidence is that that units on higher floors have higher ceilings and superior finishes. While the Board did not receive evidence to support a dollar value for these differences, the Board nots that generally, a higher floor is preferable and, therefore can be considered superior to a lower floor.
20Sale 1 is Unit 1001 and is identical to the Subject Property but is located on a higher floor. It sold in October 2015 for $309,000 with a time adjusted sale price of $314,224.
21Sale 2 is Unit 901 and is identical to the Subject Property but is located on a higher floor. It sold in March 2016 for $318,000 with a time adjusted sale price of $312,799.
22Sale 3 is Unit 1101 and is identical to the Subject Property but is located on a higher floor. It sold in July 2015 for $306,000 with a time adjusted sale price of $317,617.
23Sale 4, Unit 812, is larger than the Subject Property with 736 sq. ft. in size and has two bedrooms. It is located on a higher floor. It sold in August 2015 for $311,000 with a time adjusted sale price of $320,594.
24Sale 5, Unit 712, is 736 sq. ft. in size and has two bedrooms and is located on a higher floor. It sold in July 2015 for $306,000 with a time adjusted sale price of $317,617.
25Sale 6, Unit 912 is 736 sq. ft in size and has two bedrooms and is located on a higher floor. It sold in January 2016 for $316,000 with a time adjusted sale price of $314,952.
26For the three most similar units, sales 1, 2 and 3, the unadjusted sale values are $306,000, $309,000 and $318,000 and the larger units, sales 4, 5 and 6, sold for $306,000 $311,000 and $316,000.
27The time adjusted sale values, rounded, for units 1, 2 and 3 are $313,000, 314,000 and 317,000 and the larger units’ time adjusted sale prices, rounded, are $315,000, $318,000 and $321,000.
28Both the unadjusted and time adjusted sale values support a current value of $306,000.
Issue 2 - Does the current value determined require a reduction for it to be an equitable assessment when reference is made to the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity?
29The Appellants did not advance a position on the question of equitable assessment. MPAC produced an equity analysis report in the normal course of disclosure. That report found that no adjustment to the current value was necessary for the purpose of an equitable assessment.
Findings on Issue 2
30The Board finds that there is no evidence to support a reduction of the current value determined when reference is made to the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity.
CONCLUSION
31The current value of the property for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years is $306,000 in the residential property class.
32An equity reduction pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) is not required.
ORDER
33The Board orders that the returned assessment for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years is confirmed.