Tribunals Ontario Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario Assessment Review Board Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: August 17, 2023
Assessed Person(s): Celine Akram; Zakir Akram
Appellant(s): Celine Akram
Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 16
Respondent(s): Town of Collingwood
Property Location(s): 15 Kennedy Avenue
Municipality(ies): Town of Collingwood
Roll Number(s): 4331-040-002-17270-0000
Appeal Number(s): 3506724 and 3513205
Taxation Year(s): 2022 and 2023
Hearing Event No.: 780879
Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Representative |
|---|---|
| Celine Akram | Self-represented |
| Municipal Property Assessment Corporation | Jennifer Kaesler |
| Town of Collingwood | No one appeared |
HEARD: July 4, 2023 by video conference
ADJUDICATOR(S): Carly Stringer, Member
DECISION
OVERVIEW
Background
1Celine Akram (the “Appellant”) brought an appeal before the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) pursuant to s. 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”) relating to the assessment of 15 Kennedy Avenue (the “Subject Property”) in the Town of Collingwood for the 2022 taxation year. An appeal was subsequently deemed for the 2023 taxation year pursuant to s. 40(26) of the Act.
2The Subject Property was assessed at $366,000 as of the statutory valuation day of January 1, 2016. The Appellant says this is too high, and the Board should reduce the assessment to $270,000.
3The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) is responding to these appeals. MPAC asks the Board to confirm the returned assessment.
4The Town of Collingwood has not responded to these appeals.
Issues for the Hearing
5At issue in this proceeding is:
- What is the current value of the Subject Property as of the statutory valuation day of January 1, 2016?
- 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 is $378,000.
7The Board finds that a reduction is required to make this equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity, resulting in an assessment of $321,000.
ANALYSIS
Description of Subject Property
8The Subject Property is a two-storey residential single-family townhouse with an attached garage. It has a building area of 1,216 square feet (“sq. ft.”), built on 0.04 acres of land in 2019.
Issue 1 – What is the current value of the Subject Property as of the statutory valuation day of January 1, 2016?
Applicable Law
9In accordance with s. 44(3)(a) of the 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”.
10Accordingly, the Board must first determine what the Subject Property would have sold for in an arm’s length transaction on the statutory valuation day. The valuation day for the 2022 and 2023 taxation years is January 1, 2016.
Evidence on Current Value
11The 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 Board may consider sales of comparable properties to establish the current value of the Subject Property.
MPAC’s Evidence
12MPAC provided the Board with evidence regarding sales of six (6) proposed comparable properties at or within one year of January 1, 2016 in a valuation report. All proposed comparable properties are two-storey freehold townhouses/rowhouses with attached garages. MPAC performed a time adjustment to reflect what the proposed comparable properties would have sold for on January 1, 2016.
MPAC’s Proposed Comparable Properties and Sales Information
| Property Address | 2016 CVA | Sale Date | Time Adjusted Sale Amount | Building Area | Year Built | Quality of Construction | Inferior, Superior or Similar |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Subject Property | $366,000 | September 2021 | 1,216 | 2019 | 6.5 | ||
| 28 Robbie Way | $670,000 | November 2016 | $531,495 | 2,217 | 2014 | 7.0 | Superior |
| 23 Robbie Way | $521,000 | September 2016 | $402,773 | 1,458 | 2014 | 7.0 | Similar |
| 20 Barr Street | $257,000 | December 2016 | $302,881 | 1,195 | 2009 | 6.5 | Inferior |
| 60 Barr Street | $255,000 | November 2015 | $329,135 | 1,200 | 2007 | 6.5 | Inferior |
| 46 Thomas Drive | $366,000 | September 2015 | $369,342 | 1,840 | 2006 | 6.5 | Similar |
| 39 Barr Street | $278,000 | April 2016 | $266,066 | 1,442 | 2008 | 6.5 | Inferior |
13MPAC testified that based on the time adjusted sale prices of the most similar properties (23 Robbie Way at $402,773 and 46 Thomas Drive at $369,342), the current value of the Subject Property is $378,000.
14Finally, MPAC testified that following the general reassessment for January 1, 2016, a -15% market adjustment was applied to the entire neighbourhood including the Subject Property. The reason for this adjustment, says MPAC, is that assessed values were returned higher than sales when comparing market conditions in the whole neighbourhood. MPAC testified that this -15% adjustment is accounted for in the $366,000 returned assessment, but not the $378,000 current value based on market evidence. For this reason, submits MPAC, the Board should confirm the returned assessment of $366,000.
Appellant’s Evidence
15The Appellant provided evidence relating to the property taxes of seven other townhouse properties in Collingwood of similar square footage and year built to the Subject Property.
16She argued that she is paying higher property tax than these seven other properties in her neighbourhood, and it can be inferred from comparing property taxes that the assessment of the Subject Property is too high.
17The Appellant submits the Subject Property should be valued at $270,000 which she bases on the returned assessments of 20, 60 and 39 Barr Street which were used in MPAC’s analysis. The Appellant stated that these properties are similar to the Subject Property and disagreed with MPAC’s evidence that they are inferior. Their returned assessments were $257,000, $255,000 and $278,000 respectively.
Findings on Issue 1
18The Board does not accept the Appellant’s proposed value of $270,000 or rely on the Appellant’s proposed comparable properties, for the following reasons:
a. The Appellant did not provide evidence of sales in sufficient proximity to the January 1, 2016 valuation day. The seven properties identified by the Appellant were sold five to six years after the valuation day. This is too far removed to be a reliable indicator of market value on January 1, 2016.
b. The Board does not accept the Appellant’s submission that the current value of the Subject Property can be determined by inference by comparing the property taxes of seven other properties, or by relying on the returned assessments of the Barr Street properties, as proposed by the Appellant. This is not the type of market-tested sale evidence that reliably indicates current value.
19With respect to MPAC’s evidence:
a. The Appellant contested MPAC’s evidence that the Barr Street properties were inferior to hers. MPAC’s evidence was that Barr Street is an inferior location compared to the Subject Property. The Appellant disagreed that the Subject Property was in a superior location, arguing that every property in Collingwood is within ten minutes of the Georgian Bay. The Board finds that the Barr Street properties are slightly inferior to the Subject Property not due to location, but because they are older. They were built in 2007 to 2009, compared to the Subject Property which was built in 2019. For this reason, while the Board accepts the evidence that the Barr Street properties are comparable to the Subject Property, the Board finds that the current value of the Subject Property should be higher than the Barr Street sale values ($302,881, $329,135 and $266,066 respectively).
b. The Board also accepts MPAC’s uncontested evidence that 28 Robbie Way is superior than the Subject Property. For this reason, the Board finds that the current value of the Subject Property should be less than the sale amount of 28 Robbie Way ($531,495).
c. The Board accepts and relies on MPAC’s evidence that 23 Robbie Way (which sold for $402,773) and 46 Thomas Drive (which sold for $369,342) are the most similar to the Subject Property. Both properties are townhouses/rowhouses, sold within a reasonable period of time in proximity to January 1, 2016, and are closely aligned in terms of the other elements of comparability outlined in the chart above. The Board accepts MPAC’s proposed current value of $378,000, as it fits comfortably in the $369,342 and $402,773 range of the two properties that are most similar to the Subject Property. The reasonableness of this value is further supported by the fact that it is more than the inferior properties on Barr Street, and less than the superior property at 28 Robbie Way.
d. With respect to the -15% market adjustment that MPAC testified is required, the Board finds that this adjustment is not reflected in the sales evidence provided in support of the correct current value. Rather, it is an adjustment that was made comparing the returned assessment to market evidence. In that regard, it is evidence that will be considered in relation to Issue 2 and whether an equitable adjustment is required.
20Accordingly, the Board finds that the correct current value as of January 1, 2016 is $378,000.
Issue 2 - Is the current value equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity?
Applicable Law
21Section 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 Equitable Adjustment
22MPAC stated at the hearing that equity was never raised as an issue by the Appellant, and accordingly it does not take a position on equity.
23However, MPAC did testify that following the general reassessment for January 1, 2016, a -15% adjustment was applied to the assessments of the entire neighbourhood. The reason for this adjustment, says MPAC, is that assessed values were returned higher than sales when comparing market conditions in the whole neighbourhood. For this reason, MPAC asked the Board to confirm the returned assessment of $366,000.
24The Appellant relied on the same evidence as outlined above in relation to current value. Specifically, the Appellant submits the Subject Property should be valued at $270,000 which she bases on the returned assessments of 20, 60 and 39 Barr Street (being $257,000, $255,000 and $278,000 respectively).
Findings on Issue 2
25While the Appellant did not raise the issue of an equitable adjustment with MPAC in advance of the hearing, this Board has held that it has a statutory duty to consider whether an equitable adjustment is required pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) regardless of whether the parties have raised it as an issue in dispute. In this instance, the Board must determine whether it has sufficient evidence before it to determine whether an equitable adjustment is required and, if there is sufficient evidence, decide whether it supports a reduction in the current value.
26The Board does not accept the Appellant’s submission that the assessment of the Subject Property should be based on the assessments of the Barr Street properties. The Board has found that these properties are inferior to the Subject Property.
27The Board accepts MPAC’s uncontested evidence that a -15% adjustment was applied to assessments in the neighbourhood. However, the Board does not accept MPAC’s position that the returned assessment of $366,000 should be confirmed. Applying -15% to a current value of $378,000 results in $321,300 as follows:
a. 378,000 x 15% = 56,700
b. 378,000 – 56,700 = 321,300
28Based on MPAC’s uncontested evidence that a 15% reduction was applied to assessments in the neighbourhood, the Board finds that an equitable reduction to the correct current value of $378,000 is required, bringing the assessment to $321,000 (rounded).
CONCLUSION
29The Board finds that the correct current value is $378,000.
30The Board finds that a reduction is required to make this equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity, resulting in a current value assessment of $321,000 (rounded).
ORDER
31The Board orders that the assessment be reduced to $321,000.
"Carly Stringer"
CARLY STRINGER MEMBER Assessment Review Board Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb