Tribunals Ontario
Assessment Review Board Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: July 26, 2023
Assessed Person(s): Ying Sun
Appellant(s): Ying Sun
Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 14
Respondent(s): City of Markham
Property Location(s): 63 Deib Crescent
Municipality(ies): City of Markham
Roll Number(s): 1936-030-212-69106-0000
Appeal Number(s): 3505380 and 3512625
Taxation Year(s): 2022 and 2023
Hearing Event No.: 780474
Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Representative |
|---|---|
| Ying Sun | Self-represented |
| Municipal Property Assessment Corporation | Tong Li |
| City of Markham | No one appeared |
HEARD: June 20, 2023 by video conference
ADJUDICATOR(S): Dan Weagant, Member
DECISION
OVERVIEW
1Ying Sun (the “Appellant”) brought an appeal before the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) relating to the assessment 63 Deib Crescent (the “Subject Property”) in the City of Markham for the 2022 taxation year. This appeal was subsequently deemed for the 2023 taxation year, pursuant to s. 40(26) of the Assessment Act R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”).
2In preparation for this hearing, the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) amended its opinion of value from $1,190,000 as returned, to $1,172,000.
3The Appellant takes the position that the adjusted assessment proposed by MPAC is still too high and that when the assessments of nearby properties are considered, the assessment of the Subject Property should be at or near $1,014,000.
Issues for the Hearing
4At issue in this proceeding is:
- A determination of the current value of the Subject Property.
- Whether a reduction in the current value should be made to reflect equitable assessment.
Result
5The Board finds that the current value of the Subject Property is $1,135,000.
6The Board further finds that, when reference is made to the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity, a reduction in the current value determined is required to reflect equitable assessment.
7The assessment of the Subject Property is reduced to $993,000, in the Residential property class.
ANALYSIS
Description of Subject Property
8The Subject Property is a corner lot of 0.18 acres, improved with a two-storey single-family dwelling, with 2,957 square feet of living area. It also has a basement area of 1,434 square feet; 1,075 square feet of which is finished. The dwelling has a two-car attached garage.
9The subject dwelling was bult is 1995.
Issue 1 – What is the current value of the subject property for the 2022 and 2023 taxation years?
MPAC’s Evidence
10MPAC compared the Subject Property to six properties in the same neighbourhood. These properties all sold in either 2015 or 2016. Two of the properties in MPAC’s sample actually sold twice each; once in 2015 and once in 2016.
11MPAC took the eight representative sale values in its sample and applied a Time Adjustment Factor (“TAF”) to each. These TAFs are derived from a statistical analysis of 339 sales of single-family dwellings in the City of Markham during 2015 and 2016. This process allows MPAC to compare the sales of comparable properties with their time adjusted sale (“TAS”) values as though they all sold on the valuation day.
12The results of MPAC’s analysis were TAS values ranging from $1,102,172 to $1,501,892 for the eight sales at the six proposed comparable properties selected. Using the median TAS value of these sales, MPAC arrived at a current value for the Subject Property of $1,172,000.
Appellant’s Evidence
13The Appellant focused on one property in the immediate neighbourhood, namely 62 Deib Crescent. This property is located directly across the street from the Subject Property. The Appellant testified that after she purchase the Subject Property in 2019, she compared MPAC’s Notice of Assessment to that of her neighbour at 62 Deib Crescent.
14The Appellant submitted that property assessment needs to be fair and that to be fair, similar properties should have similar assessments.
15The Appellant submitted that:
- the assessment at 62 Deib Crescent was $1,014,000;
- the Subject Property is similar to 62 Deib Crescent; and
- the assessment of the Subject Property should therefore be similar to that of 62 Deib Crescent.
Findings on Issue 1
16Current value is defined in the Act as follows:
current value” means, in relation to land, 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.
17It is clear from this definition that current value is driven by sales. The best evidence of current value is a sale of the subject property on or near the valuation day applicable to the years under appeal. In this case the valuation day stipulated in the Act for 2022 and 2023 is January 1, 2016.
18In the absence of such a sale, the courts have directed that the next best approach is to consider the sale values of properties that are comparable to the subject property.
19The Board finds that the best indication of the current value of the Subject Property is the average TAS value of MPAC’s proposed comparable properties 5 and 6; the two sales of 9 Hoake Road. This property sold in June 2015 and October 2016. The average of these two TAS prices is $1,135, 324. The comparability of 9 Hoake Road to the Subject Property is summarized below:
| Subject Property | 9 Hoake Road | |
|---|---|---|
| Year Built | 1995 | 1999 |
| Quality of construction | 7 | 7 |
| Number of Storeys | 2 | 2 |
| Lot area | 0.16 acres | 0.12 acres |
| Building Total Area | 2,957 | 2,963 |
| Basement Area | 1,434 | 1,606 |
| Finished Basement Area | 1,075 | 1,400 |
| Attached garage | 480 square feet | 480 square feet |
| Variables | Corner lot |
20From this comparison, the Board notes that 9 Hoake Road is four years newer than the Subject Property, has a larger basement and finished basement area and is not a corner lot. These differences suggest that the Subject Property should have a lower current value than that of 9 Hoake Road. The Board also notes that the Subject Property has a lot size that it is 1,742 square feet larger than 9 Hoake Road. This difference suggests that the current value of the Subject Property should be higher than that of 9 Hoake Road.
21There was no evidence at the hearing to adjust the sale values for these differences, with the exception of the corner lot variable applied to the Subject Property, of two percent. When considering the relatively minor differences in value indicated by this direct comparison, the Board finds that, on a balance of probabilities, the differences in lot size, corner lot location and building size serve to cancel one another out, indicating that the average sale price of 9 Hoake Road is the best evidence of the current value of the Subject Property.
22The Board finds therefore that the current value of the Subject Property is $1,135,000 (rounded).
Issue 2 – Does the current value determined require a reduction for it to represent equitable assessment when reference is made to the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity?
23Section 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.”
Appellant’s Evidence
24The Appellant relied on the assessment of the nearby neighbour at 62 Deib Crescent (“62 Deib”). This property is clearly in the vicinity of the Subject Property. The Appellant described this property as being very comparable in size, amenities and character. Photographic evidence of 62 Deib supported her submission.
2562 Deib has an assessment of $1,014,000 for the years under appeal.
MPAC’s Evidence
26By contrast, MPAC provided an equity analysis report detailing the sales of 30 properties located within 2 kilometres of the Subject Property, occurring between January 2015 and December 2016. MPAC calculated an Assessment to Sale Ratio (“ASR”) for each property. The ASR of a sample of sold properties is a tool often used to determine if properties in the vicinity, as a group, are assessed above or below their respective current values. The ASR is determined by comparing the assessment as returned to the time-adjusted sale price, expressed as a mathematical ratio.
27MPAC’s analysis reflected a median ASR of 0.97 from its sample of 30 properties, indicating that similar lands in the vicinity are assessed at a level of 0.97 times their respective sale values. MPAC submitted that this 0.97 median ASR indicates that equity is achieved because it falls within an industry-accepted range established by the International Association of Assessing Officers (“IAAO”) of 0.95 to 1.05.
28MPAC searched its corporate database to identify sales of Property Code 301: Single-Family Detached (Not on Water) properties from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2016 within 2.0 kilometres of the Subject Property.
Findings on Issue 2
29There is no specific method established in law for the Board to adopt in determining whether a downward adjustment in a current value is necessary for it to be equitable. In this case, the parties applied two different methods.
30The Appellant considered the assessment of one property nearby; MPAC considered assessments as they related to respective, time-adjusted sale values of 30 properties within 2 kilometres of the Subject Property.
31In making its decision on the best method of determining whether the current value determined represents equitable assessment, the Board relies on Municipal Property Assessment Corporation v Loblaw Properties Limited, 2017 ONSC 1299 (“Loblaw”), where Justice Nordheimer wrote, in paragraph 25:
In my view, the proper approach to be taken to determining what are “similar lands in the vicinity” is that set out by Saunders J. in Trizec, that is, that all points of comparison must be considered.
32MPAC was very clear in its equity study. Only two criteria were used in its search of properties for the equity study: location and the general ‘single-family dwelling, not on water’. Therefore, the Board cannot rely on this study as it does not use all points of comparison.
33MPAC’s valuation report sets out specific points of comparison between the Subject Property and six properties that sold in 2015 and 2016. Two of these properties sold twice in that time frame. That evidence referred to building type, size of lot and dwelling, age and quality of construction.
34MPAC’s current value study also provided the data necessary to calculate the ASR for each of the eight sales in the analysis. Those ASRs range from 0.73 to 0.97, with a median of 0.875. The Board finds that the best indication of whether a reduction in the current value determined is necessary when reference is made to the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity is the median of the ASRs in MPAC’s valuation report. This sample of eight sales takes into account all points of comparison available in evidence.
35When the median ASR of MPAC’s eight sales of 0.875 is applied to the current value determined of $1,135,000, the result is $993,125 ($993,000, rounded).
CONCLUSION
36The Board finds that the current value of the Subject Property is $1,135,000.
37The Board also finds that the current value determined requires a reduction for it to be considered equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity.
ORDER
38The Board orders that the assessment of 63 Deib Crescent is reduced from $1,190,000 to $993,000, in the Residential property class for the 2022 and 2023 taxation years.
"Dan Weagant"
DAN WEAGANT MEMBER Assessment Review Board
Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb