Tribunals Ontario
Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario
Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE:
February 04, 2022
FILE NO.:
WR 175695
Assessed Person(s):
Shad Investments Inc.
Appellant(s):
Syed Raza and Sadia Raza
Respondent(s):
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 15
Respondent(s):
City of Mississauga
Property Location(s):
2341 Hammond Road
Municipality(ies):
City of Mississauga
Roll Number(s):
2105-060-131-17603-0000
Appeal Number(s):
3437069
Taxation Year(s):
2021
Hearing Event No.:
755964
Legislative Authority:
Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel*/Representative
Syed Raza and Sadia Raza
Marc Kemerer*
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
George Kaldenbach
City of Mississauga
No one appeared
HEARD:
December 16, 2021 by telephone conference call
ADJUDICATOR(S):
Dan Weagant, Member
DECISION
OVERVIEW
1The subject property was constructed in 2019. It was a redevelopment of an existing residential property. Syed Raza and Sadia Raza (the ‘Appellants”) appealed the returned value of the property for the 2021 taxation year because they believed it was too high.
2The value returned by Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) was $1,918,000. In preparation for this hearing, MPAC amended its opinion of current value and believes the subject property’s assessment ought to be $2,046,000. As a result of this new opinion, MPAC issued a notice of higher assessment.
3The Appellants believe the assessment should be $1,300,000.
The Subject Property
4The subject property is a two-storey dwelling on a 0.2 acre site with dimensions of 100 feet by 75 feet. The dwelling was constructed in 2019 and has 3,294 square feet of living area. MPAC considers the quality of construction rating to be 8.5.
Issues for the Hearing
5At issue in this proceeding is:
A determination of the current value of the subject property; and
Whether a reduction in the current value determined should be made for it to represent equitable assessment when reference is made to assessments of similar properties in the vicinity.
Result
6The Assessment Review Board (“Board”) finds that the current value of the subject property is $1,638,000 for the 2021 taxation year.
7The Board also finds that there is no evidence to require a reduction in this value for it to represent equitable assessment when reference is made to the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity.
ANALYSIS
Issue 1 – What is the current value of the subject property?
MPAC’s Case
8To determine the current value of the subject property, MPAC selected two properties that sold in 2016. These two properties were selected by MPAC because they were deemed to be comparable to the subject property with respect to lot size, dwelling size, year built and quality of construction.
9The data attributed to the two comparable properties and the subject property are summarized as follows:
Subject Property – 2341 Hammond Road
MPAC Comparable No. 1 – 1649 Wedmore Way
MPAC Comparable No. 2 – 1330 Contour Drive
Lot Area
0.20 acres
0.24 acres
0.48 acres
Living Area (square feet)
3,294
3,023
3,373
Quality of Construction
8.5 as returned
8.5
8
Bathrooms
4.5
4.5
4.5
Bedrooms
4
4
4
Finished basement area (square feet)
1227
969
1400
Garage size (square feet)
453
606
703
Sale Price and Date
N/A
$1,950,000 / June 2016
$2,319,000 / July 2016
Time Adjusted Sale (“TAS”) price
N/A
$1,829,196
$2,151,107
2016 current value assessment (“CVA”)
1,918,000
1,780,000
2,343,000
TAS / Square Foot
N/A
605.09
637.74
CVA / Square Foot
582.27
588.82
694.63
10Having determined that these two properties were suitably comparable to the subject property, MPAC determined the TAS price, per square foot for each. The results for 1649 Wedmore Way (“Wedmore”) and 1330 Contour Drive (“Contour”) were $605 and $638, respectively.
11MPAC then applied the average of these two values per square foot to the 3,294 square feet of living area at the subject property to arrive at its opinion of current value of $2,046,000.
Appellants’ Case
12The Appellants advanced a range of value of $1,277,000 to $1,560,000, based on the results of an appraisal prepared for the subject property in 2021. This appraisal was prepared to determine the market value of the subject property as of the January 1, 2016 valuation day applicable to this appeal. The appraisal was prepared by TJ Appraisals. The author was not present at the hearing.
13Characteristics of the Appellants’ three proposed comparable properties follow:
Subject Property – 2341 Hammond Road
Appellants Comp. 1 – 2573 Hammond Road
Appellants’ Comp. 2 – 1994 lady Di Court
Appellants’ Comp 3 – 2400 Hammond Road
Lot Area
0.20 acres
0.17 acres
.34 acres
0.23 acres
Living Area (square feet)
3,294
2,935
2,950
4,178
Quality of Construction
8.5 as returned
7.0
7.0
8.5
Bathrooms
4.5
3
4.5
4.5
Bedrooms
4
4
4
4
Finished basement area (square feet)
1,227
440
1,140
1,830
Year Built
2019
1980
1955
1989
Sale Price and Date
N/A
$1,277,000 / Aug 2016
$1,300,000 / Feb 2016
$1,560,000 / July 2016
Time Adjusted Sale (TAS) price
N/A
$1,171,009*
$1,276,600*
$1,447,680*
2016 current value assessment (“CVA”)
1,918,000
1,036,000
1,322,000
1,796,000
TAS / Square Foot
N/A
398.98*
432.54*
346.50*
CVA / Square Foot
582.27
352.98
448.14
429.87
Other Notes
Outdoor Pool
Outdoor Pool
*Time adjusted sale values are derived by applying MPAC’s time adjustment factors. These time adjustment factors were not disputed at the hearing.
14The Appellants submitted that the three sales in their sample indicate the correct range of value for the Hammond Street neighbourhood and that the current value of the subject property should be between $1,277,000 and $1,560,000.
15Lastly, the Appellants submitted that the two comparable properties used by MPAC are in different neighbourhoods than the subject property and therefore are unreliable indicators of current value. They did not quantify the difference in values between the two neighbourhoods.
Findings on Issue 1
16The best indication of the current value of any property is a sale of that property in the open market, on or near the valuation day set in the Assessment Act R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31. The next best indicator of a property’s current value is the sale or sales of other properties that can be reasonably compared to the subject property and, where necessary, adjusted for differences in characteristics.
17In this case, there is no open market sale of the subject property near the valuation day.
18MPAC chose two sales that occurred in 2016 as being comparable to the subject property for the purpose of determining its current value. These two properties, Wedmore and Contour are south of the Queen Elizabeth Way, with Contour south of Lakeshore road West, in the vicinity of a conservation area.
19The Appellants chose three sales that occurred in 2016 as being comparable to the subject property for the purpose of determining its current vale. Two of these properties are on the same street as the subject property and one is on a nearby street to the north of the subject property.
20The Board disregards MPAC’s Comparable # 2, Contour, for the following reasons:
It is well outside of the subject neighbourhood and lies nearly four kilometres from the subject property;
It has an outdoor pool;
The lot area is more than twice the size of the subject lot; and
the quality of construction is slightly inferior to the subject property,
21The Board disregards the Appellants’ Comparable #1, 2573 Hammond Road, for the following reasons:
It has a smaller dwelling than the subject property;
It is a smaller lot than the subject property;
It has a quality of construction of 7.0, whereas the subject property’s quality of construction is 8.5; and
It was built in 1980.
22The Board disregards the Appellants’ proposed Comparable # 2, 1994 Lady Di Court for the following reasons:
It has a larger lot than the subject property;
It was built in 1955;
It has a quality of construction rating of 7;
It has a smaller dwelling; and
It has an outdoor pool.
23From evidence at the hearing, the Board has two proposed comparable properties to consider. 2400 Hammond Road (“Hammond”) is an older, but larger dwelling on a comparably-sized lot. It is 30 years older than the subject property, but by all other comparisons, it is similar. The two salient differences are age and dwelling size.
24Wedmore has a similar sized dwelling and was built 13 years before the subject dwelling. In all other respects, the two properties are of similar character.
25The Board finds that, as indicators of value for the subject property, there is nothing to distinguish between Wedmore and Hammond. The Board, therefore, gives them equal weight in its deliberation on the correct current value and accordingly, finds the best evidence of the current value of the subject property is the midpoint between the time adjusted sale values of Wedmore and Hammond.
26The Board finds that the current value of the subject property is $1,638,438 ($1,638,000, rounded).
Issue 2 – Should the current value determined be reduced to achieve equitable assessment when reference is made to the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity?
27The Appellants made no specific submissions on the equity of the current value determined for the subject property, when reference is made to the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity.
28MPAC provided an equity study that compared the assessments of 30 single family dwellings in the vicinity that sold in 2015 or 2016, to their respective TAS values. From this comparison, MPAC determined that similar properties in the vicinity sold at or very near to their assessed values. It concluded that no reduction in the current value determined for the subject property was necessary for that value to reflect equitable assessment.
29The Board finds that there is no evidence to support a reduction of the current value determined is necessary for it to reflect equitable assessment.
ORDER
30The Board finds that the assessment of the subject property is reduced from $1,918,000 to $1,638,000 in the Residential property class for the 2021 taxation year.
"Dan Weagant"
DAN WEAGANT
MEMBER
Assessment Review Board
Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb