Uma Appadu v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 14, 2022 CanLII 66872

Tribunals Ontario

Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

July 22, 2022

FILE NO.:

WR 180347

Assessed Person(s):

Uma Appadu; Harold Appadu Estate

Appellant(s):

Uma Appadu; Appadu Appadu Estate

Respondent(s):

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 14

Respondent(s):

City of Vaughan

Property Location(s):

91 Brownridge Drive

Municipality(ies):

City of Vaughan

Roll Number(s):

1928-000-190-31700-0000

Appeal Number(s):

3478555 and 3488284

Taxation Year(s):

2021 and 2022

Hearing Event No.:

770670

Legislative Authority:

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

Parties

Representative

Uma Appadu; Harold Appadu Estate

Self-represented

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation

Leo Verduci

City of Vaughan

No one appeared

HEARD:

July 8, 2022 by telephone conference call

ADJUDICATOR(S):

Christopher Voutsinas, Vice-Chair

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1Uma Appadu (“Appellant”) is the owner of 91 Brownridge Drive (“Subject Property”) in the City of Vaughan. The Appellant takes the position that the current value assessment for the 2021 and 2022 taxation years of $865,000 and $863,000, respectively, is too high.

2The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) was represented by Leo Verduci who took the position that the current value assessment should be adjusted to $832,000.

3No one appeared on behalf of the Municipality.

Issues for the Hearing

4At issue in this proceeding is:

1. What is the current value of the Subject Property for the 2021 and 2022 taxation years?

2. Is an equity reduction of the current value required, and if so, how much?

Result

5The Assessment Review Board (“Board”) finds that the Subject Property’s correct current value for the 2021 and 2022 taxation years is $908,614.

6The Board finds that with reference to similar lands in the vicinity an equity reduction of 10% is required for the 2021 and 2022 taxation years resulting in a current value assessment of $817,000 (rounded).

ANALYSIS

Description of Subject Property

7The Subject Property is a single-family detached residence located at 91 Brownridge Drive in the Thornhill area of the City of Vaughan. The residence, built in 1987, comprises a two-storey building with a built area of approximately 2,522 square feet (“sq. ft.”) situated on a land area of 0.09 acres. MPAC has assigned a quality of construction to the property of 6.5 out of a possible 10. The property has an attached garage and is adjacent to a public school.

Issue 1 – What is the current value of the Subject Property for the 2021 and 2022 taxation years?

8Section 19(1) of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (“Act”) provides that 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”. For the 2021 and 2022 taxation years, the valuation date is January 1, 2016.

9For value comparison purposes, MPAC presented its valuation report dated March 15, 2022, which used the direct comparison approach including both actual and time-adjusted sale prices. Time-adjusted sale prices estimate the value of a sale as of the January 1, 2016, valuation date based on changes that occurred in the market between the actual sale date and the valuation date. Given the high degree of similarity between the sale properties used for value comparison purposes and the Subject Property, MPAC relied on an analysis based on an average time-adjusted sale price of the sale properties to determine the value of the Subject Property.

10MPAC’s valuation report consisted of four sale properties: property 1, 224 Chelwood Drive; property 2, 119 Bayhampton Crescent; property 3, 28 Samuel Oster Avenue; and property 4, 200 Joseph Aaron Boulevard. The sale properties are all in the A40-120 neighbourhood like the Subject Property, were built between 1986 and 1988 compared to 1987 for the Subject Property, all have lot sizes of 0.09 acres like the Subject Property and built areas between 2,509 and 2,534 sq. ft. compared to 2,522 sq. ft. for the Subject Property. Like the Subject Property, the sale properties are all two-storey properties with a quality of construction assigned by MPAC of 6.5 out of a possible 10. All properties have an attached garage. Properties 1, 2, and 3 are located within 0.33 kilometres of the Subject Property and property 4 is located within 0.94 kilometres.

11The property sales used by MPAC for value comparison purposes occurred within 9.5 months of the valuation date with two property sales in 2015 and two in 2016.

12In determining the current value, MPAC calculated the average time-adjusted sale price of the sale properties as $944,000. MPAC then adjusted this value by negative 2% as the Subject Property is located on a light traffic pattern street, resulting in a current value for the Subject Property of $925,000.

13The Appellant presented evidence consisting of two letters from the Appellant filed with the Board – one dated February 15, 2022 and the other dated June 7, 2022. The Appellant also refers to a third letter, from MPAC to the Appellant, that is not in evidence.

14The Appellant’s letters describe a number of concerns regarding MPAC’s determination of value and offer several opinions and observations regarding the Subject Property and MPAC’s sale properties.

15It is the Appellant’s position that the Subject Property suffers from noise, traffic, and abuts a school – which none of the sale properties do – and that these factors should be taken into consideration.

16The Appellant submits that MPAC’s square footage figure for the Subject Property is incorrect. The Appellant presents a figure for the interior area of the Subject Property. MPAC testified that it uses exterior measurements not interior measurements for area calculations.

17The Appellant further submits that MPAC’s sale properties are not similar to the Subject Property for value comparison purposes as the sale properties have been upgraded and renovated whereas the Subject Property has not. The Appellant further submits that the Subject Property is in poor condition having been damaged by water, poor maintenance, and limited repair. In response, MPAC testified that it has no evidence indicating that the sale properties have been upgraded or renovated and noted no difference in MPAC’s records of the Year Built and Effective Year Built of each property (which would account for any upgrading or renovation). While the Appellant spoke to a sales listing describing upgrades to one of the sale properties, the listing was not in evidence.

18The Subject Property abuts a public school which the Appellant asserts is a nuisance due to noise and damage caused to the Subject Property (due to drainage and other water-related issues and from proximity to tall trees), and results in a lower sale value than properties not abutting a school. In response, MPAC stated that in this neighbourhood it does not adjust values for proximity to a public school as in some cases, e.g., families with young children – it may be considered a premium, whereas in other cases, it may not.

19The Appellant states that she tried to sell the Subject Property privately and could not sell it for even $500,000.

20The Appellant offers no quantitative analysis nor suggested adjustments for the various considerations raised including the relative condition of the Subject Property to the sale properties used for value comparison purposes, nor factors such as noise, traffic, or proximity to a school. The Appellant offers no property sales of her own for value comparison purposes but did indicate property 1 is “identical” to the Subject Property.

21The Appellant also indicated that the cost approach would be a better approach in determining the value of the Subject Property but offered no further information nor evidence in this regard.

22The Board finds that the only useable evidence before it in determining the value of the Subject Property is the sale properties presented by MPAC. All four of the sale properties submitted by MPAC share a high degree of similarity to the Subject Property and three of the four are within 0.33 kilometres of the Subject Property whereas the fourth, property 4 at 200 Joseph Aaron Boulevard is almost one kilometre away. For this reason, the Board rejects sale property 4. The three sale properties, properties 1, 2, and 3, are of a high degree of similarity and in close proximity to the Subject Property, and as such provide sufficient data to determine the value of the Subject Property.

23Using the time-adjusted sale prices presented by MPAC, the average derived from sale property 1, 2, and 3 is $931,569. Adjusting this figure to reflect the difference in built area between the Subject Property (2,522 sq. ft.) and the three sale properties (2,534 sq. ft.) and applying the negative 2% allowance for light traffic, as determined by MPAC, results in a value of $908,614.

Findings on Issue 1

24The Board finds that the current value of the Subject Property for the 2021 and 2022 taxation years is $908,614.

Issue 2 – Is an equity reduction in the current value required, and if so, how much?

25Section 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.

26The Assessment to Sales Ratio (“ASR”) is a tool used to determine whether a reduction of the assessment is required to make it equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity. The ASR is determined by dividing the assessment as returned by the time-adjusted sale price.

27The Appellant did not present an equity analysis report and did not dispute MPAC’s analysis.

28MPAC presented its equity analysis report. MPAC analysed ASRs for single-family detached residences located within 0.34 kilometres of the Subject Property. This represented a list of 30 properties. The resulting median ASR or level of assessment was 0.90 which is outside of MPAC’s acceptable target level of assessment of 0.95 – 1.05. MPAC also calculated the coefficient of dispersion (“COD”) at 6.2. The COD is measured by determining the average percentage deviation from the median ASR. MPAC argues that a COD of no more than 15 is acceptable for residential properties. MPAC submits that its ASR of 0.90 and COD of 6.2 indicate that similar properties in the vicinity have not been assessed at or near their time-adjusted sale values and therefore, an equitable reduction of the current value is required.

Findings on Issue 2

29The Board accepts MPAC’s equity analysis.

30The Board finds that an equitable reduction in the current value of the Subject Property equal to 10% is required.

CONCLUSION

31The Board finds that the correct current value of the Subject Property for the 2021 and 2022 taxation years is $817,752.

ORDER

32The Board orders that the current assessed value of the Subject Property for the 2021 taxation year be reduced from $865,000 to $817,000 (rounded) and for the 2022 taxation year be reduced from $863,000 to $817,000 (rounded).