Tribunals Ontario

Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: July 10, 2023

FILE NO.: WR 184144

Assessed Person(s): Angelo Gino Scaffidi

Appellant(s): Angelo Scaffidi

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 03

Respondent(s): City of Ottawa

Property Location(s): 2086 Lamira Street

Municipality(ies): City of Ottawa

Roll Number(s): 0614-105-901-01122-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3503055; 3511661

Taxation Year(s): 2022 and 2023

Hearing Event No.: 779364

Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Angelo Scaffidi	Self-represented
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation	Catherine McDonald
City of Ottawa	No one appeared

HEARD: May 1, 2023 by telephone conference call

ADJUDICATOR(S): Pierre R. Lavigne, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1The Appellant appeals the correctness of property tax assessments made for the years 2022 and 2023. The principal issues are the correct 2016 value of the residential dwelling and whether an equitable adjustment should be made to these values.

Background

2The Appellant is the owner of a two-storey detached residential dwelling constructed in 1990 and located at 2086 Lamira Street (“subject property”), in the City of Ottawa (“City”). The subject property was assessed at $778,000 for the taxation year 2022. This assessment was based on a January 1, 2016, valuation day. The Appellant claims that the assessment is incorrect because it is too high and submits that the correct assessment should be $700,000.

3The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) submits that the correct 2016 current value is $778,000 and that no equity adjustment is required pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (“Act”). MPAC did not give notice that it was seeking higher assessments than originally returned and takes the position that the assessment of $778,000 should be confirmed.

4This appeal is made under s. 40(1) of the Act. Pursuant to s. 40(26) of the Act, a further appeal was deemed to have been made for the 2023 taxation year.

Issues for the Hearing

5At issue in this proceeding is:

1. A determination of the current value of the subject property;
2. Whether an equity reduction in the current value should be made.

Result

6The correct current value as of the January 1, 2016 valuation day is $763,000. No equity reduction is required. Accordingly, the 2022 and 2023 taxation years assessment is reduced from $778,000 to $763,000.

ANALYSIS

Description of Subject Property

7The subject property is a 3,044 square feet (“sq. ft.”) detached two storey residential dwelling constructed in 1990 on a 7,083 sq. ft. lot. It has four bedrooms and 2.5 bathrooms, a double car garage and an unfinished basement. The property is on the west side of Lamira Street. To the west of the property, abutting the subject property’s back yard, is a railway line and, running parallel to the railway, the City bus transitway, a dedicated bus only street.

Issue 1 – What is the correct 2016 current value of the subject property?

The Governing Statutory Scheme

8Section 19(1) of the Act provides that the assessment of land shall be based on its current value. 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.”

9Section 19.2(1) paragraph 4 of the Act fixes the valuation day for the 2020 taxation year at January 1, 2016. Section 48.6 of Ontario Regulation 282/98 fixes the valuation day for the 2021, 2022 and 2023 taxation years at January 1, 2016, as well.

10Pursuant to s. 40(17) of the Act, the onus is on MPAC to prove the correct value of the subject property.

11Section 44(3)(b) of the Act provides for a reduction, if required, of an assessment based on current value to make the assessment equitable.

MPAC’s Evidence

12Catherine McDonald gave evidence for MPAC. She is a property valuation analyst with MPAC. She was qualified as an expert witness in the valuation of residential properties based on her experience as a property analyst and as an affiliate member of the Institute of Municipal Assessors. Her qualifications as an expert witness were not challenged.

13Ms. McDonald’s opinion was that the subject property had a 2016 current value of $778,000. She indicates in her expert report that she arrived at her opinion by the direct comparison approach: from an examination of sales of comparable properties at or near the valuation day of January 1, 2016.

14To find comparable properties, she limited her search to sales of similar properties, abutting the same stretch of railway/transitway. Ultimately, she found five sales which she judged to be comparable. She adjusted the sale prices for time from the valuation day. The time adjustments were not contested.

15Below is her Market Analysis Grid describing these properties.

Feature	Subject Property	Property 1	Property 2	Property 3	Property 4	Property 5
Roll Number	061410590101122	061410590101120	061410590101146	061410570124800	061410590108200	061410590112500
Address	2086 LAMIRA ST	2088 LAMIRA ST	2079 LAMIRA ST	1896 NORWOOD AVE	2075 CABOT ST	121 MOUNTBATTEN AVE
Neighbourhood	Cl0-9	Cl0-9	Cl0-9	B82-9	C08-9	C30-9
Property Code & Desc.	(301) Single-Family Detached (Not On Water)	(301) Single-Family Detached (Not On Water)	(301) Single-Family Detached (Not On Water)	(301) Single-Family Detached (Not On Water)	(301) Single-Family Detached (Not On Water)	(301) Single-Family Detached (Not On Water)
Distance in km		0.0162	0.089	0.9297	0.1177	0.2935
Valuation
Current Value Assessment	$778,000	$876,000	$980,000	$652,000	$601,000	$543,000
Sale
Sale Date		20171218	20170928	20160729	20160725	20151030
Sale Amount		$925,000	$915,000	$717,500	$675,000	$555,000
Time Adjusted Sale Amount		$830,095	$832,018	$695,505	$654,308	$561,833
Ratio		1.0553	1.1779	0.9374	0.9185	0.9665
Site
Effective Site Area (Acres)	0.16	0.18	0.15	0.36	0.13	0.16
Effective Site Area (square feet)	7,083.64	8,047.72	6,427.07	15,473.08	5,605.70	7,080.00
Abuts Variable(s)	(R) Abuts Railway	(R) Abuts Railway		(R) Abuts Railway	(N) Abuts Mass Transit (Subway, Bus Stop), (R)Abuts Railway	(R) Abuts Railway
Proximity Variable(s)	(N) Prox To Mass Transit (Subwy, Bus)	(R) Prox to Railway
Residential Structure
Structure Code & Desc.	(301) Single Family Detached	(301) Single Family Detached	(301) Single Family Detached	(301) Single Family Detached	(301) Single Family Detached	(301) Single Family Detached
Year Built	1990	1989	1989	1958	1962	1954
Effective Year Built	1990	2002	1989	1978	1985	1993
Structure Condition Code	Average	Average	Average	Average	Average	Average
Quality of Construction	7.5	7.5	7.5	6.5	7	6
Full Storeys	2 Storeys	2 Storeys	2 Storeys	1 Storey	1 Storey
Bedrooms	4	4	4	4	4	3
Baths	2.5	3	3.5	2.5	2.5	2
Fireplaces	1	1	3	1	2	1
Air Conditioning	y	y	y	y	y	y
Heating Type	Forced Air	Forced Air	Forced Air	Forced Air	Forced Air	Forced Air
Building Total Area (SF)	3,044	3,148	3,716	2.040	1,808	1,344
First Floor Area (SF)	1511	1574	1935	1115	1808	1344
Second Floor Area (SF)	1533	1574	1781	925
Basement Area (SF)	1,511	1,564	1,805	570	1,808	1,038
Finished Basement Area (SF)	913	1,311	468	1,342	570
Basement Height	8	7.5	9	8	7.5	8
Modification		B, (Year) 2009	B, (Year) 1989	A, (Year) 2010 / B (Year) 1980	B, (Year) 2015

16In her opinion Property 2 was superior to the subject property because it was on the east side of the Lamira Street and therefore did not have the railway/transitway abutting its back yard.

17She viewed Property 1 as similar as it was the immediately abutting property on the same side of the street as the subject property. She recognized that it had some renovations in 2009.

18In her opinion Properties 3 and 5 were inferior because of quality class of construction. Property 4 was also inferior as it was an older bungalow and not a two-storey residence as was the subject property. It also had a smaller square footage.

19She testified that in her opinion the best evidence of value was derived from the sale of Property 1, the neighbouring property at 2088 Lamira Street. In her view this property had superior structure. It was her opinion that the subject property would have a current value less than $830,095, the time adjusted sale price of Property 1.

20In light of her quality judgements of all the comparable properties, it was her opinion that the value of the subject property should be somewhere in the bracket between the highest time adjusted sale price of inferior properties, being $695,505 for Property 3, and the time adjusted sale price of the $830,095 for Property 1, the lowest time adjusted sale price of the properties judged to be superior. In her opinion the returned assessment of $778,000 was the correct value of the subject property as it fell within the bracket. She gave no evidence, however, of why it should be specifically $778,000 as opposed to some other amount within the bracket.

Evidence of the Appellant

21Angelo Scaffidi’s evidence was with respect to the nuisance of the railway/transitway. In his view, the railway traffic has increased since the original assessment of his newly constructed residence in 1990. The trains now ran by every hour. A further change from his original 1990 assessment has been the construction in 1996 of the bus transitway, parallel to the rail line, which has added further noise. He stated that his investigations revealed that certain noise mitigation measures, such as lowering the rail line and transit way in a depressed trench and other sound mitigation measures were supposed to have been made when construction of the transitway occurred but these were never carried out.

22He also testified that in 2020, a row of trees immediately abutting his property, but on the railway property, was cut down. This had provided some sound attenuation as well as a visual buffer.

23He disputed the validity of MPAC’s comparable Property 1 sale, the property immediately adjacent to his, stating that the buyer was uninformed of the history of unfulfilled representations with respect to sound attenuation.

24He further testified that when the railway cut trees in 2020, they did so behind his property but not behind comparable Property 1 leaving his property with inferior sound and visual attenuation.

25In his submission, the valuation of $778,000 provided by MPAC’s computerized mass appraisal model is based on flawed data, as it did not take into account the construction of the bus transitway in 1996 nor the removal of the trees behind his property in 2020.

MPAC submissions

26Ms. McDonald in her submissions relied upon several previous decisions of the Assessment Review Board (“Board”).

27The first of these decisions was Drennan Farms Ltd. v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 24, 2016 CanLII 63287 (ON ARB) (“Drennan”). In Ms. McDonald’s submission this decision stands for the proposition, at para. 28, that though the existence of a noise nuisance may be established, the Board requires quantified evidence of what the amount of a reduction should be before granting a reduction for noise nuisance.

28Also relied upon is the Board’s motion decision DM 32084 of July 22, 2004 in Cogan v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region No 3, [unreported] DM 32084 (“Cogan”). In her submission this decision stands for the proposition that data inputs in MPAC’s Mass Appraisal Model are not relevant for determination of current value on an assessment appeal. In this regard, she relies upon the following paragraph at p. 5 of the motion decision:

In this regard, the Board accepts the submissions of Mr. Mitchell that the issue is the correct current value for the property under appeal and not whether the model used by MPAC to arrive at values is correct. Simply put, the model relied upon by MPAC is a valuation tool and not a requirement of the Assessment Act. It is not the particular model that is to be tested on appeal, rather it is whether the current value of the property is incorrect (subsection 40(1)(a) of the Act).

29Also relied upon is the Board’s decision in Pellarin v Municipal Property Assessment Corp Region No 3, [2009] OARBD No 97 (“Pellarin”) in particular para. 33 which states:

In its opening remarks, the Board referred to this burden stated in subsection 40.(17) and stated that if MPAC satisfies the Board that the assessment is reasonably correct, then the onus shifts to the appellant to provide evidence to show either that the current value is not correct or that the assessment is not equitable when compared with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity.

Board’s analysis of evidence and submissions

30The Appellant’s evidence and submissions appear to reflect a misapprehension of the correct assessment valuation day. His submissions make reference to the original assessment conducted after construction of his residence in 1990 not taking into account subsequent adverse impacts such as the construction of the bus transitway in 1996 and the removal of trees in 2020.

31Several general re-assessments have taken place since the original assessment of 1990. As indicated above, the Act stipulates that the valuation day for the taxation years 2022 and 2023 is January 2016. MPAC has presented evidence of this current value of the subject property derived from sales of comparable properties near the January 1, 2016 valuation day and time adjusted to reflect the value of these sales on the valuation day. As all of the comparable sales, except Property 2, abut the same railway/transitway the Appellant complains of, their time adjusted sale prices reflect the diminution in market value caused by the railway/transitway at January 1, 2016. No further adjustment in value is required as the nuisance has already been taken into account in the sale prices.

32The Board disagrees with the Appellant’s contention that sale of Property 1 is not a valid sale as the purchaser was not aware of the history of the property. The railway/transitway, abutting Property 1’s back yard, was obvious to the purchaser in 2017. Regardless of the unfulfilled representations of noise attenuation in the past, on the date of the sale, the price reflected the noise nuisance as it existed at the time of sale. The sale was a valid comparable specifically because it was located abutting the same railway/transitway affecting the subject property and experienced the same nuisance as the subject property.

33As for the removal of trees adjacent to the subject property, the Board agrees with MPAC’s submission that, as in Drennan with respect to a noise adjustment, valuation evidence is required to support any further adjustment to the time adjusted sale price of Property 1 on account of the difference in noise attenuation or visual buffering. As no such evidence was presented by the Appellant, no further adjustment has been established.

34The Board accepts as comparable the sales submitted by MPAC. Though Ms. McDonald in her expert report qualified the Property 1 as similar to the subject property, in her testimony she qualified it as superior, due to the structure renovations of 2009. She testified that as a consequence, the subject property would be valued for less than Property 1’s time adjusted sale price. As the time adjusted sale price of Property 1 is the lowest of the superior rated comparables, the current value of the subject property would be in a value bracket between the highest time adjusted price of the inferior rated comparables ($695,505) and the time adjusted price of Property 1 ($830,095).

35With respect to her opinion that the correct current value is $778,000, the Board finds that there is no evidentiary support for this specific value. It is simply the value returned by MPAC’s Mass Appraisal Model. The Board’s decision in Cogan, cited above, indicates that “the issue is the correct current value for the property under appeal and not whether the model used by MPAC to arrive at values is correct.” In Pacey v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 02, 2018 CanLII 104614 (ON ARB) para. 30, the Board decided that MPAC must show the path from the evidence to the opinion of value. In this appeal MPAC has not done so, other than to show that the correct current value is somewhere within the $695,505 to $830,095 bracket. This is insufficient to establish that $778,000 is the correct current value.

36The Board disagrees with MPAC that Pellarin is of any assistance in these proceedings. In Pellarin, the Board stated that “if MPAC satisfies the Board that the assessment is reasonably correct…”. In this appeal, for the reasons indicated in paragraph 35, the Board is not satisfied that the specific $778,000 opinion of value is correct, or reasonably correct, because it is not supported by evidence adduced at this hearing supporting this specific value.

37The Board finds on the evidence that the correct current value is to be found within the $695,505 to $830,095 bracket. There being no evidence to prefer one end of the bracket over the other, the evidence indicates that the mid-point of the bracket, $763,000 (rounded) is the correct current value of the subject property as at the January 1, 2016 valuation day.

Issue 2 – Should an adjustment for equity, pursuant to [s. 44(3)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-a31/latest/rso-1990-c-a31.html#sec44subsec3_smooth)(b) of the [Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-a31/latest/rso-1990-c-a31.html), be made

38The Appellant submitted no evidence to support an equity reduction in the correct current value. MPAC submitted an equity analysis report making reference to 30 properties in the vicinity. Her conclusion was that properties were generally assessed at 97% of their current value. As this level of assessment was within the target range of 95% to 105% of current value, there is no basis for a downward adjustment of the correct current value.

CONCLUSION

39The Board finds that the correct current value as of the January 1, 2016 valuation day is $763,000. No adjustment for equity was required.

ORDER

40The Board orders that the 2022 and 2023 assessment be reduced from $778,000 to $763,000.