Tribunals Ontario
Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario
Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE:
December 03, 2024
FILE NO.:
WR 187142
Assessed Person(s):
Maria Kozlowski
Appellant(s):
Maria Kozlowski
Respondent(s):
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 16
Respondent(s):
Township of Tiny
Property Location(s):
1708 Tiny Beaches Road North
Municipality(ies):
Township of Tiny
Roll Number(s):
4368-000-012-21200-0000
Appeal Number(s):
3523277 and 3525732
Taxation Year(s):
2023 and 2024
Hearing Event No.:
784683
Legislative Authority:
Sections 34 and 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel/Representative
Maria Kozlowski
Self-represented
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
Leokadia Walc
Township of Tiny
No one appeared
HEARD:
October 4, 2024 by video conference
ADJUDICATOR(S):
Anita Lovrich, Member Dan Weagant, Member
DECISION
OVERVIEW
1Maria Kozlowski (the “Appellant”) filed an appeal with the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) relating to assessments of 1708 Tiny Beaches Road North in the Township of Tiny (the “Subject Property”).
2The Subject Property was assessed pursuant to s. 34 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”) with a supplementary assessment of $531,000 for the 2023 taxation year for a newly built home. Prior to the supplementary assessment being applied, the assessment of the Subject Property was $50,000 (for land value only). It was subsequently assessed at $581,000 pursuant to s. 40 of the Act for the 2024 taxation year.
3It is the Appellant’s position that these assessments are too high, and the Board should reduce them to reflect a total of $450,000, including the land value and the supplementary assessment.
4The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) is responding to these appeals. MPAC takes the position that the current value is $516,000 for the s. 34 supplementary assessment and $566,000 for the 2024 s. 40 assessment.
5MPAC submits that the effective date of the supplementary assessment is March 2, 2023, whereas the Appellant argues that it is the Summer of 2024.
6A representative for the Township of Tiny attended the hearing but did not make submissions or otherwise participate in the proceeding.
Issues for the Hearing
7At issue in this proceeding are:
The correct current value of the Subject Property as of the statutory valuation day of January 1, 2016;
The effective date of the supplementary assessment; and
Whether the current value determined is equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity.
Result
8For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that:
The current value as reflected on the s. 40 assessment is reduced from $581,000 to $50,000.
The s. 34 assessment value is reduced from $531,000 to $448,000.
The s. 34 assessment effective date is changed from March 02, 2023 to June 20, 2024.
9The Board also finds that there is no evidence to support an equitable adjustment to the current value.
ANALYSIS
Description of Subject Property
10The Subject Property is a one-and-a-half storey Seasonal/Recreational Second Tier dwelling with a detached garage located at 1708 Tiny Beaches Road North in the Township of Tiny.
Issue 1 - What is the current value of the Subject Property as of the statutory valuation day of January 1, 2016?
Applicable Law
11In 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.”
12Accordingly, 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.
13The 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 considers sales of comparable properties to establish the current value of the Subject Property.
Evidence on Current Value
MPAC
14MPAC’s evidence regarding the sale of six proposed comparable properties is summarized in Table 1.
Table 1
Subject Property
1708 Tiny Beaches Rd N
Property 1
54 Bellehumeur Rd
Property 2
33 Lakeland Dr
Property 3
1371 Tiny Beaches Rd N
Property 4
1024 Concession 18 W
Property 5
1198 Tiny Beaches Road North
Property 6
1405 Tiny Beaches Road North
Address
1708 Tiny Beaches Rd N
54 Bellehumeur Rd
33 Lakeland Dr
1371 Tiny Beaches Rd N
1024 Concession 18 W
1198 Tiny Beaches Rd N
1405 Tiny Beaches Rd N
Property Code & Desc.
(392) Seasonal/ Recreational Dwelling-Second Tier On Water
(301) Single Family Detached (Not On Water)
(395) Seasonal/ Recreational Dwelling-Second Tier 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)
Current Value Assessment
$566,000
$426,000
$390,000
$273,000
$386,000
$563,000
$438,000
Sale
Sale Date
20161107
20160408
20170511
20161220
20150630
20141219
Time Adjusted Sale Amount
$382,000
$455,000
$387,000
$449,000
$696,000
$450,000
Effective Site Area (Acres)
0.34
0.3
0.35
0.34
0.35
0.51
0.4
Waterfront Variable(s)
(Y) Second Tier, Year Round Residence
(Y) Second Tier, Year Round Residence
(Y) Second Tier, Year Round Residence
Effective Year Built
2023
2015
2007
1997
2016
1991
2014
Structure Variable(s)
(C) Concrete Slab Foundation
Quality of Construction
7
6.5
7
6
7
7
7
Full Storeys
2 Storeys
1 3/4 Storeys
2 Storeys
1 Storey
1 Storey
1 Storey
Baths
2.5
2.5
2.5
2
2
3.5
3
Building Total Area (SF)
2,720
2,284
1,934
1,510
1,833
3,796
1,598
Basement Area (SF)
1,269
1,266
1,833
1,407
1,598
Finished Basement Area (SF)
418
1,358
Secondary Structure(s)
Structure Description
(101) Detached Garage
(116) Attached Garage
(116) Attached Garage
(116) Attached Garage
(116) Attached Garage
(116) Attached Garage
Year Built
2023
2015
2007
1985
1985
2014
Building Total Area (SF)
1213
758
800
583
424
538
Quality of Construction
4
3
4
3
4
4
Structure Description
(117) Carport
Year Built
2000
Building Total Area (SF)
338
Quality of Construction
1
15MPAC testified that:
54 Bellehumeur Road is inferior to the Subject Property smaller, eight years older, smaller attached garage, lower quality class of construction and further distance from waterfront (not second tier) and only 30% finish in basement.
33 Lakeland Drive is comparable/slightly inferior to the Subject Property as it is smaller, sixteen years older, has a smaller garage but it has the same quality class and has a finished basement.
1371 Tiny Beaches Road North is significantly inferior to the Subject Property is approximately 1,200 square feet smaller, approximately 50 years older, has a lower quality class of construction (6), and a smaller garage.
1024 Concession 18 West is inferior to the Subject Property as it is approximately 900 square feet smaller, eight years older, has no secondary structures and is a further distance from the waterfront such that is not a second-tier property, although it has a full basement with no finish.
1198 Tiny Beaches Road North is superior to the Subject Property as it is approximately 1,000 square feet larger, has a partial basement with no finish, and underwent significant renovations in 2000. It has the same quality class as the Subject Property. However, it is 58 years older. Like the Subject Property, it has access to the beach via a common use lot.
1405 Tiny Beaches Road North is comparable/slightly inferior as it is approximately 1,100 square feet smaller, approximately nine years older, and has a smaller garage, although it has a full basement that it mostly finished.
16MPAC submitted that the Subject Property should sell for more than 54 Bellehumeur Road, 33 Lakeland Drive, 1371 Tiny Beaches Road North, 1024 Concession 18 West and 1405 Tiny Beaches Road North and less than 1198 Tiny Beaches Road North. MPAC submitted that the current value should be within the resulting, narrowed range of $455,000 to $696,000 and that a current value of $566,000 is reasonable based on the characteristics of its proposed comparable properties.
17MPAC testified that the Subject Property is code 392 as it is a seasonal dwelling whereas some of the proposed comparable properties are full-time residences. Where a property is a second-tier property (separated by one lot from the water), MPAC reflects this by way of a second-tier variable to indicate that second-tier waterfront properties have a higher value than properties that are further from the water. Further, MPAC testified that a property with a property code of 392 would be comparable to a property that is a full-time residence (code 301) that is second tier and that has had a second-tier variable applied to it. MPAC testified that it has not added a variable for a water view to the Subject Property.
18MPAC testified that it has not found that properties built on concrete slabs in the Subject Property’s neighbourhood are valued lower than other properties. It stated that the Subject Property has been assessed as being without a basement. MPAC indicated that the Appellant had not presented into evidence any proposed sales with floating slab foundations.
19With respect to the question of some unfinished area on the second floor, MPAC stated that it took the limited ceiling height and pitch of roof in places into account and adjusted the home from a two-storey property to a one-and-a-half storey property. MPAC testified that all the space on the second floor was usable living space and stated that the ceiling is an architectural feature that adds to the grandeur of the Subject Property.
20MPAC testified that the quality of the Subject Property is an above average custom built home with features that include a wall of windows in living room, cut up roof line with multiple dormers, cathedral ceiling, glass railings, waterfall stone countertop in kitchen, floating vanities, separate games room large free standing bathtub, and a large glass shower and therefore fits into almost all bullet points in the description of a home of quality 7.
21MPAC testified that the properties in the Township of Tiny are too diverse for the principle of conformity to apply, and the principle does not apply to seasonal or vacation homes.
22With respect to the Appellant’s table of proposed comparable properties, MPAC argues that the information regarding the total building areas and qualities presented by the Appellant is not factual and is based partially on information obtained from MLS which is not always accurate. MPAC stated that total living area should not include basement areas as the Appellant has included in her chart.
23MPAC testified that the comparable properties that the Appellant presented as the most comparable to the Subject Property is 50 years older than the Subject Property, over 1,200 square feet smaller than the Subject Property and states that MPAC relies on its own exterior measurements whereas the Appellant relies on MLS listings to state that the living space comprises 1,700 square feet.
24Finally, MPAC testified that the value of the vacant land on the Subject Property was assessed as $50,000 in 2022 and that its opinion of the value of the supplementary assessment is $516,000.
Appellant
25Table 2 is the summary of evidence submitted by the Appellant. The information included is an amalgam of MPAC data and data obtained from the Multiple Listing Service website (“MLS”):
Table 2
Address
Time Adjusted Sale Price/ sale/Assessed value
Lot Size
Total above ground area
Basement: area
(sq ft)
Total living area finished
Quality of const. house
Quality of const. garage
Location: (dist. to water)
1708 Tiny Beaches Road North
(Subject property)
$566,000
0.34A
2,720
Should read 2,500)
no/ floating slab/no foundation
2,500
(not 2,720)
7 (should be lower)
4
(should be lower)
254m
54 Bellehumeur Road.
$382,000
0.30A
2,300
1,100
finished
3,300
comparable
superior
1,461m
33 Lakeland
$455,000
0.33A
1,980
1,000
finished
2,980
superior
superior
124m
1371 Tiny Beaches Road North
$387,000
0.34A
1,700
no
1,700
comparable
comparable
106m
1024 Concession 18
$449,000
0.35A
1,852
1,800 unfinished
1,852
superior
No
156m
1405 Tiny Beaches Road North
$450,000
0.40A
1,592
1,500
finished
3,000
comparable
superior
126m
42 Rue Jules Leger
$465,000
0.46A
3,900
2,000 unfinished
3,900
comparable
superior
132m
26The Appellant testified that:
1371 Tiny Beaches Road North is most comparable to the Subject Property as it has a superior location to the Subject Property but is smaller and is very close to the beach with a beautiful view of the beach. It is approximately 50 years old but fully renovated with modern upgrades with comparable finishes to the Subject Property. She testified that based on all its features and the selling price of 1371 Tiny Beaches Road North, the current value of the Subject Property is $450,000.
MPAC’s determination of the quality class of the Subject Property is too high as it should not be classified as above average.
The Subject Property has a floating slab foundation that sits directly on the ground with no inground foundation and constructed with most economic materials and assert that this would affect the Subject Property’s values. She testified that this foundation should lower the quality classification lower than the class of 7 assigned by MPAC.
The materials used to construct the Subject Property were of average or below average quality, including an IKEA-style MDF kitchen, home depot doors, windows being small to average apart from the living room, a narrow stairway, sliding doors that are smaller than average, bathroom missing shower cabinet, low grade MDF trimming; Home Depot interior doors, heating bulkheads on the main floor (living, dining, kitchen, bedroom) that are consequences of not having basement space to run heating system; unfinished side porch with unfinished siding; no walk-in closets, no closets with shelving; no laundry room, rough in garage with attic storage area only 8 feet height that only allows 7 feet height door (majority of new garages have 10 feet height), no automatic garage door opener, and the garage is unfinished with one bulb and only 8 feet and no drywall or automatic garage opener.
None of the proposed comparables presented by MPAC were built on a floating slab like the Subject Property.
The Subject Property’s total square footage is overstated and the actual measurement 1,006 square. feet. as the second floor area does not meet the minimum height required by the building code to be considered a regular second floor. Only one of the comparables included in MPAC’s report has no basement, namely, 1371 Tiny Beaches Road North. However, this comparable has a regular foundation that the Subject Property does not have and a superior location with direct view of the sandy beach and the lake.
1198 Tiny Beaches Road North should be excluded from the proposed comparables since it is not similar to the Subject Property as it is a unique custom home on a distinctive large lot with direct access to the beach. The property has a full basement, over 4,000 square feet of living space above ground, 5 bedrooms over split levels, superior quality finishes, a solarium, a steam room, and two ensuite bathrooms. The lot size is almost double in size, it has an unobstructed view of the lake from the balcony and the ceilings in the basement area are 12 feet high. She obtained this information from MLS.
MPAC neglected to apply the principle of conformity to the appraisal of the Subject Property - that a home is more likely to increase in value when it conforms to other houses in the neighbourhood. The Appellant cited an example of “…a grandiose four-story home, located in a neighbourhood of modest sized ranch-style homes, would be worth much less than if it were situated in a neighbourhood of similarly extravagant homes”.
Findings on Issue 1
27Based on all the evidence before the Board, the Board is satisfied that the Subject Property falls within the quality class of 7. Based on most of the Subject Property’s features, in comparison to those of MPAC’s proposed comparable properties, it most appropriately falls within quality class 7.
281198 Tiny Beaches Road is approximately 1,000 square feet larger than the Subject Property and has a partial, unfinished basement., It also has a larger lot area and the same quality class as the Subject Property and is 58 years older.
29Both the Subject Property and 1198 Tiny Beaches Road North are in a cottage area where access to the beach is an important comparative characteristic. While most of the proposed comparable properties in evidence are “second-tier on water” properties, only the Subject Property and 1198 Tiny Beaches Road North (“1198”) have access to the beach via a common use lot. This key feature makes it the most comparable property to the Subject Property.
30The time-adjusted price per square foot of 1198 Tiny Beaches Road North yields a value of $183.35. Applying this to the total square footage of the Subject Property amounts to $498,714 ($498,000 rounded).
31The Board finds therefore, that the total current value of the Subject Property is $498,000. By subtracting the current value assessment of the Subject Property prior to the supplementary assessment of $50,000, the Board finds that correct current value of the s. 34 assessment is $448,000.
Issue 2 - What is the effective date of the supplementary assessment?
Applicable Law
32In relation to the Subject Appeals, s. 34(1) (a) of the Act applies. This section allows for supplementary assessments to be issued where “…an increase in value occurs which results from the erection, alteration, enlargement or improvement of any building… or any portion thereof that commences to be used for any purpose.”
33Therefore, to determine the effective date of the supplementary assessment, the Board must determine on what day the Subject Property, which is a seasonal/recreational dwelling, “commenced to be used for any purpose.”
Evidence and Submissions of the Parties
MPAC
34MPAC testified that MPAC undertook several inspections and when visited on March 2022 the Subject Property was fully enclosed but without siding. MPAC noted that there was an inspection report issued by the Township, dated March 2, 2023 stating that occupancy was permitted, and adopted that date as the effective date of the supplementary assessment.
Appellant
35The Appellant testified that the Subject Property was under construction between 2020 and 2024. She adduced an inspection report dated March 2024 that indicated that occupancy of the building was permitted at that time after some repairs were made.
36The Appellant testified that she began using the property sometime in the Summer of 2024, but could not be specific as to the exact date.
Findings on Issue 2
37MPAC testified that it estimated the date of first use based on a Township inspection report, indicating permission to occupy. That inspection report was not in evidence. The best evidence before the Board of when the Subject Property commenced to be used for any purpose is the Appellant’s testimony that that first use of the Subject Property occurred when she began to use the Subject Property as a seasonal residence sometime in the Summer of 2024.
38The Board adopts the first day of the Summer of 2024 as the effective date based on the only evidence of when the Subject Property commenced to be used for any purpose.
39Accordingly, the Board finds that the effective date of the s.34 supplementary assessment is June 20, 2024.
Issue 3 - Is the current value equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity?
Applicable Law
40Section 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
41The Appellant did not adduce any evidence as to whether the current value would need to be reduced for the purpose of equitable adjustment.
MPAC’s Evidence
42MPAC provided an equity analysis detailing the sales of 30 property sales of Property Code 392: Seasonal/Recreational Dwelling - Second Tier On Water, Property Code 301: Single-Family Detached (Not On Water), Property Code 395: Seasonal/Recreational Dwelling - Not Located On Water. Those sales took place from December 1, 2014 to May 31, 2017 and are located within 5 kilometres of the Subject Property.
43MPAC’s analysis reflected a median Assessment to Sale Ratio (“ASR”) of 0.98. MPAC submits that this median ASR indicates that similar properties in the vicinity of the subject property are assessed at a value that is very close to their respected current values as demonstrated by their time-adjusted sale values.
44MPAC submitted further that the median ASR of 0.98 falls within the range of 0.95 to 1.05 that demonstrates equitable assessment within its data set.
Findings on Issue 3
45The Appellant made no submissions, nor did she adduce any evidence to suggest a reduction in current value was required.
46MPAC submitted that, based on their ASR study, no equitable adjustment is necessary.
47The Board finds, that there is no evidence to support an equitable adjustment to the current value.
CONCLUSION
48The Board finds that:
The current value as reflected on the s. 40 assessment is reduced from $581,000 to $50,000.
The s. 34 assessment value is reduced from $531,000 to $448,000.
The s. 34 assessment effective date is changed from March 02, 2023 to June 20, 2024.
49The Board also finds that there is no evidence to support an equitable adjustment to the current value.
ORDER
50The Board orders that:
The current value as reflected on the s. 40 assessment is reduced from $581,000 to $50,000.
The s. 34 assessment value is reduced from $531,000 to $448,000.
The s. 34 assessment effective date is changed from March 02, 2023 to June 20, 2024.
"Anita Lovrich"
ANITA LOVRICH
MEMBER
"Dan Weagant"
DAN WEAGANT
MEMBER
Assessment Review Board
Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb