Tribunals Ontario

Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: February 01, 2023 FILE NO.: RD 22-012

Assessed Person(s): Kori Levitt, Mark Appelby Appellant(s): Kori Levitt, Mark Appelby Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 09 Respondent(s): City of Toronto

Property Location(s): 205 Hillhurst Boulevard Municipality(ies): City of Toronto Roll Number(s): 1908-061-020-00900-0000 Appeal Number(s): 3462517 and 3487978 Taxation Year(s): 2021 and 2022

Legislative Authority: Rules 101-103 of the Assessment Review Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure

Parties	Representative
Kori Levitt and Mark Appelby	Surin Toor
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation	Submissions not requested
City of Toronto	Submissions not requested

REQUEST FOR: A review of the Board’s Decision WR 177692 issued on April 4, 2022 HEARD: In writing ADJUDICATOR(S): Christopher Voutsinas, Vice-Chair

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1On May 4, 2022, the Appellants, Kori Levitt and Mark Appelby, filed a Request for Review with the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) respecting the decision in Levitt v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 09, 2022 CanLII 28257 (ON ARB), issued on April 4, 2022 (“Decision”). The Decision bears the number WR 177692.

THE DECISION

2The Decision is in respect of appeals for the 2021 and 2022 taxation years filed by the Owners of the property located at 205 Hillhurst Boulevard, Toronto, a single-family residence (“Subject Property”).

3The Decision found that that the correct current value assessment of the Subject Property as of the statutory valuation date of January 1, 2016 to be $3,680,000.

RELEVANT RULES

4In considering whether to grant a Request for Review submitted pursuant to Rule 101 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”), the test to be applied is whether the requester has established any of the grounds set out in Rule 102, which states:

Grounds for Review

102. A request for review will not be granted unless the Board is satisfied that:

(a) the Board acted outside its jurisdiction or violated the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness;

(b) the Board made a significant error of law or fact such that the Board would likely have reached a different decision;

(c) the Board heard false or misleading evidence from a party or witness, which was discovered only after the hearing and would have affected the result; or

(d) there is new evidence that could not have reasonably been obtained earlier and have affected the result.

5The Board’s powers in considering a Request for Review are set out in Rule 103, which states:

Review Order

103. Upon considering a request for review, or on its own initiative, the Board may:

(a) dismiss the request; or

(b) after providing all parties an opportunity to make submissions:

i. confirm, vary, or cancel the decision; or

ii. order a rehearing on all or part of the matter.

The Request for Review: Grounds and Alleged Errors

6In their Request for Review, Kori Levitt and Mark Appelby request that the Board order a rehearing of the matter relating to current value, or in the alternative, that the Board set the assessment for the Subject Property for the 2021 and 2022 taxation years to $3,264,993. In overview, they cite one ground in support of their request as follows: the Board made a significant error of law or fact such that the Board would likely have reached a different decision.

7Specifically, the following two errors are described in the Request for Review:

1. the Board erred in its reliance on an incorrect quality of construction score for the Subject Property; and,
2. the Board made a mathematical error in the calculation of the median time-adjusted sale amount per square foot of built area applied to the Subject Property to determine current value.

8Per the above, Rule 102 grounds for review (b) are engaged.

9The Board did not request submissions from the other parties.

Issues for the Review

10The issues to be addressed in this Request for Review are as follows. Did the Board err:

1. in its reliance on an incorrect quality of construction score for the Subject Property; and,
2. in the calculation of the median time-adjusted sale amount per square foot of built area applied to the Subject Property to determine current value.

RESULT

11The Board finds no significant error in connection with the quality of construction score such that the Board would likely have reached a different decision.

12The Board finds an error in the determination of the median time-adjusted sale amount per square foot of built area as applied to the built area of the Subject Property such that the Board would have reached a different decision.

ANALYSIS

13Pursuant to s. 40(26) of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (“Act”), the Appellants brought an appeal before the Board taking the position that the returned assessment for the 2021 and 2022 taxation years was too high. The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) sought to confirm the returned assessment.

14Both MPAC and the Appellant presented evidence using the direct comparison approach. MPAC presented four sale properties for value comparison purposes, while the Appellants presented one additional sale property.

15The Board utilized the median time-adjusted sale amount per square foot of built area of all five sale properties applied to the built area of the Subject Property to determine the correct current value.

Issue 1: Did the Board err in its reliance on an incorrect quality of construction score for the Subject Property?

16In their Request for Review, the Appellants submit that at paragraph 9 of the Decision, the Subject Property is incorrectly described as having a quality of construction score of 8 when it is “in fact” an 8.5.

17The Appellants assert that an error in the quality of construction score of the Subject Property impacts the selection of similar property sales under the direct sales comparison approach used for valuation purposes. And, that two of the property sales had the same quality of construction score of 8.5 and that the evidence ought to have been weighted in favour of those two properties over the other three - two of which had quality of construction scores of 9, and one of 8.

18The Appellants do not establish whether the Hearing Member’s statement in the Decision at paragraph 9 of a quality of construction score of 8 for the Subject Property is a typographical error or an actual error in methodology, or whether the Appellants are challenging the quality of construction score attributable to the Subject Property.

Findings on Issue 1

19The Hearing Member evaluated the totality of evidence including all five sale properties presented by both MPAC and the Appellant for valuation comparison purpose. Those sale properties range in quality of construction from 8 to 9 - with one at 8, two at 8.5 and two at 9.

20The Appellants provide no reference point or methodology for the determination of a quality of construction score.

21To determine the similarity of the sale properties used for valuation comparison purposes, the Hearing Member evaluated multiple points of comparison - not just the quality of construction.

22At paragraph 18 of the Decision, in referencing quality of construction and comparable properties the Hearing Member concluded that:

The Board has analyzed the proposed comparable sales submitted by the parties and finds that all five property sales relied on by the parties are sufficiently comparable to the Subject Property because they are within 1km of the Subject Property; they all sold within the shoulder years of the valuation date; they are all two storeys; they are very close in terms of building area; they have virtually identical lot sizes; they are within 0.5 of the quality of construction of the Subject Property; and, with the exception of 216 Hillhurst Boulevard, they were constructed within five years of the Subject Property. Although 216 Hillhurst Boulevard is eight years older than the Subject Property, the Board is satisfied that it has sufficient other elements of commonality with the Subject Property to be comparable, although slightly inferior.

23While there may or may not have been an error in the score attributed to the quality of construction, it is clear from the above that whether the quality of construction was either 8 (per the Decision) or 8.5 (per the Appellants), the comparable properties would not have changed since they were within a range accepted by the Hearing Member, and the difference does not rise to a significant error of law or fact such that the Board would likely have reached a different decision.

Issue 2: Did the Board err in the calculation of the median time-adjusted sale amount per square foot of built area applied to the Subject Property to determine current value.

24In their Request for Review, the Appellants submit that at paragraph 20 of the Decision, the median time-adjusted sale amount per square foot of built area of all five of the property sales used for valuation comparison purposes is stated by the Hearing Member as $848.23. The Appellants submit that this is an error as the actual median value is $782.00

25The time-adjusted sale price per square foot of built area of each of the 5 sale properties is: $608.76, $752.24, $782.00, $848.23, and $928.68. These figures are not disputed. The median of these figures is $782.00, not $848.23.

Findings on Issue 2

26The Board finds that the Decision contains a significant error of fact in connection with the determination of the median time-adjusted amount per square foot of built area of the five sale properties used for valuation comparison purposes such that the Board would have reached a different decision.

27When the correct median figure of $782.00 is applied to the built area of the Subject Property, the resulting current value is $3,649,594.

28Once current value is determined the Board must decide whether an equitable reduction is necessary. The Parties agree that an assessment to sales ratio or ASR of 0.93 is appropriate, which the Board accepts.

29Applying the agreed-upon ASR of 0.93 to the current value of $3,649,594 yields an assessment value of $3,394,122 or $3,394,000, rounded.

ORDER

30The Board orders that the Subject Property’s returned assessment for the 2021 and 2022 taxation years be set at $3,394,000.