Tribunals Ontario / Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario
Assessment Review Board / Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: June 23, 2022 FILE NO.: WR 178995
Assessed Person(s): Lorraine Eveline Beagan, Steven Kristopher Kenney Appellant(s): Lorraine Eveline Beagan Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 07 Respondent(s): City of Kawartha Lakes
Property Location(s): 15 Cop’s Cove Municipality(ies): City of Kawartha Lakes Roll Number(s): 1651-026-020-45300-0000 Appeal Number(s): 3392778, 3392779, 3481222, 3481223, 3481224, 3481225 and 3486800 Taxation Year(s): 2017, 2018, 2019, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 Hearing Event No.: 766566 Legislative Authority: Sections 32 and 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel*/Representative |
|---|---|
| Lorraine Eveline Beagan and Steven Kristopher Kenney | Cynthia Davis* |
| Municipal Property Assessment Corporation | Brittany Kee and Adrianna Combdon |
| City of Kawartha Lakes | No one appeared |
HEARD: May 18 and 19, 2022 by video conference
ADJUDICATOR(S): Anthony LaRegina, Member; Carly Stringer, Member
DECISION
OVERVIEW
1The property owners, Lorraine Beagan and Steven Kenney, (the “Appellants”) filed a property assessment appeal for the 2017 taxation year with the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) regarding their property at 15 Cop’s Cove (the “Subject Property”) in the City of Kawartha Lakes (the “City”) pursuant to s. 40(1) of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”). Pursuant to s. 40(26) of the Act, the Appellants are deemed to have brought the same appeal in respect of the 2018 through 2022 taxation years.
2The Appellants say that the returned assessment is too high. The Appellants state that the current value is $410,000, less a downward adjustment of 17.4% for site conditions including flooding, and a further $10,000 downward adjustment due to ongoing commercial operations in proximity to the Subject Property. The Appellants request that the Board reduce the current value assessments to $328,000.
3The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) is responding to these appeals. MPAC takes the position that the current value of the Subject Property is $485,000 and disagrees with the Appellants’ proposed adjustments.
4No one attended the hearing on behalf of the City.
Areas of Agreement
5The Parties agree that the direct comparison approach is the appropriate valuation methodology to determine the current value of the Subject Property.
6The Parties agree that no reduction to the current value is required for the purpose of equitable assessment.
Issues for the Hearing
7The issues in this proceeding are:
- A determination of the current value of the Subject Property, which requires the Board to address the following sub-issues: a. What is the current value of the Subject Property using the direct comparison approach? b. Should there be a negative adjustment for lot conditions including flooding and, if so, how much? c. Should there be a negative adjustment for proximity to a commercial property and, if so, how much?
- Whether a reduction to the current value is required for the purpose of equitable assessment.
Result
8The Board finds that the correct current value of the Subject Property for the 2017 to 2022 taxation years is $404,800.
9The Board finds that no reduction is required to make this current value equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity.
BACKGROUND
Description of the Subject Property
10The Subject Property is a seasonal/recreation dwelling, first tier on water, located on Pigeon Lake. It has an effective waterfront of 80 feet and an effective depth of 285 feet for a total effective site area of 0.52 acres. The Subject Property is improved with a cottage that was built in 2015. The cottage has a total building area of 1,407 square feet all on the main level and no basement. The cottage has three bedrooms and two bathrooms. The quality of construction is 6.0 and the condition is average. The Subject Property has a mutual or shared driveway. The topography is low/wet, there are no streetlights or sidewalks, the access road is gravel, the waterfront is weedy with algae, and the lot has an eastern exposure. The Subject Property is also improved by a detached garage built in 1996 with a total of 733 square feet and a quality of construction of 3.0. The Subject Property has a raised septic bed and a shared well for water.
Procedural Background
11The Subject Property has been the subject of appeals before this Board on prior occasions. These prior decisions are relevant to the Parties’ positions at the hearing so the Board will provide some context.
12The Appellants previously appealed the Subject Property’s assessment for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years. The Board rendered a decision relating to the Appellants’ 2013 and 2014 appeals in WR 126561 issued on September 12, 2014 (the “2014 Decision”). In the 2014 Decision, the Board found the current value of the Subject Property to be $261,000. The Board further reduced that current value by $55,000 to take into account two negative adjustments that MPAC agreed to: a -17.4% adjustment for the condition of the subject lot, and a -$10,000 adjustment for proximity to a commercial property. The Board also determined a reduction was required for the purpose of equitable assessment, arriving at a final determination of value of $194,000.
13The Appellants appealed again for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years. The Board rendered a decision relating to these 2017 and 2018 appeals in WR 157694 issued on February 5, 2019 (the “2019 Decision”). In the 2019 Decision, the Board determined the current value assessment for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years to be $486,000. The Board did not apply either the negative 17.4% adjustment for lot condition, or the negative $10,000 adjustment for proximity to commercial.
14The Appellants sought a review of the 2019 Decision. A Request for Review Decision RD 2019M23 was issued by the Board on November 14, 2019 (the “Review Decision”). In the Review Decision, the Board ordered a new hearing with respect to the valuation of the Subject Property but confirmed the 2019 Decision’s finding that no negative $10,000 adjustment is required: see paragraphs 10 and 21 of the Review Decision.
15The Subject Appeals were re-heard on May 18 and 19, 2022, in accordance with the Review Decision. These written reasons reflect the Board’s decision following this re-hearing.
ANALYSIS
Issue 1 – A determination of the current value of the Subject Property
16The first issue to be determined is the correct current value of the Subject Property for the 2017 to 2022 taxation years.
17Pursuant to s. 19(1) of the Act, the assessment of land shall be based on its current value. 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”.
18The Act also provides that, for the 2017 to 2022 taxation years, MPAC is required to assess this value as of January 1, 2016.
a. What is the current value of the Subject Property using the direct comparison approach?
Evidence and Submissions on Current Value
MPAC’s Evidence and Submissions
19MPAC’s expert provided the Board with evidence regarding sales of four proposed comparable properties. These four properties are all located on Pigeon Lake within 1.36 kilometers of the Subject Property and sold between July 2015 and October 2015. MPAC’s expert opined that these properties are all located in the same homogenous neighbourhood, mid-way up the west side of Pigeon Lake, between 0.43 kms and 1.36 kms away from the Subject Property and approximately 3 kilometers south of Bobcaygeon. MPAC’s expert testified that this location is an important factor because the water is deeper compared to further south on the lake, where the water becomes shallower and weedier with weed bogs.
Table 1 - MPAC’s Comparable Property Sales
| Property No. 1 | Property No. 2 | Property No. 3 | Property. No 4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Address | 40 Hills Road | 44 Falls Bay Road | 74 Falls Bay Road | 28 Falls Bay Road |
| Neighborhood | N02-614 | N02-614 | N02-614 | N02-614 |
| Property Code & Desc. | (313) Single Family Detached on Water | (313) Single Family Detached on Water | (391) Seasonal/ Recreational Dwelling -First Tier on Water | (391) Seasonal/ Recreational Dwelling-First Tier on Water |
| Distance from the Subject Property in km. | 0.4296 | 1.2856 | 0.9297 | 1.3578 |
| Sale Date | 20150807 | 20150826 | 20150715 | 20151030 |
| Sale Amount $ | 470,000 | 605,000 | 480,000 | 538,000 |
| Time Adjusted Sale $ | 490,082 | 630,851 | 506,695 | 547,617 |
| Effective Frontage (F) | 111 | 55 | 245 | 122 |
| Effective Depth | 171 | 150 | 65 | 150 |
| Effective Site Area (Acres) | 0.44 | 0.18 | 0.37 | 0.42 |
| Building Area S.F. | 1,775 | 1,349 | 1,257 | 1,747 |
| Access | Private Road | Year-Round Road | Year-Round Road | Year-Round Road |
| Effective Year Built | 1974 | 2006 | 1969 | 1989 |
| Structure Condition | Average | Average | Average | Average |
| Quality of Construction | 6 | 6.5 | 5.5 | 6.5 |
| Full Storeys | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Baths | 2 | 2.5 | 1 | 2.5 |
| Fireplaces | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Driveway | Separate of Private | Separate of Private | Separate of Private | Separate of Private |
| Secondary Structures | Detached Garage | Attached Garage | Attached Garage | Attached Garage |
| Waterfront Variable(s) | Waterfront Lake Shoreline Rocky Exposure-East |
Waterfront Lake Permanent Docking Landscaping-Retaining Wall/ Gabian Cages Exposure - South |
Waterfront – Lake Shoreline-Deep, with Rocky Shoreline Landscaping – Retaining Wall/ Gabian Cages Exposure - East |
Waterfront – Lake Shoreline- Sandy/Deep Exposure - South |
20MPAC’s expert testified that the best comparable property is 40 Hills Road, while 44 Falls Bay Road is slightly superior to the Subject Property; 74 Falls Bay is slightly inferior; and 28 Falls Bay Road is slightly superior.
21Further, MPAC’s expert analyzed the sales of 75 properties in the neighbourhood and adjacent areas to the Subject Property that occurred between May 2015 and December 2016 and demonstrated that there has been an increase of 14.83% in market value over this 19-month period. MPAC’s expert developed Time-Adjustment Factors based on the study and applied these factors to the sale values of the four proposed comparable properties to reflect what the values would have been as of the January 1, 2016 valuation date.
22MPAC’s expert testified that the time-adjusted sale prices of the four proposed comparable properties range from $490,000 to $630,000. On this basis, MPAC’s expert opined that the correct current value of the Subject Property is $485,000, which is at the bottom of the time-adjusted sale range, and very much in line with the time-adjusted sale value of the best comparable, 40 Hills Road.
23MPAC’s expert also confirmed that when preparing for the hearing and reviewing all the valuation information, the assessment of the Subject Property was determined to be $516,000. MPAC then made a further total negative adjustment of 6% for site variables including the private access road resulting in not getting the full year-round services as well as having a weedy/algae shoreline. MPAC’s expert confirmed that applying this adjustment resulted in a downward adjustment of $31,000 to $485,000.
The Appellants’ Evidence and Submissions
24The Appellants proffered evidence from two witnesses on this issue.
25First, Mr. Kenney provided the following evidence in relation to MPAC’s proposed comparable properties:
a. 40 Hills Road is superior to the Subject Property as it is a permanent residence with a year-round gravel road, private drive, basement, and is not located on a floodplain.
b. 44 Falls Bay Road is also superior to the Subject Property. It is located on a hill with a basement and walkout with private drive and well. This property is located in a subdivision-type area and the property has a permanent dock with a retaining wall also resulting in no flooding or ponding issues.
c. 74 Falls Bay Road is also superior to the Subject Property. The home is built of bricks. The shoreline is on a point and the water is deep enough for boats. This property has a private well and retaining wall again resulting in no issue with flooding.
d. 28 Falls Bay Road is also superior with a larger building area and located in a residential subdivision area. The property has two garages, a paved driveway, and sandy shoreline with no algae and no flooding issues.
26Second, the Appellants provided expert evidence. The Appellants’ expert valued the Subject Property as of November 11, 2016, and November 14, 2017, and provided three proposed comparable properties for each date.
Table 2 – Appellants’ Comparable Property Sales for November 11, 2016
| Property No. 1 | Property No. 2 | Property No. 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Address | 40 Hills Road | 16 Sanmar Hill Road | 1988 Pigeon Lake Road |
| Sale Date | July 2015 | April 2016 | May 2016 |
| Sale Amount $ | 470,000 | 406,685 | 385,000 |
| Water Frontage (F) | 123 | 125 | 100 |
| Land Area (Acres) | 0.44 | 0.80 | 0.52 |
| Structure Condition | Good | Good | Good |
| Full Storeys | Bungalow | 1.5 | Bungalow |
| Bedrooms | 3 | 4 | 3 |
| Baths | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Price per Front Foot of Waterfront | $3,821 | $3,253 | $3,850 |
Table 3 – Appellants’ Comparable Property Sales for November 14, 2017
| Property No. 1 | Property No. 2 | Property No. 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Address | 461 Gallivan Drive | 51 Marilyn Crescent West | 52 Birch Point Drive |
| Sale Date | June 2017 | January 2017 | March 2017 |
| Sale Amount $ | 512,000 | 465,000 | 359,000 |
| Water Frontage (F) | 100 | 80 | 70 |
| Land Area (Acres) | 0.40 | 0.44 | 0.44 |
| Structure Condition | Average to Good | Good | Good |
| Full Storeys | Bungalow | Bungalow | Bungalow |
| Bedrooms | 3 | 3 | 2 |
| Baths | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| Secondary Structures | Garage | Garage | |
| Price per Front Foot of Waterfront | $5,120 | $5,813 | $5,129 |
27The Appellants’ expert stated that the two best comparable properties to the Subject Property are 40 Hills Road for 2016 and 52 Birch Point Road for 2017.
28The Appellants’ expert testified that water frontage is a significant factor in assessing value of a waterfront property like the Subject Property. The Appellants’ expert determined the price per foot of waterfront for each of the proposed comparable properties by taking the sale value and dividing it by the water frontage. Using this method, the comparables showed a range in value of $3,253 to $3,850 per foot of waterfront as of November 11, 2016, and $5,120 and $5,813 per foot of waterfront as of November 14, 2017. The Appellants’ expert testified that he then made subjective adjustments based on each property’s characteristics compared to the Subject Property to arrive at a market value of $4,500 per foot of waterfront for the Subject Property for 2016 and $5,100 for 2017. He then multiplied these values by the Subject Property’s 80-foot frontage to arrive at a current value of $360,000 for 2016 and $410,000 (rounded) for 2017.
29Based on this evidence, the Appellants submit that the current market value of the Subject Property, before adjusting for negative characteristics, is $410,000.
Findings on Current Value
30To establish a current value for the Subject Property, 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 on or close to the valuation day.
31The Board has analyzed all the comparable property sales 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 four sales are all within 1.36 kilometers of the Subject Property and therefore within the same neighbourhood. They are very close to the Subject Property in terms of quality of construction and are in similar average condition. They all sold within one year of the January 1, 2016 valuation day, and the sale values were all time-adjusted to reflect values as of January 1, 2016 using factors substantiated by MPAC. While there are some small differences between the Subject Property and these four comparables, as noted in Mr. Kenney’s evidence, the Board finds there are sufficient elements of commonality that the Board accepts MPAC’s sales evidence as the best evidence of current value.
32The Board also accepts the evidence of both MPAC and the Appellants’ expert that the best comparable property as of the valuation day is 40 Hills Road. This property has a similar quality level as the Subject Property of 6.0, is only located 0.43 kilometers from the Subject Property, is one-storey, has two bathrooms, has access through a private road, has the same eastern lake exposure, and is of average condition. The Board finds that 40 Hills Road is the best comparable to the Subject Property, subject to the Board’s discussion of a negative adjustment below.
33The Board does not accept the Appellants’ expert evidence of current value for the following reasons:
a. 461 Gallivan Drive and 52 Birch Point Drive sold more than one year on either side of January 1, 2016. The Board finds these two sales are too far removed from the valuation day to be reliable indicators of value as of January 1, 2016.
b. The valuation day for these appeals is January 1, 2016 while the valuation recommendations the Appellants’ expert report are based on November 11, 2016 and November 14, 2017.
c. The sale values of the comparable properties proposed by the Appellants’ expert have not been time-adjusted to the January 1, 2016 valuation day. The Appellants’ expert testified that he did not perform a time adjustment because the market conditions at the time did not require it. The Board does not accept this opinion because it is unsubstantiated – for instance, there is no study included in his material that reflects a flat market. In contrast, MPAC’s expert opinion backed by market data showed that there was an increase of 14.83% in market value between May 2015 and December 2016.
d. Only 40 Hills Road was located in the neighbourhood of the Subject Property while the other five properties relied on by the Appellants’ expert were located within a six to fifteen kilometer distance from the Subject Property. This is problematic, in the Board’s view, because the Board has accepted the unchallenged evidence of MPAC’s expert that proximity to the Subject Property is important because different areas of the lake have different water conditions.
e. The calculations were based on the sale value per foot of waterfront and the expert did not provide the Board with sufficient evidence regarding other features like building area, year built, and quality of construction.
34In accordance with these findings, the Board finds that based on all the elements of commonality between the Subject Property and 40 Hills Road, the current value of the Subject Property – prior to adjustments, as discussed below – should be the time adjusted sale price of 40 Hills Road of $490,082.
b. Should there be a negative adjustment for lot conditions including flooding and, if so, how much?
Evidence and Submissions on Lot Conditions
MPAC’s Evidence and Submissions
35MPAC’s expert testified that she did not inspect the Subject Property but instead reviewed the photos in evidence as well as reports from previous external inspections conducted in November 2016 and November 2018. MPAC’s expert also testified that she searched for maps of floodplains on the Kawartha conservation authority’s website and did not locate anything relevant to the Subject Property.
36On this basis, MPAC’s expert testified that the flooding on the Subject Property is seasonal flooding which happens in the spring, and there are many properties on the lake which have lower elevation and have swampy areas on them. MPAC’s expert testified that she reflected the “Low/Wet” condition in MPAC’s model used for assessment. She confirmed that she has no way to quantify any adjustment for flooding and, in any event, no additional adjustment for flooding is appropriate.
37As noted above, MPAC’s expert testified that a downward adjustment of 6% for site variables including the private access road and weedy/algae shoreline was appropriate and was incorporated into its model.
38MPAC submits that no adjustment is required for flooding. MPAC submits that this flooding is an issue that would affect other properties as well, and there is insufficient evidence of a flood plain beyond an unregistered survey referenced by the Appellants. Finally, MPAC submits that the Appellants have not quantified the adjustment they seek for flooding.
Appellants’ Evidence and Submissions
39Both Appellants provided evidence regarding flooding conditions at the Subject Property.
40Ms. Beagan provided the following evidence:
a. A floodplain represents about 50% of the south side of the property, and goes from the road right through to the lake.
b. The Appellants’ obtained a property survey that shows a floodplain on the south side of the Subject Property.
c. The flooding goes on all year whenever they get a rain fall, but is worse in the spring with the elevated water from the lake as well as the water draining from the back side of the property.
d. While other cottage properties nearby have traditional septic beds, the flooding has forced the Appellants to elevate their septic bed as well as their generator and propane tanks.
e. They share a well with their neighbour at 21 Cop’s Cove, but because of the flooding the quality of water is poor which has forced them to rely on bottled water for consumption.
f. In 2015, the Appellants demolished the old cottage on the site and built a new one. The Appellants’ intent was to construct the new cottage in the middle of the lot. The local conservation authority refused their request because a portion of their lot was located on a floodplain. They were required to build the cottage within four feet of the lot line located to the north side of the Subject Property. This resulted in the new cottage being built against the driveway of the property next door, so the Appellants did not put windows on that side of the building for privacy.
g. They were prohibited by the City of Kawartha Lakes from building a basement and were required to build the structure on a floating slab.
h. The flooding is getting worse over time and if she attempted to sell her property, the floodplain would definitely have a negative impact on the market value as no structures can be built on 50% of the property.
i. Ms. Beagan provided the Board with numerous photos evidencing water, flooding and ponding on the Subject Property.
41Mr. Kenney provided the following evidence:
a. Flooding or heavy storms in the feeder lakes results in flooding of their waterfront.
b. Properties adjacent to the Subject Property have higher grades and therefore, any run-off comes into the Subject Property, flooding the property and their garage. Any major storm including snow and wet snow also results in flooding on the Subject Property, for the same reason.
c. Water level is generally 8 to 10 inches below ground at any time during the year.
d. Walking on the Subject Property at any time of the year feels like walking on a sponge and, even during the driest times, if you dig a 10-inch hole it fills up with water.
e. The Subject Property has the worst flooding in May and June and only part of the property dries up if there are two weeks of straight sun.
f. Both the City of Kawartha Lakes and the conservation authority referred to the floodplain in the Appellants’ survey in approving the location and features of the new home.
42In addition to the Appellants’ testimony, the Appellants’ expert testified that he inspected the Subject Property on June 15, 2020. He confirmed the lot is sloped slightly from the road to the waterfront. While he stated that there were no signs of flooding or ponding water, the Appellants’ expert testified that the Subject Property was marshy and moist. The Appellants’ expert also confirmed that he contacted the City and the conservation authority who both confirmed that a floodplain exists on the Subject Property.
43The Appellants’ expert acknowledged that the floodplain could affect the value of the Subject Property. However, he had no evidence to support the quantity of such an adjustment and, therefore, made no adjustment for floodplain in his report.
44The Appellants submit that there should be a negative adjustment to the current value of the Subject Property to reflect site conditions. While the Appellants did not provide evidence quantifying the impact of flooding on the value of the Subject Property, the Appellants submit that the 2014 Decision confirmed that there should be a downward adjustment of 17.4% due to site conditions which included flooding.
Findings on Flooding and Lot Conditions
45The Board accepts the Appellants’ largely uncontested evidence regarding site conditions, including flooding, at the Subject Property. MPAC agreed to an adjustment regarding certain site conditions, including the weedy/algae shoreline. With respect to flooding, the Appellants provided two first-hand accounts, as well as photographic evidence and a survey, supporting their assertion that their property is almost always wet, and very often experiences significant flooding and ponding. The actions taken at the site – including, building a raised septic bed, no basement being permitted as part of the new cottage built in 2015, and the floating slab on which the new cottage was built, further supports the Appellants’ position. While there was no direct evidence from either the City or the conservation authority, the Board accepts the Appellants’ and the Appellants’ expert’s evidence that they were told there was a floodplain. MPAC has not significantly challenged the Appellants’ account and presented no first-hand evidence of its own as MPAC’s expert did not inspect the Subject Property. In these circumstances, the Board is satisfied that the Subject Property has poor lot conditions including those caused by low elevation resulting in year-round poor drainage and flooding.
46Neither party provided the Board with evidence that any of the comparable properties had similar lot conditions. Even 40 Hills Road, which the Board has found is otherwise the best comparable property to the Subject Property, does not have similar features like a weedy/algae shoreline and flooding. Therefore, the Board finds that the direct comparison approach utilized above does not address the impact of the lot condition as a site-specific feature, and an adjustment is necessary: see for example Lane v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 26, 2016 CanLII 40915 (ON ARB) at paragraph 33.
47MPAC provided evidence that a 6% negative adjustment is appropriate for conditions relating specifically to the weed/algae shoreline and the private road access. In the absence of any new quantitative evidence to support the impact on value of the flooding conditions of the Subject Property, the Board agrees with the Appellants that no evidence has been provided by MPAC, who bears the onus, to demonstrate that the lot conditions have changed since the 2014 Decision. The Board therefore accepts the 17.4% adjustment for poor lot conditions as quantified in the 2014 Decision. Taking into account MPAC’s 6% adjustment for weedy/algae shoreline and private access road, the Board finds that the 11.4% remaining is a very reasonable adjustment for the flooding issues demonstrated at the Subject Property.
48The Board therefore finds the correct current value of the Subject Property to be $404,807 for the 2017 to 2022 taxation years, after applying a negative adjustment of 17.4% for poor lot conditions and flooding to $490,082 (being the time adjusted sale price of 40 Hills Road, the best comparable to the Subject Property).
c. Should there be a negative adjustment for proximity to a commercial property and, if so, how much?
49The Appellants seek a downward adjustment to the value on the basis that the Subject Property is in proximity to a commercial property. The Appellants claim a cottage rental business operates near them. In the 2014 Decision, the Appellants received a $10,000 reduction on the basis of proximity to a commercial property.
Evidence and Submissions on Proximity to Commercial
MPAC’s Evidence and Submissions
50MPAC’s expert testified that she did not inspect the Subject Property; however, she did conduct an external inspection of the property that the Appellants allege is commercial. MPAC’s expert testified that she visited the property on September 3, 2022, and found a number of cabins in serious disrepair, and no one was on the property at the time of her visit. She said there was no signage of any business on the property. She said she looked online and found no reference to any cottage rental business on this property.
51For all the above reasons, and in the absence of evidence from the Appellants supporting the commercial nature of the activities, MPAC’s expert made no downward adjustment to the current value of the Subject Property for proximity to a commercial property.
Appellants’ Evidence and Submissions
52The Appellants allege that the Subject Property is in proximity to a commercial property that rents cottages. The Appellants are requesting a $10,000 negative adjustment to compensate.
53Ms. Beagan provided the following evidence regarding the impugned property:
a. There is a main house which is occupied by the owner and there are a number of cabins which are rented on a seasonal basis starting in May and ending in September.
b. She spoke to the owner’s wife in August and September 2019 attempting to rent a cabin for a relative and was told that all the cabins were occupied.
c. Ms. Beagan provided the Board with photos of the impugned property, including photos showing one cabin with a car parked in front of the cabin and some laundry hanging on a line.
54Mr. Kenney provided the following evidence relating to the impugned property:
a. The property has been renting cottages since 1989 and up to 2019.
b. When he goes fishing by the commercial property with his boat, he sees people on the property and believes the cabins are rented.
c. The cabins are in disrepair, but the owner doesn’t like to spend money on doing maintenance and repairs.
55The Appellants’ expert provided evidence that none of the properties in proximity to the Subject Property are zoned commercial.
Findings on Proximity to Commercial
56The Board has reviewed the evidence and will not adjust the current value downward by $10,000 for proximity to commercial, for the following reasons:
a. The Review Decision “confirms the finding that no $10,000 reduction is required”: see Review Decision at paragraph 21. There is no evidence supporting a change in facts or circumstances on this issue. Accordingly, the Board’s previous determination that no $10,000 reduction is required, as confirmed by the Review Decision, stands.
b. The Board is not satisfied of the commercial nature of the activities at the impugned property. There is simply not enough evidence to support such a finding, particularly when there is no zoning evidence that a commercial property exists in proximity to the Subject Property, and there is no signage, online presence, or other similar evidence supporting that a business is being conducted there. The photos provided by the Appellants’ simply show that the property was in use on that one occasion during the Labour Day long weekend – they do not disclose a commercial enterprise. Overall, there is a dearth of evidence supporting a commercial nature to this property – the only real evidence supporting that it is commercial is the Appellants’ allegation that it is, which is not enough to satisfy this Board.
57Therefore, the Board finds that no downward adjustment to the current value is required for proximity to commercial.
Issue 2 - Is the current value equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity?
Applicable Law
58Section 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”.
Evidence and Submissions on Equitable Assessment
59The Parties are in agreement that no reduction is required for the purposes of equitable assessment.
60MPAC’s expert provided an equity analysis report demonstrating that similar properties in the vicinity of the Subject Property are being assessed equitably.
61The Appellants did not provide evidence or submissions on equitable adjustment.
Findings on Equitable Assessment
62The Board finds there is no evidence supporting a reduction in the current value for the purpose of equitable assessment.
CONCLUSION
63The Board finds that the current value of the Subject Property is $490,082 less 17.4% for lot conditions, reflecting a correct current value of $404,807 for the 2017 to 2022 taxation years.
64The Board finds that there is no evidence supporting a reduction in this current value to make it equitable with similar lands in the vicinity. Therefore, the Board finds that the current value assessment of the Subject Property is $404,807 rounded to $404,800.
ORDER
65The Board orders the assessment of the Subject Property be reduced from $480,000 to $404,800 for the 2017 taxation year, from $502,000 to $404,800 for the 2018 taxation year, from $486,000 to $404,800 for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years and from $485,000 to $404,800 for the 2021 and 2022 taxation years.
"Anthony LaRegina"
ANTHONY LaREGINA MEMBER
“Carly Stringer”
CARLY STRINGER MEMBER
Assessment Review Board Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb
Appendix A
EXHIBIT LIST
MPAC’s Exhibits
- Valuation Report
- Equity Report
Appellants’ Exhibits 3. Tab 2 photographs from August 2019 4. Tab 3 photographs from May 15, 2020 5. Tab 5 Notice of Assessment for 2016 and 2017 6. Tab 6 photographs from May 12, 2107 7. Tab 7 photographs from May 12, 2017 8. Tab 8 photographs from May 12, 2017 9. Tab 9 Notice of Assessment for 2015 10. Tab 12 photographs April 26, 2019 11. Tab 16 photographs May 16, 2014 12. Tab 17 Survey of Subject Property 13. Tab 22 of Appellants’ Supplementary Document Brief - Freedom of Information Documents from MPAC 14. Appraisal Report of Peter MacLean