Tribunals Ontario
Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario
Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: July 28, 2022
Assessed Person(s): Charles Dobucki
Appellant(s): Charles Dobucki
Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 18
Respondent(s): City of Port Colborne
Property Location(s): 3219 Firelane 10
Municipality(ies): City of Port Colborne
Roll Number(s): 2711-040-002-14500-0000
Appeal Number(s): 3463758 and 3489461
Taxation Year(s): 2021 and 2022
Hearing Event No.: 767569
Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Representative |
|---|---|
| Charles Dobucki | Self-represented |
| Municipal Property Assessment Corporation | Sheryl McRoberts |
| City of Port Colborne | No one appeared |
HEARD: June 22, 2022 by telephone conference call
ADJUDICATOR(S): Dan Weagant, Member
DECISION
OVERVIEW
1For the 2021 taxation year, the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) returned an assessment of $153,000 on the subject property at 3219 Firelane 10 in the City of Port Colborne. Charles Dobucki (the “Appellant”) believed this returned assessment was too high and filed an appeal under s. 40 of the Assessment Act R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (“Act”). Pursuant to s. 40(26) of the Act, the Appellant is deemed to have brought the same appeal in respect of the 2022 taxation year.
2For the 2022 taxation year, and resulting from discussions between the parties, MPAC’s returned value for the subject property was reduced to $141,000.
3The Appellant believes the correct assessment of the subject property is $90,000.
4In preparation for the hearing, MPAC amended its opinion of current value to $144,000 for both years under appeal.
Issues for the Hearing
5At issue in this proceeding is:
- A determination of the current value of the subject property; and
- Whether an equity reduction in the current value determined should be made for it to reflect equitable assessment when reference is made to the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity.
Result
6The Assessment Review Board (“Board”) finds that the current value of the subject property is $124,000 for the 2021 and 2022 taxation years.
7The Board also finds that when reference is made to the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity, the current value determined needs to be reduced for it to reflect equitable assessment. Accordingly, the returned assessments for 2021 and 2022 are reduced to $118,000, in the Residential property class.
ANALYSIS
Description of Subject Property
8The subject property is a single-family dwelling located in a seasonal / recreational neighbourhood of the City of Port Colborne, in proximity to Lake Erie. The dwelling is a seasonal cottage with no central heat and no water service.
9The dwelling comprises 570 square feet of living area on a single floor. It also has a basement level of 440 square feet; 240 square feet of which is a basement garage. The remaining 200 square feet of basement area is used for a staircase that provides access to the main floor.
10The dwelling sits on a lot measuring 70 feet of depth and 30 feet of frontage, with a set back from Firelane 10 of approximately 15 feet.
11MPAC has applied a quality of construction ranking of 4.5. The subject dwelling was constructed in 1948.
Issue 1 – What is the current value of the subject property?
MPAC’s Case
12MPAC compared the subject property to four properties in the City of Port Colborne with what it considered to be similar attributes. These four proposed comparable properties sold between May 2015 and August 2015. Their Time Adjusted Sale (“TAS”) values ranged from $123,827 to $163,867. MPAC deemed these four properties to be suitably comparable to create a range of value within which the subject property’s current value should fall.
13Living areas of the four proposed comparable properties range from 560 to 682 square feet, with lot sizes from 2,664 to 11,585 square feet. MPAC applied quality of construction ratings of 4.0, 4.5 and 5.0 to these four proposed comparable properties, noting that the subject property’s quality of construction rating was 4.5.
14The effective year built of MPAC’s sample ranged from 1930 to 1954.
15MPAC’s approach was not quantitative but rather qualitative. This approach compared the range of attributes of a sample of properties and using their TAS values, developed a range of value for the subject property. No specific value adjustments were made for the differences in characteristics between these comparable properties and the subject property.
16Using this method, MPAC applied the TAS values per square foot value of each proposed comparable and applied those values to the area of the subject property. TAS values per square foot of the four proposed comparable properties were $212.38, $221.12, $250.62 and $287.49.
17By applying these TAS values per square foot to the 570 square feet at the subject property, MPAC arrived at values of $121,057, $126,038, $142,853 and $163,869.
18In summary, MPAC selected a mid-point between both the total TAS value of the four proposed comparable properties ($124,000 to $164,000) and a midpoint between the TAS value per square foot as applied to the subject property ($121,000 to $164,000). By this approach, MPAC’s opinion of the current value of the subject property was $144,000.
Appellant’s Case
19The Appellant did not adduce any specific sale or current value information in support of his case. Instead, he sought to impugn the evidence adduced by MPAC. His general approach was to indicate that the subject property was unique in the area owing to:
- The relatively small lot size of 2,100 square feet;
- Declining economic conditions of the local area since his purchase of the property in 2005;
- Absence of any parking beyond one space directly in front of the dwelling in the 15 foot x 30 foot front yard;
- The absence of any water service during the years under appeal; and
- The absence of any central heating system.
20The Appellant submitted that when the subject property is compared to the two closest proposed comparable properties adduced by MPAC (MPAC #1 and #2), they differed significantly because:
- They have much larger lots;
- They have upgraded interior amenities such as internal heating systems; and
- They have a potable water systems.
21The Appellant submitted that these differences all indicate that the subject should have a lower current value than either of these two comparable properties from MPAC.
22The Appellant further submitted that MPAC’s comparables #3 and #4 were in a completely different neighbourhood. He added that those two properties have potable water systems and that these differences distinguish those properties sufficiently that they are unreliable indicators of current value of the subject property.
23The Appellant also submitted that given the very small lot, the subject property has no redevelopment potential and anyone who would purchase it would not consider any future benefit in the purchase price.
24The Appellant concluded that given the economic atmosphere in the area and the relative shortcomings of the subject popery, the current value of the subject property should be $90,000; equivalent to the purchase price in 2005.
Findings on Issue 1
25In determining the current value of a property, the Board must consider the definition of that term. In the Act, current value is defined as: “…the amount of money, the fee simple, if unencumbered, would be in exchange, between a willing seller and a willing buyer on the valuation day.”
26The Board has widely held that when the subject property has not sold near the valuation day, then the next best evidence of current value are the sale values of comparable properties that indicate what amount of money would be exchanged for the subject property on the valuation day.
27For this kind of comparison to be meaningful in the context of the definition of current value, the Board must consider sale values. The Appellant adduced no sale evidence. MPAC compared the subject property with four properties in the same municipality. The respective characteristics of each of these four properties, and their comparison with the subject property are summarized in Table A.
Table A
| Subject Property | MPAC #1 – 570 Cedar Bay Road | MPAC #2 – 3510 Firelane 9 | MPAC #3 – 374 Ashwood Avenue | MPAC #4 –307 Dovercourt Road | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Current Value Assessment | $153,000 | $169,000 | $187,000 | $118,000 | $132,000 |
| Sale price and date | N/A | $158,000 / August 2015 | $144,000 / July 2015 | $117,500 / May 2015 | $140,000 / August 2015 |
| Time adjusted sale (TAS) price (rounded) | N/A | $164,000 | $150,000 | $124,000 | $145,000 |
| Lot dimensions / area (square feet) | 30’ x 70’ / 2,100 | 66’ x 132’ / 8,712 | 70.36’ x 164.65’ / 11,585 | 33.33’ x 80’ / 2,666 | 32’ x 102’ / 3,264 |
| Building area (square feet) | 570 | 570 | 600 | 560 | 682 |
| TAS price / square foot | N/A | $288 | $250 | $221 | $213 |
| Year Built | 1948 | 1950 | 1954 | 1930 | 1948 |
| Quality of construction / Structure Condition Code | 4.5 / fair | 4.0 / Average | 4.5 / Average | 4.0 / Average | 5.0 / Average |
28The Board accepts the testimony of the Appellant with respect to the absence of a water service at the property. This was not refuted by MPAC, nor was it specifically considered in MPAC’s valuation approach. The Appellant testified that he had conversations with one or more water service contractors, but did not have any documentary evidence of what a new well or cistern at the subject property would cost.
29Nevertheless, the absence of water service distinguishes the subject property from those in MPAC’s comparable property sample. In analyzing MPAC’s four proposed comparable properties, the Board disregards comparables #1 and #2 as they have lot sizes of between 8,700 and 11,600 square feet, whereas the subject property has a lot size of 2,100 square feet.
30MPAC comparable property #4 has a slightly larger lot, a larger dwelling, a higher quality of construction rating and was built in the same year as the subject property. It also has a potable water service, whereas the subject property does not. By this comparison, the Board finds that the subject property should have a lower current value than MPAC comparable #4.
31MPAC comparable property #3 has a slightly larger lot, a slightly smaller dwelling, a lower quality of construction rating and was built 18 years before the subject property. It also has a potable water system whereas the subject property does not. By this comparison, the Board finds that the subject property should have a similar current value as MPAC comparable property #3.
32The Board finds that the current value of the subject property is equivalent to the TAS value of MPAC comparable property #3, of $124,000.
Issue 2 - Is a reduction in the current value determined required for it to reflect equitable assessment when reference is made to the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity?
33The Appellant did not adduce any specific evidence regarding the equity of assessment of the subject property. However, he did submit that when comparisons to similar properties in the vicinity were made, the subject property should be assessed at a lower value.
34MPAC prepared an assessment to sale ratio (“ASR”) study of 30 properties in the vicinity of the subject property that sold between January 2015 and 2016. An ASR study is a common method used to determine how assessments compare to current values among similar properties in the same vicinity as the subject property.
35The ASRs in MPAC study range from 0.77 to 1.71, meaning that within the sample chosen, assessments were between 77% and 171% of the corresponding TAS values. The median ASR of MPAC’s sample was 1.01. According to MPAC, this represents the level of assessment among the sample, indicating that assessments of similar properties in the vicinity are approximately 1% higher that their corresponding TAS values. TAS values in this comparison represent current values.
36Therefore, MPAC submitted that there was no requirement to reduce the current value determined for the subject property to achieve equitable assessment.
Findings on Issue 2
37In order to make a reduction in the current value determined for the purposes of equitable assessment, the Board must have specific evidence that similar properties in the vicinity are assessed at a level below their respective current value.
38To make such a determination, the Board must consider similar properties that are in the vicinity of the subject property.
39The Board notes Municipal Property Assessment Corp v Loblaw Properties Ltd, [2017] OJ No 1010, 2017 ONSC 1299, 276 ACWS (3d) 220, 62 MPLR (5th) 253, 2017 CarswellOnt 2861 (“Loblaw”) provides guidance in this regard:
The reference to “many points of comparison” is of interest because it mirrors wording used in a later judgment of this court, namely, Trizec Equities Ltd. v. Ontario (Regional Assessment Commissioner, Region No. 27), [1988] O.J. No. 182 (Div. Ct.). In that decision, Saunders J. was faced with the same issue, that is, what constitutes similar properties. He referred to the decision in Downtown Oshawa and found that, based on that decision, the Board was required to “consider all points of comparison”. Saunders J. then concluded on the issue by saying:
All points of comparison must be considered. The Board must make a factual finding based on such a consideration. One point of similarity such as use may be, but is not necessarily, determinative. Some similarities may be overridden by other characteristics and some differences may be subordinated.
40When applied to the current circumstances, the Board finds that all points of comparison in evidence consist of:
- Seasonal / Recreational Dwellings - second tier on water;
- Relative lot size and frontage;
- Building square footage;
- Quality of construction; and
- Age.
41These points of comparison are specific and determinative of the most similar properties in evidence. The result is the best evidence of whether a reduction in the current value determined is necessary to achieve equitable assessment of the subject property.
42MPAC’s equity study included a wide variety of properties, including Seasonal / Recreational dwellings - not on water and Single Detached dwellings - not on water. Those two categories are quite different from the category applied to the subject property of Seasonal / Recreational – second tier on water. There is no way for the Board to distinguish these disparate property characteristics from the 30 properties in MPAC’s equity study.
43The Board finds that the best evidence of equitable assessment for the subject property is a comparison of the properties that represent the most points of comparison in evidence. In this case, the sample is very small, but determinative. The Board finds that the best evidence of whether a reduction in the current value is required for it to represent equitable assessment is MPAC proposed comparable #3. Given that the subject property is relatively unique in its attributes, MPAC’s comparable #3 is the property that best meets the ‘all points of comparison’ application set out in Loblaw.
44The Board finds that the current value of the subject property needs to be reduced for it to represent equitable when reference is made to similar lands in the vicinity.
45The current value assessment determined is therefore reduced, from $124,000 to $118,000.
CONCLUSION
46The Board finds that the current value of the subject property is $124,000 for the 2021 and 2022 taxation years.
47The Board also finds that the current value determined requires a downward adjustment for it to be equitable when reference is made to the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity. Accordingly, the assessment is reduced to $118,000.
ORDER
48The Board orders that the assessment of the subject property at 3219 Firelane 10 is reduced to $118,000 for the 2021 and 2022 taxation years, in the Residential property class.
"Dan Weagant"
DAN WEAGANT
MEMBER
Assessment Review Board
Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb