Tribunals Ontario
Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario
Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE:
February 02, 2022
FILE NO.:
WR 176095
Assessed Person(s):
Gary Joel Mansfield; Marcia Ruth Mansfield
Appellant(s):
Gary Mansfield; Marcia Mansfield
Respondent(s):
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 09
Respondent(s):
City of Toronto
Property Location(s):
16 Ormsby Crescent
Municipality(ies):
City of Toronto
Roll Number(s):
1904-112-310-00500-0000
Appeal Number(s):
3435779 and 3442505
Taxation Year(s):
2020 and 2021
Hearing Event No.:
756315
Legislative Authority:
Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Representative
Gary and Marcia Mansfield
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 Gary and Marcia Mansfield (the “Appellants”). The appeals relate to the returned assessments of $2,971,000 for 16 Ormsby Crescent 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 $2,421,000 for each taxation year.
3The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) asks the Board to confirm the returned assessments of $2,971,000.
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 $2,558,762.73.
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 $2,420,589.54 rounded to $2,421,000.
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”).
9At the beginning of the hearing, the Appellants took issue with Ms. Blackburn’s evidence on equity, including the August Equity Report. The Appellants stated that the August Equity Report was not disclosed to the Appellants in accordance with the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”).
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 the hearing. 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 brought a motion 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 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 Preliminary 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, including changing the search criteria she used to gather relevant data, which in turn affected the underlying data and her 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 considers something to be an “exceptional circumstance” 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 to refine the analysis to have less disparity between the Subject Property and the comparable properties used in the report. With respect, this is not an exceptional circumstance. Ms. Blackburn did not provide evidence of any additional circumstance that would qualify as an exceptional one. Accordingly, 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, 3,294 square foot (“sq. ft.”) single family detached residence that sits on a 6,000 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 1932, however due to modifications over the years, it has an effective year built of 1978. In addition to the residence, the Subject Property is improved by a 331 sq. ft. detached garage built in 1932.
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
226 Forest Hill Road
38 Dunvegan Road
505 Russell Hill Road
Sale Date
July 2015
April 2016
June 2015
Time Adjusted Sale Amount
$3,473,533
$3,251,748
$3,223,204
Building Area (sq. ft.)
2,879
2,594
3,141
Effective Site Area (sq. ft.)
8,318.50
8695
8000
Effective Year Built
1978
1962
1972
Quality of Construction
7.5
7.5
7
Storeys
2
2 ½
2
Secondary Structures
Detached garage
Outdoor Pool and detached garage
Outdoor Pool and attached garage
Adjustments
Corner Lot -1%
Time Adjusted Sale Amount per Building Area Sq Ft
$1206.50
1253.56
$1,036.43
20MPAC determined the median time adjusted sale amount per square foot of building area for the above-noted properties to be $1,206.51. MPAC then multiplied that median of $1,206.51 by the 3,294 sq. ft. of the residence on the Subject Property to arrive at an opinion of value of $3,974,200. MPAC confirmed it is not seeking an increase in value, but to have the returned assessments of $2,971,000 confirmed.
21The Appellants did not agree with MPAC that these properties are comparable to the Subject Property, for the following reasons:
a. They have more frontage on premium streets;
b. All of the properties are 8,000 sq. ft. or more in land area. Even the smallest lot at 505 Russell Hill Road has 33% more land area than the Subject Property;
c. Two of the properties have much smaller buildings than the Subject Property at 2,879 and 2,594 sq. ft. respectively.
Appellants’ Proposed Comparable Properties and Sales Information
Property Address
9 Killarney Road
11 Hawarden Crescent
265 Forest Hill Road
Sale Date
February 2015
June 2015
March 2015
Time Adjusted Sale Amount
$2,689,733
2,740,500
2,882,670
Building Area (sq. ft.)
3,555
3,449
3,617
Effective Site Area (sq. ft.)
7,500
5,000
6,250
Effective Year Built
1971
Information not provided
2000
Quality of Construction
7
7
8.5
Storeys
Information not provided
Information not provided
Information not provided
Secondary Structures
Information not provided
Information not provided
Information not provided
Time Adjusted Sale Amount per Building Area Sq Ft
$756.61
$794.58
$796.98
23At the hearing, the Appellants advised the Board they were no longer relying on 11 Hawarden Crescent and the Board should disregard it from the analysis.
24The Appellants therefore determined the average rate per square foot of 9 Killarney Road and 265 Forest Hill Road at $776.79. Applying this to the building area of the Subject Property, the Appellants suggested a current value of $2,558,762.73.
Findings on Issue 1
25The Board has analyzed the six proposed comparable sales submitted by the parties and finds as follows:
a. The property sale at 226 Forest Hill Road is not sufficiently comparable because the building is over 400 sq. ft. smaller than the Subject Property’s residence, and the site area is over 2,300 sq. ft. larger than the Subject Property;
b. The property sale at 38 Dunvegan Road is not sufficiently comparable because the building is 700 sq. ft. smaller than the Subject Property, and the site area is almost 2,700 sq. ft. larger than the Subject Property;
c. The property sale at 505 Russell Hill Road is not sufficiently comparable because it has 2 storeys compared to 2 ½ storeys at the Subject Property, and the site area is 2,000 sq ft. larger than the Subject Property. 505 Russell Hill Road also has a pool and an attached garage, which the Subject Property does not have. Neither party provided evidence quantifying a price adjustment for these features, if any;
d. The property sale at 9 Killarney Road is sufficiently comparable because, although the site area is 1,500 sq. ft. larger than the Subject Property, the building area is far closer in size to the building area at the Subject Property;
e. The property sale at 265 Forest Hill Road sufficiently comparable because it is the closest to the Subject Property in terms of site area and building area. While 265 Forest Hill Road is a newer build and has a higher quality of construction, which makes it slightly superior to the Subject Property, the Board finds this property is still sufficiently comparable for the current value analysis.
26The Board finds the property sales at 9 Killarney Road and 265 Forest Hill Road are sufficiently comparable to establish the current value of the Subject Property.
27The average time adjusted sale amount per sq. ft. of these properties is $776.79. Multiplying this amount by the building area of the Subject Property results in $2,558,762.73.
28Based on the best available evidence, the Board finds that the Subject Property would have most likely sold for $2,558,762.73 on January 1, 2016.
29Accordingly, the Board finds the correct current value of the Subject Property is $2,558,762.73.
Issue 2 – Is the current value equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity?
Applicable Law
30Section 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
31The 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 sold properties are assessed below their current value, a reduction in the subject assessment below current value is required to make the subject 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.
32The Appellants provided an Equity Analysis Report detailing the sales of 61 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 0.946. 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.
33The Board did not admit MPAC’s August Equity Report, as noted above. MPAC provided no further admissible evidence on equity.
Findings on Issue 2
34The 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 Appellants’ Equity Analysis Report or the data underlying it. MPAC did not provide alternative evidence. The Board has analyzed the Appellants’ 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.
35The Board is satisfied that the median ASR of 0.946 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.
36The Board has found that the correct current value is $2,558,762.73. Multiplying that by the median ASR of 0.946 results in a current value assessment of $2,420,589.54.
CONCLUSION
37The correct current value of the Subject Property is $2,558,762.73. A reduction is required to make it equitable with the assessment of similar lands in the vicinity, resulting in a current value of $2,420,589.54 rounded to $2,421,000.
ORDER
38The Board orders that the returned assessments for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years be reduced to $2,421,000.