Tribunals Ontario
Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario
Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: February 03, 2022
Assessed Person(s): Randal Levine
Appellant(s): Randal Levine
Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 09
Respondent(s): City of Toronto
Property Location(s): 279 Lytton Boulevard
Municipality(ies): City of Toronto
Roll Number(s): 1904-115-140-01200-0000
Appeal Number(s): 3436985 and 3441049
Taxation Year(s): 2020 and 2021
Hearing Event No.: 755165
Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Representative |
|---|---|
| Randal Levine | Surin Toor |
| Municipal Property Assessment Corporation | Loris Fata |
| City of Toronto | No one appeared |
HEARD: November 22, 2021 by telephone conference call
ADJUDICATOR(S): Jennifer Griffith, Member
DECISION
OVERVIEW
1Randal Levine the (“Assessed Person/Appellant”) is the owner of 279 Lytton Boulevard (the “Subject Property”) in the City of Toronto (the “City”). The Appellant filed appeals for the returned assessment of $2,628,000 for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years with the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”), pursuant to s. 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”).
2It is the Appellant’s position that the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation’s (“MPAC”) current value assessment of $2,628,000 is too high and that the correct current value should be $2,413,608 based on sales evidence. MPAC takes the position that the correct current value should be $2,877,849 based on sale evidence.
3Pursuant to s. 19(1) of the Act, the assessment of land shall be based on its current value; and s. 19.2(1)4 provides that, for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years, MPAC is required to assess this value as of the valuation date, January 1, 2016.
4Pursuant to s. 40(11) of the Act, the municipality in which the land is located is a party to this proceeding; however, no one appeared on behalf of the City.
5Pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act, MPAC takes the position that an equitable reduction of the current value is required, and the equitable value is $2,676,399. The Appellant asserts that an equity reduction is required, and the equitable value is $2,244,655.
Issues for the Hearing
6The issues to be determined on this appeal are:
What is the determination of the current value of the Subject Property for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years based on a direct comparison approach?
Whether there should be an equitable reduction of the current value pursuant to s. 44(3) of the Act, and, if so, what the amount of this reduction should be.
Result
7The Board finds the correct current value for the Subject Property at the valuation date January 1, 2016 is $2,743,000, which is applicable to the 2020 and 2021 taxation years.
8The Board also finds that an equity reduction pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) is required and that the equitable value is $2,550,000.
9Therefore, the Board orders that the returned assessment of $2,628,000 be reduced to $2,550,000 for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years.
ANALYSIS
Description of the Subject Property
10The Subject Property is a residential two and a half storey Single-Family Detached (not on water) dwelling, Property Code 301. It is situated on a lot of 6,700 square feet (“sq. ft.”) and with a total building area of 3,402 sq. ft. built in 1930.
Issue 1 - What is the determination of the current value of the Subject Property for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years based on a direct comparison approach?
Direct Comparison Approach Based on Sales
11The Direct Comparison Approach estimates the market value by comparing the sale prices of similar properties (in terms of lot size, total building area, year built, quality of construction etc.) that have sold within a reasonable timeframe of the valuation date to the Subject Property. In this case the valuation date is January 1, 2016.
12In determining the correct current value, the Board references s. 19(1) of the Act, which states that the assessment of land shall be based on its current value, which is defined 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”.
13For the reasons discussed below, the Board finds the correct current value at the valuation date of January 1, 2016 is $2,743,000.
14Reviewing the evidence in support of current value, the Board finds the five sales of comparable properties, in the same homogeneous area, presented by MPAC and the Appellant are the best evidence of current value determined by the Direct Comparison Approach to value.
MPAC’s Evidence in Support of Current Value
15Loris Fata, MPAC’s Representative presents a Valuation Report dated May 26, 2021, which he prepared and testifies to the information contained in the report.
16MPAC’s Representative testifies that the Subject Property is located in the Lytton Park area of Toronto and conforms to the general nature and character of the neighbourhood of the homes which were built mostly in the 1900s. MPAC’s Representative further submits that prices of single family detached homes in the neighbourhood have shown to be ranging from $900,000 to $4,360,000 in the six-month period prior to, and after the effective date of this valuation report which was May 26, 2021.
17In support of current value, MPAC’s Representative relies on the Direct Comparison Approach and presents three proposed comparable properties, sold in 2015 and 2016 located in the homogeneous area (C40) as the Subject Property; and in the homogeneous area D63. These three proposed comparable properties have undergone similar D type renovation as the Subject Property had done in 1999. The D type renovation involves additions to the original total building area of these comparable properties over the period 1997 to 2005.
18MPAC’s Representative provides both the actual and time-adjusted sale prices and relies on the time-adjusted sale prices in his analysis. The following Table 1 is the analysis of the three proposed comparable properties:
Table 1
MPAC’s Sales Analysis
| 3 PROPOSED COMPARABLE PROPERTIES | LOT SIZE (sq. ft.) | TOTAL BUILDING AREA (sq. ft.) | QUALITY RATING | YEAR BUILT | SALE DATE | SALE PRICE ($) | SALE PRICE (time adjusted (TAS) ($) | TAS ($) per sq. ft. (adjusted for outdoor pool, light traffic, and depth of lot area) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 162 Coldstream Avenue | 8,500 | 3,697 | 7.5 | 1945 | 2015 | 3,000,000 | 3,460,148 | 878 |
| 372 Glencairn Avenue | 8,700 | 3,632 | 8 | 1942 | 2016 | 3,100,000 | 2,883,275 | 746 |
| 44 Lascelles Boulevard | 6,538 | 3,525 | 8 | 1924 | 2027 | 3,275,000 | 2,981,898 | 846 |
| Median | 846 | |||||||
| Subject Property | 6,700 | 3,402 | 7.5 | 1930 | NIL | N/A | N/A | N/A |
19MPAC’s Representative testifies that the above stated rate per sq. ft. for the comparable properties, reflects the following adjustments to the time adjusted sale (“TAS”) per sq. ft.:
Comparable Property #1 – 162 Coldstream Avenue, a negative adjustment of $149,400 to the TAS for differences in the depth of the lot as compared to the Subject Property and a negative adjustment of $65,000 for the outdoor pool, because the Subject Property has no pool. Therefore, the adjustments reflect an adjusted TAS is $3,245,748 or $878 per sq. ft. ($3,245,748 / 3,697 sq. ft. of total building area).
Comparable Property #2 – 372 Glencairn Avenue, a negative adjustment of $166,000 to the TAS for differences in the depth of the lot as compared to the Subject Property, a positive adjustment of $57,666 for being a corner lot, which the Subject Property is not, and an negative adjustment of $65,000 for the outdoor pool, because the Subject Property has no pool. Therefore, the adjustments reflect an adjusted TAS is $2,709,942 or $746 per sq. ft. ($2,709,942 / 3,632 sq. ft. of total building area).
Comparable Property #3 – 44 Lascelles Boulevard, receives no adjustments.
20Based on the above sales analysis, MPAC’s Representative is of the view that the above three sales are the best evidence of current value when adjusted for differences in the depth of the lot, outdoor pool, and corner lot. The median TAS value per sq. ft. of these three comparable properties based on total building area for each result in $846. When this rate is applied to the Subject Property it results in a current value of $2,877,849 for the subject property.
21On cross-examination, MPAC’s Representative testifies that due to the COVID virus he was unable to conduct an inspection of the Subject Property. MPAC’s Representative testifies that MPAC’s Corporate Inspector made attempts to reach the Appellant by telephone on February 17, 2015 and September 15, 2015 and left messages to arrange for an inspection. MPAC received no responses from the Appellant. MPAC’s Corporate Inspector also requested a copy of the 2015 Building Permit from the City, which showed a further addition of 498 sq. ft., a kitchen with an island and a fireplace.
22MPAC’s Representative also explained on cross-examination that he adjusted the value of Comparable Property #1 and Comparable Property #2 for differences in the depth of the lot to the Subject Property and for outdoor pool based on MPAC’s Valuation Model. He further explains that the Model analyses thousands of sales data to determine the adjustment values for all segments of a property. MPAC’s Representative also confirms that no adjustment was made for differences in the total building area of these two comparable properties, even though they are larger in size than the Subject Property.
23Based on the evidence, MPAC’s Representative is of the opinion that current value of the Subject Property is $2,877,849.
Appellants’ Evidence in Support of Current Value
24In support of current value, Surin Toor, the Appellant’s Representative, relies on the Direct Comparison Approach, and presents a spreadsheet analysis of seven sales which occurred in 2015 and 2016, located in the same homogeneous area C40 as the Subject Property. The Appellant’s Representative provides both the actual and time-adjusted sale prices and relies on the time-adjusted sale prices in his analysis. The following Table 2 is the analysis of the seven proposed comparable properties:
Table 2
Appellants’ Sales Analysis
| 7 PROPOSED COMPARABLE PROPERTIES | LOT SIZE (sq. ft.) | TOTAL BUILDING AREA (sq. ft.) | QUALITY RATING | YEAR BUILT | SALE DATE | SALE PRICE ($) | SALE PRICE (time adjusted (TAS) | TAS (per sq. ft. based on total building area) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 376 Glengrove Avenue W | 6,800 | 3382 | 7.5 | 1947 | 2015 | 2,275,00 | 2,555,770 | 755.70 |
| 105 Strathallan Boulevard | 6,750 | 3,155 | 7.5 | 1926 | 2016 | 2,595,000 | 2,363,756 | 749.21 |
| 25 Strathallan Boulevard | 6,750 | 3,553 | 7.5 | 1928 | 2015 | 2,100,000 | 2,215,277 | 623.49 |
| 33 Hillhurst Boulevard | 6,650 | 3,285 | 8 | 1933 | 2015 | 2,410,000 | 2,743,066 | 835.03 |
| 282 Lytton Boulevard | 6,750 | 2,853 | 7.5 | 1938 | 2015 | 2,150,000 | 2,162,503 | 757.98 |
| 126 Strathallan Boulevard | 6,687.5 | 3,553 | 7 | 1926 | 2016 | 2,998,000 | 2,729,689 | 768.28 |
| 292 Glengrove Avenue W | 6,000 | 2,961 | 7 | 1933 | 2016 | 2,325,000 | 2,185,968 | 738.25 |
| Average | 6,627 | 3,249 | 746.85 | |||||
| Subject Property | 6,700 | 3,402 | NIL | N/A | N/A | N/A |
25The Appellant’s Representative submits that the above analysis shows that these seven proposed comparable properties have an average adjusted sale price of $746.85 per sq. ft. When this average adjusted sale price is applied to the Subject Property it results in a current value of $2,540,777 sq. ft. based on total building area.
26Based on the above analysis, the Appellant’s Representative is of the opinion that the best evidence of current value are the three comparable properties located at 376 Glengrove Avenue West, sold in 2015 at a time adjusted sale price of $2,555,770; at 105 Strathallan Boulevard, sold in 2016 at a time adjusted sale price of 2,363,756 and at 25 Strathallan Boulevard, sold in 2015 for $2,215,277, because they are similar in lot, total building area, quality of construction rating of 7.5, renovation type B and C, and sold at an average adjusted sale price of $709.47 per sq. ft. based on total building area. When this rate is applied to the Subject Property it results in a current value of $2,413,608.
27The Appellant’s Representative argues that MPAC only relies on comparable properties with renovation type D, including a comparable property from a different homogeneous area D63, outside the Subject Property’s homogeneous area of C40. He further argues that MPAC failed to recognize other comparable properties with similar total building area, lot size, age, quality of construction etc. in the same homogeneous area as the Subject Property.
28The Appellant’s Representative argues that MPAC did not consider fully, the impact that these two comparable properties would have on the current value, because of differences in characteristics (total building area, total lot size, outdoor swimming pool, corner lot and quality of construction) as compared to the Subject Property. The Appellant’s Representative argues that MPAC failed to make adjustment for differences in total building areas and quality of construction of these two comparable properties to the Subject Property. Instead, adjustments were only made for differences in lot sizes, outdoor pool and corner lot, based on values determined by MPAC’s Model.
29Based on the evidence, the Appellant’s Representative is of the opinion that the current value should be $2,413,608.
Finding of the current value of the Subject Property for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years
30Reviewing the evidence presented in support of current value, the Board finds the best evidence are the five sales of comparable properties which occurred in 2015 and 2016 in the same homogeneous neighbourhood as the Subject Property, two of which are presented by MPAC and the other three presented by the Appellant.
31These five comparable properties are located at 162 Coldstream Avenue sold at a time adjusted sale price of $3,460,148, 372 Glencairn Avenue which sold at a time adjusted sale price of $2,883,276, at 376 Glengrove Avenue West which sold at a time adjusted sale price of $2,555,770, 25 Strathallan Boulevard which sold at a time adjusted sale price of $2,215,277; and 33 Hillhurst Boulevard which sold at a time adjusted sale price of $2,743,066. The sale prices of these five comparable properties range from $2,215,277 to $3,460,148 with a median time adjusted sale price of $2,743,066.
32These five comparable properties have a median lot sizes of 6,800 sq. ft., a median total building area of 3,553 sq. ft., median year built 1942, median quality of construction rating 7.5, and renovations type C and D with a median effective year built 1995. This is compared to the Subject Property with a lot size of 6,700 sq. ft., building area of 3,402 sq. ft., year built 1930, quality of construction rating 7.5 and 8, renovation type D with an effective year 2009.
33Due to fact that there are only two renovated type D comparable properties presented by MPAC with outdoor swimming pool, larger lot size and larger total building area than the Subject Property, the Board finds it fair to include three other comparable properties in the same homogeneous area, with similar lot size, similar total building area, similar age and similar quality of construction as the Subject Property to balance out the larger size comparable properties. The Board finds that the three renovated type C comparable properties located at 376 Glengrove Avenue West, at 25 Strathallan Boulevard, and at 33 Hillhurst Boulevard have sufficient characteristics that are similar to the Subject Property to assist the Board in its determination of current value. The fact that these three comparable properties are renovation type C, is not by itself, a good enough reason to exclude them in the determination of current value, because they are renovated at a lesser degree, which is one level lower than the Subject Property.
34Based on the above analysis, the Board finds that the median time adjusted sale price of $2,743,066 represents the best evidence of an arm’s length transaction between a willing buyer and a willing seller pursuant to s. 19(1) of the Act. Therefore, the Board determines the correct current value to be $2,743,066.
35Regarding MPAC’s adjustments for the depth of the lot, outdoor swimming and corner lot, the Board did not put any weight on the adjusted values based on MPAC’s Model, because the returned assessment under appeal is based on values determined by that same model. Therefore, the Board relies on the median time adjusted sale price of $2,743,066 which represents the best evidence of an arm’s length transaction between a willing buyer and a willing seller, as opposed to adjusted sale values for differences in characteristics based on MPAC’s model.
36Regarding MPAC’s sale at 44 Lascelles Boulevard, sold in 2016, the Board did not rely on the sale of this comparable property, because it is located in a different homogeneous neighbourhood. Instead, the Board relies on the above five sales of comparable properties in the same homogeneous area and impacted by the same open market influences as the Subject Property.
37Regarding the Appellant’s four remaining sales of comparable properties located at 105 Strathallan Boulevard, sold in 2016, 282 Lytton Boulevard, sold in 2015, 126 Strathallan Boulevard, sold in 2016, and 292 Glengrove Avenue West, sold in 2016, the Board did not rely on these sales, because they are not sufficiently similar to the Subject Property. These comparable properties in some cases have lower type renovation, older effective ages ranging from 1971 to 1988 determined by the date of renovation, and smaller total building area than the Subject Property.
38Based on the above analysis, the Board finds that the median time-adjusted sale of $2,743,066 represents the best evidence of an arm’s length transaction between a willing buyer and a willing seller pursuant to s. 19(1) of the Act.
39Based on all the evidence, the Board finds the correct current value is $2,743,000.
Issue 2 – Whether there should be an equitable reduction of the current value pursuant to [s. 44(3)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-a31/latest/rso-1990-c-a31.html)(b) of the [Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-a31/latest/rso-1990-c-a31.html), and, if so, what the amount of this reduction should be
40Section 44(3)(b) of the Act provides that “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.” In essence, the Board looks to similar lands in the vicinity to determine whether their assessed values are lower than their current values. If so, then it would be equitable to lower the assessed value of the Subject Property by a proportionate amount.
41At the hearing, MPAC’s Representative submits that he is not presenting evidence due to errors discovered in its Equity Report prior to today’s hearing, which was discovered while in discussions with the Appellant. As a result, MPAC’s Representative submits that he agrees with the Appellant’s finding of an Assessment to Sales Ratio (“ASR”) of 0.93 based on 50 sales which occurred in 2015 and 2016 taxation years and which supports an equity reduction. Based on this submission, the Board accepts MPAC’s submission that the correct ASR is 0.93.
42Regarding MPAC’s submission on Equity, the Appellant concurs that there is an agreement with MPAC that the correct ASR is 0.93. Based on the mutual agreement, the Board accepts that the correct ASR is 0.93.
Findings on Equity
43Based on the above mutual agreement prior to today’s hearing that the correct ASR is 0.93 and based on the Board’s determination that the correct current value is $2,743,000; the Board finds that an ASR of 0.93 supports an equity reduction. Therefore, the Board applies the ASR to the correct current value and finds that the equitable value is $2,550,000 rounded ($2743,000 x 0.93).
44Based on the above evidence, the Board finds that the equitable value is $2,550,000.
CONCLUSION
45The Board finds the correct current value for the Subject Property at the valuation date January 1, 2016 is $2,743,000 for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years.
46The Board also finds that an equity reduction pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) is required and that the equitable value is $2,550,000 ($2,550,000 x 0.93).
ORDER
47The Board orders the returned assessment of $2,628,000 be reduced to $2,550,000 for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years.
"Jennifer Griffith"
JENNIFER GRIFFITH
MEMBER
Assessment Review Board
Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb