Tribunals Ontario
Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario
Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE:
February 1, 2022
FILE NO.:
WR 175493
Assessed Person(s):
Wendy Michele Moore, Sloan Hilliard Mandel
Appellant(s):
Wendy Moore
Respondent(s):
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 09
Respondent(s):
City of Toronto
Property Location(s):
234 St. Leonard’s Avenue
Municipality(ies):
City of Toronto
Roll Number(s):
1908-081-250-01000-0000
Appeal Number(s):
3435311and 3441887
Taxation Year(s):
2020 and 2021
Hearing Event No.:
753404
Legislative Authority:
Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Representative
Wendy Moore
Surin Toor
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
Carlo Bassi
City of Toronto
No one appeared
HEARD:
December 7, 2021 by telephone conference call
ADJUDICATOR(S):
Dan Weagant, Member
DECISION
OVERVIEW
1For the 2020 and 2021 taxation years, the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) returned an assessment of $4,295,000 on the subject property at 234 St. Leonard’s Avenue in the City of Toronto.
2Wendy Moore (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”). The Appellant believes the current value of the subject property is $3,867,000, with a reduction in that value to make the assessment of the subject property equitable with the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity. The Appellant believes this reduced, equitable assessment is $3,600,000.
3In preparation for the hearing, MPAC amended its opinion of current value to $4,548,418. MPAC is not seeking an increase in the assessment of the subject property.
Issues for the Hearing
4At issue in this proceeding is:
A determination of the current value of the subject property; and
Whether an equity reduction in the current value is necessary for it to be equitable when reference is made to similar properties in the vicinity.
Result
5The Assessment Review Board (“Board”) finds that the current value of the subject property is $3,888,000.
6The Board also finds that no adjustment to the current value is necessary for it to represent equitable assessment when reference is made to the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity.
7Therefore, the assessment of the subject property at 234 St. Leonard’s Avenue is reduced for the 2020 and 2021 taxation year, from $4,295,000 to $3,888,000 in the Residential property class.
ANALYSIS
Description of Subject Property
8The subject dwelling was constructed on the property in 2011. It sits on a corner lot, measuring 50 feet by 150 feet.
9The dwelling has 4,612 square feet of living area on two storeys, with a quality of construction rating applied by MPAC of 9.0. It also has a finished basement area of 2,113 square feet. The land comprises an area of 7,500 square feet.
Issue 1 – What is the current value of the subject property for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years?
MPAC’s Evidence
10MPAC compared the subject property with 17 other properties in the same neighbourhood. MPAC’s comparison used sales of properties that occurred between May 2014 and December 2016. Based on a time-adjustment study of 376 sales of single family dwellings in the area, these 17 comparable sale values were adjusted so they could be compared as though they all took place on January 1, 2016; the valuation day stipulated it the Act for the years under appeal.
11All of the comparable sales cited by MPAC are lots measuring 50 feet x 150 feet and all have a quality of construction rating of 9.0. Construction dates of the 17 comparable sales cited by MPAC range from 2001 through 2016.
12Time adjusted sale (“TAS”) values of the 17 proposed comparable sales ranged from $3,816,000 to $5,403,000, with a median of $4,429,000. Building total areas of MPAC’s comparable properties ranged from 4,327 square feet to 5,036 square feet, with a median of 4,639. TAS values per square foot ranged from $792 to $1,171 with a median of $996.
13To determine the current value of the subject property from this data, MPAC took the median TAS price per square foot of building area and adjusted that value for differences in site variables. The final opinion of value advanced by MPAC was $4,548,418, including a 1% downward adjustment because the subject property is a corner lot.
Appellant’s Evidence
14The Appellant also compared the subject property to other properties that sold in the subject neighbourhood. The Appellant selected three proposed comparable properties in particular to represent the best indication of the current value of the subject property. Those three properties were corner lots, like the subject property. They were also selected by MPAC as part of its direct comparison sample set, and were the only corner properties its analysis.
15The Appellant pointed out that the three corner properties in evidence have TAS values ranging from $791.67 to $940.79 per square foot of living area, with a median value of $838.33.
16By applying this median value to the 4,612 square feet of living area at the subject property, the Appellant arrives at a current value of $3,867,232.
Findings on Issue 1
17There is a large sample of comparable properties in evidence that have sold in proximity to the valuation day. This constitutes a good sample of properties to use for a direct comparison approach to value of the subject property. Both parties took this approach. The Board must decide what the best evidence of current value is from this sample.
18In determining the most comparable properties the Board considers the following characteristics specific to the subject property:
Number of storeys: 2
Lot dimensions and area: 50 feet x 150 feet, 7,500 square feet
Building living area: 4,613 square feet
Lot characteristic: Corner lot
Quality of construction: 9
Effective year built: 2011
19From the sample of properties available for comparison advanced by both parties, the Board finds the best comparable properties are #3, #13 and #17, described as follows:
#3 – 264 Dawlish Ave.
#13 – 151 Rochester Ave.
#17 – 144 Buckingham Ave.
Number of storeys
2
2
2
Lot dimensions
50 feet x 150 feet
50 feet x 150 feet
50 feet x 150 feet
Lot area
7,500 square feet
7,500 square feet
7,500 square feet
Living area
4,500 square feet
5,036 square feet
4,698 square feet
Lot location
Corner lot
Corner lot
Corner lot
Quality of construction
9
9
9
Effective Year Built
2008
2008
2013
Sale Price / date
$3.75 million / Nov 11 2015
$4.42 million / Jan 5 2016
$3.989 million April 7 2015
MPAC’s Time-adjusted sale (TAS) price
$3,815,535
$3,986,361
$4,419,112
Appellant’s Time-Adjusted sale price
$3,722,500
$3,986,840
$4,419,812
MPAC’s TAS price per square foot
$847.90
$791.57
$940.64
Appellant’s TAS price per square foot
$838.33
$791.67
$940.79
2016 Current Value Assessment (CVA)
$4,085,000
$4,287,000
$4,347,000
Assessment to Sale Ratio (“ASR”)
1.07
1.08
0.98
20What distinguishes these three properties from the remainder of the sample is that they are corner lots, like the subject property. MPAC submitted that corner lots have a 1% downward adjustment applied in this neighbourhood. The Appellant sought clarification on where that adjustment comes from in the sales data. The Board finds that the best way to determine what a corner lot would sell for vs an interior lot, is to use the sale values of the three corner lot properties in evidence.
21The median per square foot, TAS value of these three best comparable properties is $847.90 according to MPAC, and $838.33 according to the Appellant. When the average of these two values of $843.12 is applied to the subject property living area of 4,612 square feet, the result is $3,888,469. This represents the current value of the subject property, using the best evidence available at the hearing.
22The Board finds that the current value of the subject property is $3,888,000, rounded.
Issue 2 – Does the current value determined need to be reduced for it to be equitable when reference is made to the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity?
Appellant’s Evidence
23The Appellant uses the median ASR of all sales in MPAC’s evidence (376 sales used for the determination of Time Adjustment factors), noting the result was a median ASR of 0.951. That list of 376 properties was then edited by the appellant to eliminate those ASRs in the sample that were either below 0.50 or above 1.50, for the reason that “levels outside of this range are almost always data inaccuracy and not valuation or equity errors.” When the list was edited in this manner, the result was a median ASR of 0.931.
24The Appellant submitted that any median ASR below 1.00 indicated clear evidence that similar properties in the vicinity are assessment below their respective current values, as reflected by their time adjusted sale value. The Appellant concluded that the evidence pointed to a reduction in the current value determined was necessary for the assessment to be considered equitable.
MPAC’s Evidence
25MPAC also conducted an equity study to determine whether the current value determined should be considered equitable assessment. The criteria used by MPAC to select sales for inclusion in the Equity study were single family detached dwellings, not on water, within 1.0 kilometre of the subject property and that sold between January 2015 and December 2016.
26These criteria resulted in a sample of 30 properties, with ASRs ranging from 0.803 to 1.185. The median ASR in MPAC’s study was 0.988. MPAC considers this result to represent the level of assessment for these thirty similar properties in the vicinity.
27MPAC cites the standards set by the International Association of Assessing Officers (‘IAAO’) that indicate a level of assessment within the range of 0.95 to 1.05 reflects equitable assessment for properties in the residential property class. For this reason, MPAC concluded that no adjustment was necessary for the current value determined to be considered equitable when reference is made to the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity.
Findings on Issue 2
28Both approaches take by the Parties result in a median ASR below 1.00. MPAC takes the position that no adjustment needs to be made to the current value, for it to represent equitable assessment, if the level of assessment it demonstrates is 0.95 or above. The Appellant arrives at a median ASR of 0.931 and MPAC arrives at a median ASR of 0.988. The Board accepts that both studies indicate that assessments of similar properties in the vicinity are below their respective current value (or time-adjusted sale values as demonstrated in the documentary evidence). The Board must decide the best approach to making a determination of any downward adjustment to the current value determined.
29Municipal 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.
30When applied to the current circumstances, the Board finds that all points of comparison in evidence consist of:
Two-storey dwellings;
50 foot x 150 foot, corner lots;
Building square footage
Quality of construction;
Age.
31These 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. That evidence is the median ASR of the three properties that are most similar as compared to the subject property. Those three are the same properties used by the Board in determining current value.
32MPAC comparables # 3, #13 and # 17 have ASRs of 1.07, 1.08 and 0.98 respectively, with a median of 1.07 and an average of 1.04. This is clear evidence that the most similar properties in the vicinity, as determined by all points of comparison, are assessed at or above their respective current value as determined by sales.
33The Board finds therefore, that no adjustment to the current value determined is necessary for it to represent equitable assessment when reference is made to the assessment of similar properties in the vicinity.
CONCLUSION
34The Board finds that the current value of the subject property is $3,888,000.
35The Board also finds that no adjustment to the current value is necessary for it to represent equitable assessment when reference is made to the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity.
ORDER
36The Board orders that the assessment of 234 St. Leonard’s Avenue is reduced from $4,295,000 to $3,888,000, in the Residential property class, for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years.
"Dan Weagant"
DAN WEAGANT
MEMBER
Assessment Review Board
Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb