Tribunals Ontario
Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario
Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE:
January 26, 2022
FILE NO.:
WR 175697
Assessed Person(s):
Jeffrey Ardhi Sujitno
Appellant(s):
Giuseppina Marrano and Jeffrey Sujitno
Respondent(s):
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 09
Respondent(s):
City of Toronto
Property Location(s):
134 Falkirk Street
Municipality(ies):
City of Toronto
Roll Number(s):
1908-062-290-01400-0000
Appeal Number(s):
3454884 and 3471756
Taxation Year(s):
2020 and 2021
Hearing Event No.:
758168
Legislative Authority:
Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Representative
Giuseppina Marrano and Jeffrey Sujitno
Surin Toor
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
Gregory Tom
City of Toronto
No one appeared
HEARD:
January 5, 2022 by telephone conference call
ADJUDICATOR(S):
Subuola Awoleri, Member
DECISION
OVERVIEW
1Giuseppina Marrano and Jeffrey Ardhi Sujitno, (the “Appellants”), owners of 134 Falkirk Street (the “Subject Property”), appealed the 2020 assessment of the Subject Property to the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) under s. 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”) on the ground that the assessment is too high. The Appellants are deemed to have brought the same appeal in respect of the 2021 taxation year, pursuant to s. 40(26) of the Act.
2The Appellants argued that the current value of the Subject Property should be $2,909,291, with a further downward adjustment to $2,676,547, to make the current value equitable with the assessment of similar properties in the vicinity.
3The Subject Property was assessed by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) at $3,129,000 for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years. MPAC submitted that based on market sales the current value of the Subject Property should be $3,779,000 (rounded), with a further reduction to $3,476,000 (rounded) to make the current value equitable with the assessment of similar properties in the vicinity. However, MPAC indicated that it is not seeking an increase in the assessment of the Subject Property, therefore requests that the Board confirms the current value assessment (“CVA”) as returned at $3,129,000.
4At the completion of the hearing, the Board reserved its decision.
Areas of Agreement
5The Appellants agree with the median Assessment to Sale Ratio (ASR) of 0.92, in MPAC’s equity analysis, which MPAC derived from the sales of 30 single family detached properties.
Issues for the Hearing
6The issues to be determined are:
What is the correct current value of the Subject Property for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years?
Whether there should be an equitable reduction of the current value pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act, and, if so, what the amount of this reduction should be?
Result
7The Board determines the current value of the Subject Property to be $3,382,000 (rounded) for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years.
8The Board finds that a downward adjustment to the current value to $3,111,000 (rounded) is necessary to ensure that the assessment of the Subject Property is equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity.
9The Board reduces the assessment of the Subject Property from $3,129,000 to $3,111,000 (rounded) for the 2020 and 2021taxation years.
ANALYSIS
Description of the Subject Property
10The Subject Property is a two-storey residential dwelling built in 2004 located in the City of Toronto. It has a lot with 52.5 feet (“ft”) of effective frontage and 140 ft of effective depth for an effective site area of 0.17 acres. It has a total building area of 4,546 square feet (“sq. ft.”), with construction quality of 9.0 and a basement area of 2,621 sq. ft. of which 1,743 is finished. It has a basement garage and an outdoor pool.
Issue 1 - What is the correct current value of the Subject Property for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years?
11In accordance with s. 44(3)(a) of the Act, the first mandate of the Board is to 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”. That is, for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years, the Board must determine what the Subject Property would have sold for in an arm’s length transaction on the January 1, 2016 valuation day set by the Act.
12The best evidence the Board can receive of current value is an arm’s length and market-tested sale of the Subject Property on the valuation date or close to it or arm’s length and market-tested sales of comparable properties located nearby, as close as possible to the legislated valuation date of January 1, 2016.
13The Board finds that the current value of the Subject Property for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years to be $3,382,000 (rounded).
Proposed Comparable Properties
14MPAC presented the Board with six proposed comparable property sales. These six proposed comparable property sales were built between 2005 – 2015, with site areas ranging from 0.15 – 0.19 acres and building sizes from 4,434 - 4,769 sq.ft. The quality of construction of these property sales are between 8.5 – 9.0. The details of MPAC’s proposed comparable property sales are in Table 1 attached at the end of this Decision.
15MPAC submitted that these proposed comparable properties are similar to the Subject Property, due to their building and land sizes, quality of construction and age. MPAC’s assessor and representative, Gregory Tom, testified that similar properties to the Subject Property were not located within the same homogenous neighbourhood as the Subject Property, which MPAC denotes with neighbourhood code C36. Therefore, he added that MPAC had to expand its search to other neighbourhoods within 2.0 kilometers (“KM”) from the Subject Property.
16According to MPAC, the Subject Property is not exposed to light traffic and it is not a corner lot, however, some of MPAC’s proposed comparable property sales are exposed to light traffic and are corner lots and accordingly benefit from a negative adjustment of 2% each. Therefore, to account for these negative adjustments, since the Subject Property does not have these features, MPAC made a positive 2% adjustment for light traffic or corner lot to the comparable property sales have these features. MPAC further used the median adjusted sale per sq. ft. of the six proposed property sales at $831.29 against the total building area of the Subject Property of 4,546 sq. ft., which provides a value of $3,779,044. MPAC submitted that the current value of the Subject Property is $3,779,000 (rounded).
17The Appellants used MPAC’s proposed comparable property Sales 1 and 6 and included two other proposed comparable sales: Sale 1 - 156 Falkirk Street and Sale 4 - 539 Deloraine Avenue.
18The Appellants’ proposed comparable property Sale 1 - 156 Falkirk is on the same street as the Subject Property, with neighbourhood code C36. It sold August 2, 2016 for $2,701,000 with a time adjusted sale price of $2,456,627. It was built in 2006, with a quality of construction of 8.0, a lot size of 7,228 sq. ft. (0.16 acres) and building size of 4,227 sq. ft. Proposed comparable property Sale 4 - 539 Deloraine Avenue sold April 1, 2016 for $2,350,000 with a time adjusted sale price of $2,258,879. It was built in 1993, with quality of construction of 8.0. It has a lot size of 5,457 sq. ft. (0.13 acres), with building size of 3,778 sq. ft. The Appellants submitted that although it has a different neighbourhood code of C38, it is 0.077 kilometres from the Subject Property. Furthermore, the Appellants argued that the neighbourhood which MPAC denotes as code C38 is almost identical to the neighbourhood where the Subject Property is located, which is C36.
19The Appellants argued that the Board should disregard MPAC’s proposed comparable property Sales 2, 3, 4 and 5, since these sales are located in a different homogenous neighbourhood with codes C40 and C43. The Appellants further argued that properties located in neighbourhood codes C40 and C43, are more valuable and prestigious since these neighbourhoods have more parks, green space and retail stores than properties located in neighbourhood codes C36 and C38 like the Subject Property. The Appellants also argued that properties with C38 code are closest to the Subject Property, which is almost an identical neighbourhood.
20The Appellants used the average time adjusted rate per sq. ft. of the four sales (MPAC’s proposed comparable property Sales 1, 6, 156 Falkirk Street and 539 Deloraine Avenue) at $639.96 against the building size of the Subject Property, which provides a value of $2,909,291(correct value is $2,909,258). The Appellant submitted that the correct current value of the Subject property is $2,909,291.
Finding on Current Value
21Vicinity is not defined in the Act, the practice of the Board is to use sales of similar properties close to the Subject Property and if there are not enough or none, the Board can expand to other streets and areas.
22The Board finds that MPAC’s property Sales 1, and 6 are the best evidence to establish the current value of the Subject Property. The Board finds that the Appellants’ proposed comparable property Sales 1 - 156 Falkirk Street and Sale 4 - 539 Deloraine Avenue are inferior to the Subject Property. They both have a lower quality of construction of 8.0, while the Subject Property is 9.0, the lot and the building sizes are smaller than the Subject Property. The Appellant did not make any adjustment for the differences. The Appellant argued that the Subject Property should have a lower quality of construction but did not adduce any evidence to prove it. MPAC also did not make any adjustment to its proposed comparable property sales for age and size, arguing that from a market perspective the six sales are similar to the Subject Property.
23A review of MPAC’s six proposed comparable property sales reveal that the further properties are from the Subject Property, the higher their value per square foot. Comparable property Sales 1 and 6 are the closest to the Subject Property, with neighbourhood code C38, and time adjusted sales per sq. ft. of $789.71 and $665.87 respectively. The time adjusted sale per sq. ft. of the other MPAC’s proposed comparable property sales with neighbourhood code C40 and C43 are: Sale 2 - $759.99, Sale 3 - $840.27, Sale 4 - $942.35, Sale 5 - $865.99. MPAC’s proposed comparable property Sale 2, with neighbourhood code C40 has a lower value per sq. ft. than property Sale 1 with neighbourhood code C38, since property Sale 1 has a larger lot size of 0.17 than property Sale 2 with a lot size of 0.15 acres. MPAC argued that all the six proposed comparable property sales are similar to the Subject Property since they all have the same effective frontages of 50 ft. like the Subject Property. These properties were sold with the buildings on it, not just the frontages, therefore a potential buyer for the Subject Property will look for sale prices of properties that are similar to the Subject Property in terms of location, land and building sizes.
24Comparable property Sale 6 with a neighbourhood code of C38 is 0.7662 KM from the Subject Property. It has an outdoor pool, basement garage and finished basement like the Subject Property. It has the largest building of 4,769 sq. ft. and the largest lot of 0.19 acres, with a quality of construction of 8.5 and a year built of 2005 similar to the Subject Property. The time adjusted sale price per sq. ft. is $665.87, which is lower than property Sales 2, 3, 4 and 5, with smaller buildings and land sizes.
25In fact, comparable property Sale 5, with a building size that is only 13 sq. ft. larger than property Sale 1, with a smaller lot size of 0.15 acres with quality of construction of 9.0, and is two years older, sold for $865.99. This supports the Appellants’ argument that the further the properties are from the immediate vicinity of the Subject Property, the more valuable they are. Consequently, the Board did not use MPAC’s property Sales 2, 3, 4, and 5 to determine the current value of the Subject Property.
26Comparable property Sale 1 is the closest of MPAC’s comparable property to the Subject Property. It is 0.4148 kilometres from the Subject Property, with neighbourhood code C38. Its building area is just 2 sq. ft. smaller than the Subject Property, with an identical land size of 0.17 acres. The time adjusted sale price per sq. ft. is $789.71, which is more than the time adjusted sale price per sq. ft. of comparable property Sale 6, due to the seven years age difference as property Sale 1 was built in 2012 and property Sale 6 in 2005.
27On a balance of probabilities the current value of the Subject Property should fall within the time adjusted sale price range of Sale 1 and 6, as the Board finds that comparable property Sales 1 and 6 are relatively comparable to the Subject Property in terms of location, land and building size and quality of construction. The Board notes that MPAC did not make any adjustment for the age of its proposed comparable properties, as it indicated that they are all similar to the Subject Property. The Board used the time adjusted sale price of Sales 1 and 6, without making any further adjustments for age and size as the properties sold as it is in the market without any adjustments and MPAC cannot arbitrarily select which adjustments are necessary to be made to these comparable property sales.
28The time adjusted sale price range for property Sales 1 and 6 is between $3,175,527 - $3,588,461. The mid-point of this range is $3,381,994. This is slightly lower than the time adjusted sale price of property Sale 1, which is eight years newer than the Subject Property. The Board finds that the correct current value of the Subject Property is $3,382,000 (rounded).
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)(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.
29Section 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.
30The Assessment to Sales Ratio (“ASR”) is a tool often used to determine if a reduction in the assessment below current value is required to make an assessment equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity. The ASR is determined by dividing the assessment as returned by the TAS price.
31The Board finds that a downward adjustment to the current value to $3,111,000 (rounded) is necessary to ensure that the assessment of the Subject Property is equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity.
32The Appellants are in agreement with MPAC’s median ASR of 0.92 based on 30 residential sales of single-family detached homes from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2016 within 2.0 kilometers of the Subject Property.
33The Board applied the median ASR of 0.92 to its determined current value of $3,382,000 for an equitable assessment of $3,111,440. The Board finds the equitable assessment of the Subject Property to be $3,111,000 (rounded).
CONCLUSION
34The Board finds that the correct current value of the Subject Property for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years to be $3,382,000, with a downward adjustment to $3,111,000 (rounded), to make the current value equitable with the assessment of similar properties in the vicinity.
ORDER
35The Board orders that the assessment of the Subject Property is reduced from $3,129,000 to $3,111,000 (rounded) for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years.
"Subuola Awoleri"
SUBUOLA AWOLERI
MEMBER
Assessment Review Board
Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb
MPAC’s Proposed Comparable Property Sales
Subject Property
Property #1
Property #2
Property #3
Property #4
Property #5
Property #6
Roll Number
190806229001400
190806224002900
190806115002100
190411511001800
190806108000400
190806335002900
190806210001100
Address
134 FALKIRK ST
446 MELROSE AVE
450 GLENCAIRN AVE
119 STRATHALLAN BLVD
418 LYTTON BLVD
42 MASON BLVD
391 FAIRLAWN AVE
Neighbourhood
C36 - 801
C38 - 801
C40 - 805
C40 - 805
C40 - 805
C43 - 809
C38 - 801
Property Code & Desc.
(301) Single-Family
Detached (Not on Water)
(301) Single-Family
Detached (Not on Water)
(301) Single-Family
Detached (Not on Water)
(301) Single-Family
Detached (Not on Water)
(301) Single-Family
Detached (Not on Water)
(301) Single-Family
Detached (Not on Water)
(301) Single-Family
Detached (Not on Water)
Distance in km
0.4148
1.7905
1.9817
1.9907
1.8368
0.7662
Valuation
Current Value Assessment
$3,129,000
$3,082,000
$3,468,000
$3,617,000
$3,879,000
$3,588,000
$2,764,000
Returned Base Year
2016
2016
2016
2016
2016
2016
2016
Sale
Sale Date
20150529
20151028
20160331
20150918
20160802
20150519
Sale Amount
$3,085,000
$3,310,000
$3,900,000
$4,051,000
$4,500,000
$2,730,001
Time Adjusted Sale Amount
$3,588,461
$3,472,392
$3,725,758
$4,334,814
$3,946,329
$3,175,527
Time Adjusted Sale Ratio
0.8589
0.9987
0.9708
0.8948
0.9092
0.8704
Time Adjustment Factor
1.1632
1.0491
0.9553
1.0701
0.877
1.1632
Site
Effective Frontage (F)
52.5
50
50
50
50
50
50
Actual Frontage
52.5
50
50
50
50
50
50
Effective Depth (F)
140
150
135
135
135
130.71
164
Actual Depth
140
150
135
135
135
130.71
164.5
Effective Site Area (Acres)
0.17
0.17
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.19
Actual Site Area (Acres)
0.17
0.17
0.15
0.15
0.15
Abuts Variable(s)
(K) Traffic Pattern - Light
(K) Traffic Pattern - Light
K Traffic Pattern - Light , (O) Abuts Sports d/Playground
Proximity Variable(s)
On Site Variable(s)
(M) No Sidewalk on Street
, (76) Official Plan Designated - Residential
(76) Official Plan Designated - Residential
(76) Official Plan Designated - Residential,
(C) Corner Lot
(76) Official Plan Designated - Residential
(76) Official Plan Designated - Residential,
(M) No Sidewalk on Street
, (C) Corner Lot
Residential Structure
Year Built
2004
2012
2015
2014
2015
2010
2005
Quality of Construction
9
8.5
8.5
9
9
9
8.5
Full Storeys
2 Storeys
2 Storeys
2 Storeys
2 Storeys
2 Storeys
2 Storeys
2 Storeys
Building Total Area (SF)
4,546
4,544
4,569
4,434
4,600
4,557
4,769
First Floor Area (SF)
2308
2293
2331
2197
2225
2299
2446
Second Floor Area (SF)
2238
2251
2238
2237
2375
2258
2323
Upper Floor Area (3rd and above)(SF)
Basement Type
Finished Basement -
Average Quality
Finished Basement -
Average Quality
Finished Basement -
Average Quality
Finished Basement -
Average Quality
Finished Basement -
Average Quality
Finished Basement -
Average Quality
Finished Basement -
Average Quality
Basement Area (SF)
2,621
2,268
2,375
2,222
2,573
2,270
2,596
Finished Basement Area (SF)
1,743
1,530
1,827
1,889
2,002
1,484
1,738
Modifications
Secondary Structure(s)
Structure Description
(121) Basement Garage
(121) Basement Garage
(102) Shed
(101) Detached Garage
(121) Basement Garage
(121) Basement Garage
(121) Basement Garage
Year Built
2004
2012
2008
2014
2015
2010
2005
Building Total Area (SF)
394
466
102
475
260
414
584
Quality of Construction
4
4
1
4
5
5
4
Structure Description
(108) Outdoor Pool
(121) Basement Garage
(116) Attached Garage
(108) Outdoor Pool
Year Built
2004
2015
2015
2006
Building Total Area (SF)
512
344
260
512
Quality of Construction
2
4
5
2
Assessment/SF
$688.30
Adjusted Sale Price/SF
$789.71
$759.99
$840.27
$942.35
$865.99
$665.87
Adjusted for Locational Variables
$805.51
$775.19
$857.08
$942.35
$883.31
$679.19
Locational Variables
Traffic Light -2%
Traffic Light -2%
Corner Lot -2%
Corner Lot -2%
Light Traffic -2%