Tribunals Ontario
Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario
Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: June 20, 2022
Assessed Person(s): Paul Francois Malboeuf; Alexandra Nicolette Malboeuf
Appellant(s): Paul Malboeuf; Alexandra Malboeuf
Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 20
Respondent(s): Municipality of Norfolk County
Property Location(s): 257 Charlton Street
Municipality(ies): Municipality of Norfolk County
Roll Number(s): 3310-493-010-12650-0000
Appeal Number(s): 3464765, 3485355, 3489748
Taxation Year(s): 2020, 2021 and 2022
Hearing Event No.: 766067
Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Representative
Paul Francois Malboeuf and Alexandra Nicolette Malboeuf
Self-represented
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
Scott Cripps
Norfolk County
No one appeared
HEARD: April 28, 2022, by Video Conference
ADJUDICATOR(S): Anthony LaRegina, Member
DECISION
OVERVIEW
1The property owners, Paul and Alexandra Malboeuf (the “Appellants”) filed a property assessment appeal for the 2020 taxation year with the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) regarding the property located 257 Charlton Street (the “Subject Property”) in Norfolk County (the “County”). Pursuant to s. 40(26) of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”), the Appellants are deemed to have brought the same appeal in respect of the 2021 and 2022 taxation years.
2Pursuant to s. 40 of the Assessment Act, the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) conducted a general reassessment of the Subject Property and determined that its current value assessment (“CVA”) is $433,000 for each of the 2020, 2021 and 2022 taxation years. It is the Appellants position that MPAC’s CVA is too high and that the correct CVA should be $306,152 for all years. At this hearing, MPAC takes the position that the CVA should be reduced to $425,000 for all the taxation years.
3Pursuant to s. 40(11) of the of the Assessment Act, the County is a party to this proceeding. No one attended the hearing on behalf of the County.
4Section 44(3)(b) of the Assessment 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 Appellants presented no evidence and assert no position on equitable reduction. MPAC presented an Equity Report indicating that no equity adjustment is required.
Issues for the Hearing
5The issue in this proceeding is:
The determination of the correct current value of the Subject Property.
Is the correct current value equitable with the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity.
Result
6The Board finds that the correct current value of the Subject Property for the 2020, 2021 and 2022 taxation years is $377,000.
7The Board finds that no adjustment is required to ensure the correct current value is equitable with the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity
Description of the Subject Property
8The Subject Property is a single-family detached property code 301 located at 257 Charlton Street in Norfolk County. The Subject Property has an effective frontage of 324 feet and an effective site area of 1.97 acres. The one-storey dwelling was built in 2019 with 1,733 square feet of building area all located on the first floor. The basement area is also 1,733 square feet with no finished space. The quality of construction is 6.5 and the condition is average. The dwelling is a custom-built home with one bedroom, one full bath, one half bath and forced air heating with central air conditioning. The property has one attached garage with 583 square feet and one detached garage with 796 square feet. The returned assessment was $433,000 but was further adjusted by MPAC at the hearing to $425,000, $7,000 less to accommodate for a steep slope on the property and a $1,000 reduction to accommodate an adjustment in the building area of the basement from 1,733 square feet to 1,685 square feet resulting from adjusting for the lack of exterior stucco finish on the basement walls.
ANALYSIS
Issue 1 – A determination of the correct current value of the Subject Property
9The first issue to be determined on this appeal is the correct current value of the Subject Property for the 2020, 2021 and 2022 taxation years. Pursuant to s. 19(1) of the Assessment 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.”
10MPAC submitted two exhibits as part of its evidence package. The first exhibit is its Valuation Report and second is its Equity Report.
11To determine market value, MPAC utilizes the direct sales comparison approach. MPAC submits into evidence the sales of six comparable properties all located within 8.42 kilometers of the Subject Property that sold between May 2015 and December 2016. 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 its comparable properties based on the sale of 54 properties between January 2015 and December 2016 in the neighbourhood and adjacent areas to the Subject Property. MPAC has demonstrated that over the 23-month period there has been an increase of 7.78% in overall market value. MPAC has also developed Time Adjustment Factors and applied these factors to the actual sale values of its six comparable properties to reflect the January 1, 2016 valuation date.
12The six comparable properties introduced by MPAC (see Appendix A) are: 29 Viola Court, 709 Windham Road 13, 160 Fernlea Side Road, 10 Middleton Church Road, 28 Dalton Road, and 1640 12th Concession Road. MPAC submits that these six properties are all very good comparables to the Subject Property as they are located within 8.42 kilometers of the Subject Property, all sold in the shoulder years of 2015 and 2016, all have similar lot sizes, building areas and quality of construction.
13MPAC submits that the time-adjusted sale range of the six properties is from $362,488 on the low end up to $451,841. MPAC requests that the Board find the correct current value of the Subject Property to be $425,000 which falls within the time-adjusted sale range of the six comparable properties.
The Appellants’ Position
14The Appellants did not provide any sales of comparable properties in support of their position on the correct current value of the Subject Property.
15The Appellants submitted: Exhibit 3, Statement of Issues; Exhibit 4, Property Summary Report; Exhibit 5, Market Valuation Report; Exhibit 6, Comments and Observations Regarding MPAC’s Comparable Properties; Exhibit 7, My Favorites Reports; and, Exhibit 8, Summary of Communications.
16The Appellants submit that they have recalculated the assessed value of the Subject Property using MPAC’s Property Summary Report and Market Valuation Report and conclude that the assessed value should be adjusted to $351,585 based on a building area of 1,648 square feet for the first floor and basement as well as adjustments for the attached garage, 1.5 baths and the porch.
17The Appellants then made negative adjustments totaling $45,433 which includes subtracting $16,480 for type of heating at $10 per square foot; subtracting $7,031 for abutting a landfill site; and subtracting $16,302 based on the Appellants’ claim that 0.97 acres of the property are unbuildable land, subtracting $2,104 for steep topography and $3,515 for being located 183 meters from the Mennonite Church and School. Based on the Appellants’ calculations they believe the current value of their property should be $306,152 ($351,585 - $45,433).
18The Appellants submit that they have done a drive-by inspection of the six comparable properties submitted by MPAC and are of the opinion that they are not similar to the Subject Property and should not be considered to establish the valuation of the Subject Property. They submit that 29 Viola Court is a superior quality of 7.0, has a larger building area and backs onto a golf course; 709 Windham Road 13 is located in a different neighbourhood; 160 Fernlea Side Road has a larger building area with numerous outbuildings; 10 Middleton Church Road has a larger building area and an outdoor pool on a flat lot and has a paved driveway with concrete curbs and is located on a dead-end street; and that 1640 12th Concession Road has a much larger building area, with a quality of 7.0, as opposed to the Subject Property’s quality of 6.5 and further, that it is located on a flat lot with no steep hills like the Subject Property.
19The Appellants also refer to five properties located in their vicinity from the My Neighbourhood Report that sold, but request that these properties not be entered in support of the current value of the Subject Property. These are: Property #4, 308 Charlton Street which sold for $299,000 in October 2013 with 1,904 square feet and a quality of 6.5; Property #6, 13 Old Church Road, which sold for $330,000 in September 2015, with 1854 square feet and a quality of 6.5; Property #10, 26 Charlotteville Road 12, which sold in May 2012 for $302,000, with 2,034 square feet and a quality of 6.5; Property #13, 15 Bostwick Crescent, which sold in August 2017 for $525,000 with 2,156 square feet and a quality 6.0; and, Property #16, 65 Falkirk Drive which sold in November 2020 for $690,000 with 2024 square feet of building area and a quality of 6.5.
20The Appellants submit that the Subject Property has an inferior lot to any of the comparable properties because 0.97 acres of the 1.97 acres consist of hazard land which cannot be used to build any type of structure. The lot conditions have forced the Appellants to build an elevated septic tank that requires them to pump their sewage from the sewage holding tank in the basement to the front of the property where the septic tank is located. This is very problematic with blockages occurring on many occasions. The Appellants further submit that the Subject Property has one bedroom in comparison to MPAC’s comparable properties, which all have three bedrooms. The Appellants also assert that the Subject Property has steep hills rendering much of the property unusable as compared to MPAC’s comparable properties that are all on flat land.
21The Appellants request that the Board find the correct current value to be $306,152.
Findings on Issue 1 – Correct Current Value of the Subject Property
22To 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 generally the next best evidence is the sale of the similar properties in the vicinity of the property.
23The Board has analyzed all the evidence submitted by both Parties and concludes that the best market-based evidence in support of current value is the six comparable property sales submitted by MPAC. They are all located within 8.4 kilometers of the Subject Property, all sold in the shoulder years of 2015 and 2016, and are all time-adjusted sales.
24Of the six comparable properties, Properties #2, #3, #4 and #5 are all of quality 6.5, which is similar to the Subject Property. Properties #4 and #5 both have over 2,100 square feet of building area as compared to the Subject Property’s 1,733 square feet; while Properties #2 and #3 have 1,647 square feet and 1,892 square feet of building area respectively.
25Of these four properties, the Board finds the best comparable properties for determining the correct current value of the Subject Property to be #2, 709 Windham Road, Road 13; and #3, 160 Fernlea Side Road. Both properties have similar building areas to the Subject Property and the same construction quality of 6.5, both are one-storey, and both have a one-acre lot which, in essence, would be the size of the Subject Property’s lot when considering that 0.97 acres of the Subject’s 1.97 acres is unbuildable hazard land as clearly demonstrated by the Appellants.
26When further analyzing the characteristics of 709 Windham Road 13 and 160 Fernlea Side Road, the Board finds that of these two properties, the best comparable is 160 Fernlea Road as it is the newest built in 2007 with a building area of 1,892 square feet and a lot area of 0.88 acres and is therefore, the most similar to the Subject Property. The Board will rely on the time-adjusted sale value per square foot of 160 Fernlea Side Road to establish the correct current value of the Subject Property. Applying the time-adjusted sale value per square foot of $221.60 to the building area of the Subject Property (1,733 square feet), results in a value of $384,032. Furthermore, the Board agrees with both Parties that 160 Fernlea Side Road does not have steep topography and that a further adjustment of $7,000, as the appropriate value entered by MPAC in its evidence, should be made to adjust for the steep hills on the Subject Property to $377,000 rounded.
27Based on the best available evidence, the Board finds the correct current value of the Subject Property to be $377,000, which is closer to the lower end of the time-adjusted sale range of the six comparable properties submitted by MPAC.
28The Appellants’ evidence supporting a value of $306,152 is not based on sales of similar properties in the vicinity as of the January 1, 2016 valuation day and therefore, cannot be used to establish the correct current value of the Subject Property. The basis of the valuation submitted by the Appellants is MPAC’s Property Assessment Summary Report with further adjustments using MPAC’s Market Valuation Report. MPAC’s model is based on historical mass appraisal data to assist in determining the returned assessed value and should not be used to establish the correct current value as of January 1, 2016. In this case we have the sale of similar properties as of the valuation day which is better evidence to establish the correct current value.
29The Board has analyzed the five comparable sales provided by the Appellants and agrees with MPAC that these properties are not appropriate to establish the correct current value of the Subject Property. The sales of Properties #4,10, 13 and 16 occurred in 2013, 2012, 2017 and 2020 respectively, outside the shoulder years with no time adjustments and therefore, cannot be used to establish a current value based on a January 1, 2016 valuation date. Regarding Property #6 13 Old Church Road, this property is a two-storey home on a lot which is half the size compared to the Subject Property which is a bungalow on a lot twice the size.
Issue 2 - Is the current value equitable with the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity?
Applicable Law
30Section 44(3)(b) of the Assessment 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
31MPAC’s expert provided an equity analysis report that demonstrates that similar properties in the vicinity of the Subject Property are being assessed equitably. MPAC’s Equity Report analysis included the sales of 30 similar properties in the vicinity of the Subject Property resulting in an Assessment to Sale Ration of 1.02.
32The Appellants did not provide evidence or submissions on equitable adjustment.
Findings on Equitable Assessment
33The Board finds there is no evidence supporting a reduction in the current value for the purpose of equitable assessment.
CONCLUSION
34Based on the best available evidence, the Board finds the correct current value of the Subject Property to be $377,000 for the 2020, 2021 and 2022 taxation years. Based on MPAC’s uncontested Equity Study, the Board also finds that the correct current value of $377,000 is equitable with the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity and no further equity adjustment is required.
ORDER
35The Board orders the assessment of the Subject Property be reduced from $433,000 to $377,000 for the 2020, 2021 and 2022 taxation years.
"Anthony LaRegina"
ANTHONY LaREGINA
MEMBER
Assessment Review Board
Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb
WR 178296
Appendix A - MPAC’s Comparable Property Sales
Subject Property
Property #1
Property #2
Property #3
Roll Number
331049301012650
331049102805648
331049102363500
331054107020250
Address
257 CHARLTON ST
29 VIOLA CRT
709 WINDHAM ROAD 13
160 FERNLEA SIDE RD
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)
Distance in km
4.6211
8.4199
5.1173
Valuation
Current Value Assessment
$433,000
$379,000
$361,000
$388,000
Sale
Sale Date
20150528
20150515
20150930
Sale Amount
$445,000
$357,000
$415,000
Time Adjusted Sale Amount
$451,841
$362,488
$419,269
Site
Effective Site Area (Acres)
1.97
0.22
1.03
0.88
Actual Site Area (Acres)
1.97
0.22
1.03
0.88
Residential Structure
Structure Code & Desc.
(301) Single-Family Detached
(301) Single-Family Detached
(301) Single-Family Detached
(301) Single-Family Detached
Year Built
2019
1999
1993
2007
Quality of Construction
6.5
7
6.5
6.5
Full Storeys
1 Storey
1 Storey
1 Storey
Air Conditioning
Y
Y
Y
Y
Building Total Area (SF)
1,733
2,018
1,647
1,892
First Floor Area (SF)
1733
2018
1647
1892
Basement Area (SF)
1,733
2,018
1,647
1,892
Subject Property
Property # 4
Property #5
Property #6
Roll Number
331049301012650
331054103010010
331049407013620
331054202039820
Address
257 CHARLTON ST
10 MIDDLETON CHURCH RD
28 DALTON RD
1640 12TH CONCESSION RD
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)
Distance in km
7.5484
4.297
4.3643
Valuation
Current Value Assessment
$433,000
$427,000
$449,000
$449,000
Sale
Sale Date
20150619
20160704
20161219
Sale Amount
$427,000
$450,000
$450,000
Time Adjusted Sale Amount
$433,598
$436,562
423,858
Site
Effective Site Area (Acres)
1.97
1.01
1.61
Actual Site Area (Acres)
1.97
1.01
1.84
1.61
Residential Structure
Structure Code & Desc.
(301) Single-Family Detached
(301) Single-Family Detached
(301) Single-Family Detached
(301) Single-Family Detached
Year Built
2019
2011
1981
1978
Quality of Construction
6.5
6.5
6.5
7
Full Storeys
1 Storey
1 Storey
1 Storey
Air Conditioning
Y
Y
Y
Y
Building Total Area (SF)
1,733
2,106
2,163
2,669
First Floor Area (SF)
1733
2106
2163
2669
Basement Area (SF)
1,733
2,608
2,146
2,669```