Tribunals Ontario
Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario
Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE:
January 31, 2022
FILE NO.:
WR 175944
Assessed Person(s):
Brenda Greenberg
Appellant(s):
Brenda Greenberg and Robert Wagman
Respondent(s):
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 09
Respondent(s):
City of Toronto
Property Location(s):
30 Ava Road
Municipality(ies):
City of Toronto
Roll Number(s):
1904-112-480-01900-0000
Appeal Number(s):
3436462 and 3442119
Taxation Year(s):
2020 and 2021
Hearing Event No.:
756312
Legislative Authority:
Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Representative
Brenda Greenberg and Robert Wagman
Surin Toor
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
Helene Blackburn
City of Toronto
No one appeared
HEARD:
January 18, 2022 by telephone conference call
ADJUDICATOR(S):
Carly Stringer, Member
DECISION
OVERVIEW
1The appeals before the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) were filed by Brenda Greenberg and Robert Wagman (the “Appellants”). The appeals relate to the returned assessments of $2,501,000 for 30 Ava Road in the City of Toronto (the “Subject Property”) for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years.
2It is the Appellants’ position that the returned assessments are too high. The Appellants request that the Board reduce the assessments to $2,227,986 for each taxation year.
3The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) asks the Board to confirm the returned assessments of $2,501,000.
Areas of Agreement
4The parties agree that the direct comparison approach is the appropriate valuation methodology to determine the current value of the Subject Property.
Issues for the Hearing
5At issue in this proceeding is:
What is the current value of the Subject Property as of the statutory valuation date of January 1, 2016?; and
Is the current value equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity?
Result
6For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that the correct current value of the Subject Property for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years is $2,385,438.21.
7The Board finds that a reduction is required to make it equitable with the assessment of similar lands in the vicinity, resulting in a current value of $2,227,999.29 rounded to $2,228,000.
PRELIMINARY MATTERS
MPAC’s Equity Evidence
8MPAC’s witness at the hearing was assessor Helene Blackburn. Ms. Blackburn sought to rely on and enter as evidence two reports that she had previously prepared and filed with the Board in August 2021 – a valuation report, and an equity adjustment report (the “August Equity Report”).
9During the Appellants’ cross-examination of Ms. Blackburn, it became clear that Ms. Blackburn’s evidence on equity, including the August Equity Report, was not the same evidence that had been disclosed to the Appellants.
10Ms. Blackburn advised the Board that she served an equity report on the Appellants in June 2021 (the “Original Equity Report”) in accordance with the Schedule of Events for these proceedings. Ms. Blackburn confirmed that she subsequently conducted a new Assessment to Sales Ratio (“ASR”) analysis using different search criteria to identify similar properties. Ms. Blackburn then revised the Original Equity Report to incorporate this new analysis, resulting in the August Equity Report. Ms. Blackburn confirmed she filed the August Equity Report with the Board without advising the Appellants’ representative of the updated analysis.
11The Board has not been provided with a copy of the Original Equity Report, however the Appellants’ representative advised the Board at the hearing that the revised search criteria in the August Equity Report resulted in new information of which the Appellants were unaware until Ms. Blackburn began her testimony. Ms. Blackburn stated that the Appellants’ representative was copied on her filing with the Board and ought to have been aware of the change in information in advance of the hearing.
12The Appellants moved that the Board refuse to admit the August Equity Report on the basis that it constituted new evidence and information that was not served in accordance with the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”).
Applicable Rules
13Rule 48 provides that “A document, including an expert report, may only be admitted into evidence at a hearing event if it has been served on all other parties and filed with the Board, in accordance with these Rules, unless the Board determines that there are exceptional circumstances.”
Disposition on this Motion
14At the hearing, the Board granted the Appellants’ motion and did not admit the August Equity Report into evidence, for the following reasons:
a. Ms. Blackburn admitted that she revised the Original Equity Report, having changed the search criteria she used to gather relevant data, which in turn affected the underlying data and her ultimate analysis. She admitted that she did not advise the Appellants’ representative of this change. She admitted that she did not serve the Appellants with the August Equity Report prior to filing it with the Board. Accordingly, the Board found the August Equity Report was not “served on all other parties and filed with the Board, in accordance with these Rules” as required by Rule 48.
b. Ms. Blackburn did not provide sufficient evidence of exceptional circumstances that would warrant admission of the August Equity Report into evidence in this proceeding. The Board considered something to be an “exceptional circumstances” when it is “something that does not occur regularly, something unusual, or something atypical”: Mississauga (City) v Michalakos, 2018 CanLII 126632 (ON ARB) at paragraph 10. Ms. Blackburn stated that she updated her search parameters in an attempt to refine the analysis to be closer to the Subject Property. This is not an exceptional circumstance. Ms. Blackburn did not provide further evidence of any circumstance that would qualify as an exceptional one. The Board found that MPAC did not satisfy it of any exceptional circumstances that would warrant admitting the August Equity Report into evidence.
ANALYSIS
Description of Subject Property
15The Subject Property consists of a 2 ½ storey, 3,603 square foot (“sq. ft.”) single family detached residence that sits on a 6,084.32 sq. ft. lot in the Forest Hill South neighbourhood in Toronto. The quality of construction of the residence is considered 7.5. It was built in 1930, however due to modifications over the years, it has an effective year built of 1967. In addition to the residence, the Subject Property is improved by a 378 sq. ft. detached garage built in 1930.
Issue 1 – What is the current value of the Subject Property as of January 1, 2016?
Applicable Law
16In accordance with s. 44(3)(a) of the Assessment Act R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (“Act”), the Board must first determine “the current value of the land”. 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”.
17Accordingly, the Board must first determine what the Subject Property would have sold for in an arm’s length transaction on the statutory valuation day. Section 19.2(1) of the Act confirms that the valuation day for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years is January 1, 2016.
Evidence on Current Value
18The best evidence of current value would be the sale of the Subject Property on or close to the valuation day of January 1, 2016. If no such sale occurred, the sales of comparable properties can be considered to establish the current value of the Subject Property.
19MPAC provided the Board with evidence regarding sales of proposed comparable properties at or within one year of January 1, 2016 in Ms. Blackburn’s valuation report. MPAC performed a time adjustment to reflect what the properties would have sold for on January 1, 2016.
MPAC’s Proposed Comparable Properties and Sales Information
Property Address
26 Gardiner Road
410 Glenayr Road
308 Glenayr Road
23 Elderwood Drive
408 Glenayr Road
5 Ava Crescent
Sale Date
July 2015
April 2015
June 2015
September 2016
October 2016
January 2015
Time Adjusted Sale Amount
$2,738,434
$2,501,948
$2,952,349
$2,716,451
$2,561,687
$3,010,102
Building Area (sq. ft.)
3,310
3,779
3,376
3,209
3,918
4,002
Effective Site Area (sq. ft.)
6,390.12
6,425.00
6,850.00
5,460.00
6,850.00
5,775.00
Effective Year Built
1977
1969
1970
1970
1970
1974
Quality of Construction
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
Storeys
2 ½
2 ½
2
2 1/2
2 1/2
2
Secondary Structures
Outdoor pool
Detached garage
Carport
Attached garage
Attached garage
Time Adjusted Sale Amount per Building Area Sq Ft
$827.32
$662.07
$874.51
$846.51
$653.83
$752.15
20MPAC determined the median time adjusted sale amount per square foot of building area for the above-noted properties to be $789.74. MPAC then multiplied that median of $789.74 by the 3,603 sq. ft. of the residence on the Subject Property to arrive at an opinion of value of $2,845,400.
21The Appellants provided the Board with evidence regarding sales of proposed comparable properties at or within one year of January 1, 2016. The Appellants also performed a time adjustment to reflect what the properties would have sold for on January 1, 2016.
Property Address
3 Elderwood Drive
Sale Date
March 2016
Time Adjusted Sale Amount
$1,712,844
Building Area (sq. ft.)
2,764
Effective Site Area (sq. ft.)
5,617.5
Effective Year Built
Information not provided
Quality of Construction
7
Storeys
Information not provided
Secondary Structures
Information not provided
Time Adjusted Sale Amount per Building Area Sq Ft
$619.70
Appellants’ Proposed Comparable Properties and Sales Information
22The Appellants also included 26 Gardiner Road, 408 Glenayr Road, 410 Glenayr Road and 23 Elderwood Drive in their list of proposed comparable properties, agreeing with several of MPAC’s proposed comparable sales.
23The Appellants did not agree with MPAC that 308 Glenayr Road and 5 Ava Crescent are appropriate comparable properties, for the following reasons:
a. they have 2 storeys compared the Subject Property’s 2 ½ storeys;
b. 308 Glenayr’s site area is 800 sq. ft. larger than the Subject Property’s lot, and the residence on 5 Ava Crescent is over 400 sq. ft. larger than the Subject Property’s residence. The Appellants submit this creates “economy of scale” issues.
24At the hearing, the Appellants suggested the Board should consider eliminating 26 Gardiner Road from consideration because it had undergone a significant renovation in 1999 including the addition of an outdoor pool. The Appellants also submitted that the Board could eliminate 3 Elderwood Drive from consideration because it is in a heavy traffic area and has a lower quality of construction than the Subject Property. Finally, the Appellants suggested the Board could eliminate 23 Elderwood Drive from consideration because its building size and land vary from the Subject Property by a combined 21.2%, creating an “economy of scale” issue resulting in a higher rate per square foot.
25The Appellants submitted to the Board that it could rely most heavily on 408 and 410 Glenayr Road as the most comparable properties to the Subject Property in terms of building and lot size. The Appellants suggested averaging the rate per square foot at $662.00. Applying this to the building area of the Subject Property, the Appellants suggested a current value of $2,385,000.
Findings on Issue 1
26The Board has analyzed the seven proposed comparable sales submitted by the parties and finds as follows:
a. The property sale at 308 Glenayr Road is not sufficiently comparable because the residence is a 2 storey home and the site area is over 800 square feet larger than the Subject Property;
b. The property sale at 5 Ava Crescent is not sufficiently comparable because the residence is a 2 storey home and the building area is almost 400 square feet more than the Subject Property;
c. The property sale at 3 Elderwood Drive is not sufficiently comparable because the building is over 800 sq. ft. smaller than the Subject Property; the quality of construction is a 7; it abuts heavy traffic and insufficient evidence has been provided quantifying a price adjustment for this feature; and the Board has not been provided with information respecting the number of storeys in the building.
d. The property sale at 26 Gardiner Road is not sufficiently comparable because it underwent a significant renovation and it has a pool. Neither party provided evidence quantifying a price adjustment for a pool, if any, and the Subject Property does not have this feature;
e. The property sale at 408 Glenayr Road is not sufficiently comparable because its site area is almost 800 sq. ft. larger than the Subject Property, and it has an attached garage. Neither party provided evidence quantifying a price adjustment for an attached garage, if any, and the Subject Property does not have this feature.
f. The best comparable property sale is 410 Glenayr Road. It is the closest to the Subject Property in terms of site area and building area; it has the same quality of construction; it has 2 ½ storeys; and it has similar features including a detached garage.
27The Board finds the property at 410 Glenayr Road is the best comparable property to establish the current value of the Subject Property.
28The adjusted sale value per sq. ft. for 410 Glenayr Road is $662.07. Applying this to the building area of the Subject Property of 3,603 sq. ft. results in a current value of $2,385,438.21.
29Based on the best available evidence, the Board finds that the Subject Property would have most likely sold for $2,385,438.21 on January 1, 2016.
30Accordingly, the Board finds the correct current value of the Subject Property to be $2,385,438.21.
Issue 2 – Is the current value equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity?
Applicable Law
31Section 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”.
Evidence on Equity
32The ASR of a sample of sold properties is a tool often used to determine if a property in the vicinity is assessed below its current value. If any other property is assessed below its current value, a reduction in the assessment below current value is required to make the assessment equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity. The ASR is determined by comparing the assessment as returned to the time adjusted sale price, expressed as a mathematical ratio.
33The Appellants provided an Equity Analysis Report detailing the sales of 41 detached residential properties located within 1 kilometre of Subject Property, occurring between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2016. The Appellants’ analysis reflected a median ASR of 0.934. The Appellants submit that for residential properties, the median ASR should fall between 0.95 and 1.05. In this case, the median ASR falls below this range which, the Appellants submit, demonstrates an inequity. The Appellants request that the Board reduce the current value to make the assessment of the Subject Property equitable with those of similar properties in its vicinity.
34The Board did not admit MPAC’s August Equity Report, as noted above. MPAC provided no further admissible evidence on equity.
Findings on Issue 2
35The Board finds that the best evidence on equity is the sale and assessment evidence presented by the Appellants. MPAC did not provide sufficient evidence to refute the Appellant’s Equity Analysis Report or the data underlying it. MPAC did not provide alternative evidence. The Board has analyzed the evidence, and is satisfied that the properties submitted by the Appellants are within the vicinity of the Subject Property; are detached residences and therefore of a similar nature and character to the Subject Property; were sold within the shoulder years of the valuation day; and the sale prices were appropriately time adjusted.
36The Board is satisfied that the median ASR of 0.934 indicates that a downward adjustment should be made to correct the current value of the Subject Property to ensure it is equitable with the assessments of other properties in the vicinity.
37The Board has found that the correct current value is $2,385,438.21. Multiplying that by the median ASR of 0.934 results in a current value assessment of $2,227,999.29.
CONCLUSION
38The correct current value of the Subject Property is $2,385,438.21. A reduction is required to make it equitable with the assessment of similar lands in the vicinity, resulting in a current value of $2,227,999.29 rounded to $2,228,000.
ORDER
39The Board orders that the returned assessments for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years be reduced to $2,228,000.