Tribunals Ontario
Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario
Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE:
November 07, 2024
FILE NO.:
WR 186995
Assessed Person(s):
Bonnie Joanne Vajda; Dave Julius Vajda
Appellant(s):
Bonnie Vajda; Dave Vajda
Respondent(s):
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 16
Respondent(s):
Town of Penetanguishene
Property Location(s):
89 Fox Street
Municipality(ies):
Town of Penetanguishene
Roll Number(s):
4372-010-007-02300-0000
Appeal Number(s):
3522478 and 3525762
Taxation Year(s):
2023 and 2024
Hearing Event No.:
784591
Legislative Authority:
Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel/Representative
Bonnie Vajda; Dave Vajda
Self-represented
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
Leokadia Walc
Town of Penetanguishene
No one appeared
HEARD:
September 16, 2024 by video conference
ADJUDICATOR(S):
Anita Lovrich, Member
DECISION
OVERVIEW
1Bonnie Vajda and Dave Vajda (the “Appellants”) filed an appeal with the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) pursuant to s. 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”) challenging the assessment of 89 Fox Street in the Town of Penetanguishene (the “Subject Property”) for the 2023 taxation year.
2Pursuant to the deeming provision under s. 40(26) of the Act, the Appellants are deemed to have brought the same appeals for the 2024 taxation year.
3The Subject Property was assessed at $225,000 for the 2023 and 2024 taxation years.
4It is the Appellants’ position that this assessed value is too high, and the Board should reduce it to reflect a total current value assessment (“CVA”) of $199,000.
5The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) is responding to these appeals. MPAC takes the position that the CVA should be reduced to $218,000.
6A representative for the Town of Penetanguishene attended the hearing but did not make submissions or otherwise participate in the proceeding.
Issues for the Hearing
7At issue in this proceeding are:
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
8For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that the current value is $218,000 (rounded) for the 2023 and 2024 taxation years, and that an equitable adjustment is not required.
ANALYSIS
Description of Subject Property
9The Subject Property is a one and three-quarter storey residential dwelling with a detached garage. It has an effective year built of 1970 and has a total building area of 1,900 square feet.
Issue 1 - What is the current value of the Subject Property as of the statutory valuation day of January 1, 2016?
Applicable Law
10In 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.”
11Accordingly, 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 2023 and 2024 taxation years is January 1, 2016.
12The 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 will consider sales of comparable properties to establish the current value of the Subject Property.
Evidence on Current Value
MPAC
13MPAC provided evidence regarding the sale of six properties. MPAC performed a time adjustment to reflect what these properties would have sold for on January 1, 2016:
Table 1
Property Address
Subject Property
89 Fox Street
Sale 1
20 Harriet Street
Sale 2
15 Church Street
Sale 3
12 Harriet Street
Sale 4
9 Don Street
Sale 5
21 Robert Street East
Sale 6
143 Main Street
Sale Date
September 2015
April
2015
April
2016
October 2016
July
2015
August
2016
Time Adjusted Sale Amount
$204,565
$209,675
$217,549
$229,926
$253,295
$219,208
Effective Site Area (Acres)
0.27
0.2
0.11
0.33
0.61
0.29
0.25
Effective Year Built
1970
1956
1940
1961
1968
1938
1940
Quality of Construction
5.5
5.5
6
5.5
5.5
6
6
Full storeys
1 3/4
1 3/4
1 3/4
1 3/4
1 3/4
2
1 3/4
Bedrooms
3
3
4
4
3
3
4
Bathrooms
1.5
1
1.5
2
1.5
2
1
Building Total Area (Sq. Ft.)
1,900
1,458
1,541
1,872
1,830
2,079
1,910
14MPAC submitted that the Subject Property should sell for more than 20 Harriet Street, 15 Church Street, and 143 Main Street, less than 21 Robert Street East, and similar to 12 Harriet Street and 9 Don Street. MPAC testified that this creates a range of value of between $217,549 and $229,926 based on the time-adjusted sale prices of what MPAC stated are the most similar properties. MPAC testified that the current value should be $218,000 (rounded) which is on the lower end of the narrowed range of sales.
Appellants
15The Appellants presented into evidence printouts of MPAC’s “My Neighbourhood – My Favourites” with comparisons of the Subject Property to its neighbours. They specifically referred to three proposed comparable properties, namely 29 Byrnes Crescent, 95 Fox Street, and 8 Bay Moorings Boulevard:
Table 2
Property Address
29 Byrnes Crescent
95 Fox Street
8 Bay Moorings Boulevard
Sale Date
May 2015
August 2015
August 2015
Sale Amount
235,000
184,000
245,000
Effective Site Area (square feet)
7,200
8,910
Information not provided
Year Built
2003
1900
Information not provided
Quality of Construction
6
5.5
Information not provided
Baths
2
1.5
Information not provided
Building Total Area (exterior square feet)
987
1,052
Information not provided
Assessed value
245,000
163,000
Information not provided
16The Appellants submitted that the Subject Property should be assessed at $199,000 as of the valuation day. When asked the basis for their opinion, the Appellants stated that this is their opinion as to the current value of the Subject Property, with the addition of a new porch added in 2020, when they reference other properties in their neighbourhood.
17The Appellants stated that the Subject Property had a hole in the floor, insulation, cracks in the foundation and that only four rooms have a heat source. They argue that the addition of a new 200 square foot porch in 2020 should not impact the current value of the Subject Property very much.
MPAC
18MPAC stated that the quality of the home was rated as 5.5, which is lower than the standard quality rating of 6.5, to reflect the condition of the Subject Property.
19MPAC submitted that 29 Byrnes Crescent is a bungalow with less than 1,000 square feet and is thus not similar to the Subject Property, that 95 Fox Street is 900 square feet smaller than the Subject Property and has no basement and is therefore also not a good proposed comparable property, and that 8 Bay Moorings Boulevard is a land lease property and is part of a retirement community. As a result, MPAC argued, none of the proposed sales constitute comparable properties for the Subject Property.
Findings on Issue 1
20The Board does not accept the Appellants’ proposed current value of $199,000, nor does it rely on the Appellants’ proposed comparable properties to determine current value of the Subject Property, for the following reasons:
29 Byrnes Crescent and 95 Fox Street are much smaller properties than the Subject Property and thus not comparable to the Subject Property.
The Appellants did not submit sufficient information about the size, age, quality, or other characteristics for 8 Bay Moorings Boulevard for the Board to determine if it is comparable to the Subject Property. The Appellants did not contest that the property is a land lease property and is part of a retirement community. The Board finds that this property is not comparable to the Subject Property.
None of the sale prices for the comparable properties presented by the Appellants were time-adjusted.
21The Board accepts and relies on MPAC’s evidence regarding comparable properties, for the following reasons:
The Appellants did not challenge these proposed comparable properties, or otherwise argue that MPAC’s proposed sales are not appropriate comparable properties.
MPAC has considered the Subject Property’s lower than average quality with a quality rating of 5.5, which is lower than the standard quality rating of 6.5, to reflect the condition of the Subject Property.
The Board finds that MPAC’s proposed comparable properties are sufficiently comparable to the Subject Property for the purpose of determining current value using the Direct Comparison Approach valuation methodology. They are all one and three-quarter or two-storey residential dwellings within 1.5 kilometres of the Subject Property. All sales occurred within sufficient proximity to the valuation day, and the sale prices were appropriately time adjusted. The structures are of the same or comparable quality of construction and of similar size.
22The Board finds that MPAC’s determination of the range of value is reasonable and finds that the property most comparable to the Subject Property is 12 Harriet Street as it has a similar effective site area and building total area as the Subject Property and the same quality. Therefore, the Board finds that the current value of the Subject Property is $218,000 (rounded).
Issue 2 - Is the current value equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity?
Applicable Law
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.”
Evidence on Equitable Adjustment
Appellants
24The Appellants testified that 95 Fox Street is similar to the Subject Property, so the Subject Property should be assessed at $184,000 like 95 Fox Street.
MPAC
25MPAC provided an equity analysis report reflecting an Assessment to Sales Ratio (“ASR”) analysis. The 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 being assessed below their current value, as demonstrated in an ASR less than 1.0, a reduction in the Subject Property’s assessment below the correct current value may be required to make the subject assessment equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity.
26The ASR is determined by comparing the assessment as returned to the time-adjusted sale price, expressed as a mathematical ratio. MPAC takes the position that equity is achieved if the median ASR falls between 0.95 and 1.05.
27MPAC relies on the sales of 30 single-family detached residential properties (not on water) that sold between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2016 within 0.7 kilometres of the Subject Property. MPAC testified that the analysis reveals an ASR of 1.02, which means that similar properties in the vicinity have been assessed at or near their current values and an equity adjustment is not required.
Findings on Issue 2
28The Board does not accept the Appellants’ evidence regarding equitable adjustment. The Appellants have not provided time-adjusted sale prices for their proposed comparable property, such that the Board cannot make a determination regarding an ASR.
29The Board accepts and relies on MPAC’s ASR analysis that demonstrates an ASR of 1.02. The Board finds that the ASR is a tool routinely relied on to ascertain whether a property requires an equitable adjustment. MPAC also provided a more representative sample size, which provides a general level of assessment of similar lands in the vicinity.
30The Board finds that, when reference is made to the assessments of the most similar properties in the vicinity of the Subject Property, no equitable adjustment to reduce the current value determined is required.
CONCLUSION
31The Board finds that the correct current value is $218,000, and that an equitable adjustment is not required.
ORDER
32The Board orders that the current value reflected on the s. 40 assessments for the 2023 and 2024 taxation years is reduced to $218,000.