Tribunals Ontario
Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario
Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE:
December 11, 2024
FILE NO.:
WR 187145
Assessed Person(s):
Carl Stephen Ashford; June Leila Pessoa; Michelle Maureen Ashford
Appellant(s):
June Pessoa
Respondent(s):
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 31
Respondent(s):
Municipality of Huron Shores
Property Location(s):
59 Glen Street
Municipality(ies):
Municipality of Huron Shores
Roll Number(s):
5724-000-017-00703-0000
Appeal Number(s):
3519457 and 3526512
Taxation Year(s):
2023 and 2024
Hearing Event No.:
784864
Legislative Authority:
Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel/Representative
Carl Stephen Ashford; June Leila Pessoa; Michelle Maureen Ashford
June Pessoa
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
Kailey Langille
Municipality of Huron Shores
No one appeared
HEARD:
October 8, 2024 by video conference
ADJUDICATOR(S):
Anita Lovrich, Member
DECISION
OVERVIEW
1June Pessoa (the “Appellant”) 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”) related to of 59 Glen Street in the Municipality of Huron Shores (the “Subject Property”). The basis of this appeal is that the current value of the Subject Property is incorrect and inequitable for the 2023 taxation year.
2Pursuant to the deeming provision under s. 40(26) of the Act, the Appellant is deemed to have brought the same appeal for the 2024 taxation year.
3The Subject Property was assessed at $37,500 for the 2023 and 2024 taxation years.
4Much of the Appellant’s evidence related to an allegation that a house currently assessed to a neighbouring property, identified with a different roll number than the Subject Property, is wholly on the Subject Property and should be assigned to the Subject Property.
5The Appellant is also disputing the current value of the Subject Property, submitting that the assessed value is too high, and the Board should reduce it to a current value assessment (“CVA”) of $18,000.
6The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) is responding to these appeals. MPAC takes the position that the CVA should be confirmed at $37,500. Prior to the hearing of these appeals, MPAC brought a motion for an order dismissing the subject appeals in advance of the hearing on the basis that the Board has no jurisdiction to resolve matters regarding land titles or boundary line disputes and that there is no statutory ground on which the Board can decide this matter. The Board directed that this request be heard at the outset of the hearing of this appeal proceeding.
7A representative for the Municipality of Huron Shores (the “City”) attended the hearing but did not make submissions or otherwise participate in the proceeding.
Result
8The Board finds that the correct current value of the Subject Property is $37,632, and that an equitable adjustment (reduction) of $3,763 is required such that the resulting assessed value of the Subject Property is $34,000 (rounded).
PRELIMINARY MATTER
Request to dismiss the appeals and a determination of the Board’s jurisdiction to hear these appeals
Submissions of the Parties
MPAC
9MPAC argued that the subject appeals should be dismissed on the basis that the Appellant does not dispute the 2016 current value or the property classification. MPAC argues that her issue relates to her allegation that a house currently assessed to a neighbouring property, identified with a different roll number than the Subject Property, is wholly on the Subject Property and should be included in the assessed value of the Subject Property. The Board observes that this would have the potential to increase the current value but, nonetheless, was an area of concern to the Appellant.
10MPAC submits that the Board has no jurisdiction to resolve matters regarding land titles or boundary line disputes and there is no statutory ground on which the Board can decide this matter. It argues that the appeals should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 24(a) or (b) of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”).
11Rule 24 provides:
Dismissal of a Proceeding
- The Board may dismiss a proceeding without holding a hearing, or after a hearing, if:
(a) the Board is satisfied that it is without jurisdiction to hear the appeal;
(b) the Board is of the opinion that the proceeding is frivolous or vexatious, is commenced in bad faith or only for the purpose of delay;
12MPAC argues that the Superior Court of Justice and the Boundaries Tribunal, through the Boundaries Act, has jurisdiction to determine the issues raised by the Appellant. MPAC further submits that these appeals should be dismissed as they were not properly made because notice of the appeals was not given to the assessed person of the house that the Appellant claims is on her property, as required by s. 40(9) of the Act, which states:
Where appeal concerns another person
(9) Where the appeal concerns the assessment of another person,
(a) the notice of appeal shall state a name and address where notices can be given to the person; and
(b) the appellant shall deliver or mail a copy of the notice of appeal to the person within the time limited by subsection (6), (7) or (8), as the case may be.
Appellant
13The Appellant argues that she believed that the Board was the correct legal avenue for all the issues she has raised. However, she submits that she is also disputing the current value of the Subject Property, arguing that the assessed value is too high, and the Board should reduce it to $18,000.
Findings on the Preliminary Matter
14Section 40(1) of the Act confirms the Board’s jurisdiction:
Appeal to Assessment Review Board
40 (1) Any person, including a municipality, a school board or, in the case of land in non-municipal territory, the Minister, may appeal in writing to the Assessment Review Board,
(a) on the basis that,
(i) the current value of the person’s land or another person’s land is incorrect,
(ii) the person or another person was wrongly placed on or omitted from the assessment roll,
(iii) the person or another person was wrongly placed on or omitted from the roll in respect of school support,
(iv) the classification of the person’s land or another person’s land is incorrect, or
(v) for land, portions of which are in different classes of real property, the determination of the share of the value of the land that is attributable to each class is incorrect; or
(b) on such other basis as the Minister may prescribe.
15Section 44 further states that the Board has the authority to re-open the whole question of the assessment upon an appeal on any ground:
Assessment may be open upon appeal
44 (1) Upon an appeal on any ground against an assessment, the Assessment Review Board or court, as the case may be, may reopen the whole question of the assessment so that omissions from, or errors in the assessment roll may be corrected, and the amount for which the assessment should be made, and the person or persons who should be assessed therefor may be placed upon the roll, and if necessary the assessment roll, even if returned as finally revised, may be opened so as to make it correct in accordance with the findings made on appeal.
16The Board notes that contents of the assessment roll include the property description of a property:
Assessment roll
Contents
14 (1) The assessment corporation shall prepare an assessment roll for each municipality, for each locality and for non-municipal territory and the assessment roll shall contain the following information as well as the information required under subsections (1.1) and (1.2):
- A description of each property sufficient to identify it.
(Emphasis added.)
17The first question raised in this preliminary matter is whether the Board has the jurisdiction, in re-opening the assessment, and the contents of the assessment roll, to amend the description of a property, as it is described on the assessment roll and to make a determination as to the correct boundary lines of a property.
18The Board notes that in section 1 of the Act, the definitions section of the Act, land is defined as:
“land”, “real property” and “real estate” include,
(a) land covered with water,
(b) all trees and underwood growing upon land,
(c) all mines, minerals, gas, oil, salt quarries and fossils in and under land,
(d) all buildings, or any part of any building, and all structures, machinery and fixtures erected or placed upon, in, over, under or affixed to land,
(e) all structures and fixtures erected or placed upon, in, over, under or affixed to a highway, lane or other public communication or water, but not the rolling stock of a transportation system; (“biens-fonds”, “biens immeubles”, “biens immobiliers”)
19A search of the word “boundary” in the Act reveals that there are only specific instances of the word referring to international bridges and tunnels, pipe lines, and apportionment of assessment for structures, pipes, and poles in sections 3, 25, and 26. There is no general definition.
20In looking at what else in the Act could assist the Board in determining the Board’s jurisdiction regarding the property’s description, the Board turns to s. 17 of the Act, which provides that:
Land assessed against owner
17 (1) Subject to section 18, land shall be assessed against the owner
21Therefore, land is assessed against the owner and the definition of land makes it clear that land is synonymous and interchangeable with “real property” and “real estate”. Therefore, real property is assessed against an owner. The term “owner” is not defined in the Act.
22The Divisional Court decision of Municipal Property Assessment Corporation v. BCE Place Limited, 2009 CanLII 50862 (ON SCDC) (“BCE Place”) considered the definition of owner in relation to the Act, stating at paragraph 22:
Section 17(1) of the Act states that “land shall be assessed against the owner”. The term “owner” is not defined in the Act, but has been interpreted to mean the legal owner of the land. Our Court of Appeal has held that where land is comprised of interests owned by tenants or third parties other than the owner of the underlying land, all of the interests are assessed against the owner of the underlying land (see: Carsons’ Camp Limited v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation et al. (2008), 2008 ONCA 17, 88 O.R. (3d) 741 (Ont. C.A.), at paras. 14-15).
[Emphasis added.]
23In Ontario, a person cannot be the owner of real property unless that real property is registered with the titles registry system and that person is the legal owner of that real property.
24From a purposive approach, if the Board found that it could amend the description of real property on the assessment roll, that could lead to a description of the property for tax imposition purposes that is inconsistent with its legal description registered with the land titles registry, which cannot have been the legislative purpose of the above sections of the Act. It is a well-established principle of statutory interpretation that the legislature does not intend to produce absurd consequences.
25Paragraph 33 of BCE Place reinforces the fact that the Board’s expertise and jurisdiction do not extend to matters of real property. The Court stated that:
The Board was called upon to interpret the meaning of the words “fee simple, if unencumbered”. Both the concept of “fee simple” and “encumbrances” are questions of real property that do not fall within the expertise of the Board but, rather, lie within the expertise of the court.
26Therefore, the Board finds that it does not have the jurisdiction to make a determination regarding a boundary related to land or real property. As MPAC has argued, there is a separate tribunal that has the jurisdiction to resolve boundary disputes.
27The other question raised by this preliminary matter is whether the Board has jurisdiction to make a determination of current value in these circumstances. The Appellant’s materials do include a document of “Comparable Property Values” with assessments of other properties that appear to have been adduced for the purpose of being proposed comparable properties for the purpose of a determination of current value. The Appellant also stated that she is disputing the current value of the Subject Property as that is all the Board has jurisdiction to do. As a result, the Board finds that one of the issues raised by the Appellant is the issue of the correct current value of the Subject Property.
28If the Appellant pursues a remedy in the correct legal avenue and the boundary area dispute is resolved in the Appellant’s favour, the result would presumably be to increase the current value of the Subject Property or keep it the same, and not to decrease it. In these appeals, MPAC is not taking the position that the current value should be increased. MPAC takes the position that the CVA should be confirmed at $37,500. As a result, the resolution of the boundary dispute would not impact the determination of current value of the Subject Property and it would not be appropriate to suspend the Appellant’s appeal until the resolution of the boundary dispute.
29In summary, the Board has no jurisdiction to hear disputes related to land titles and boundary lines. However, the Board does have jurisdiction to hear the appeals of the current value of the Subject Property.
30The Board proceeded to hear the Appellant’s dispute related to current value.
Issues for the Hearing
31At 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?
ANALYSIS
Description of Subject Property
32The Subject Property is comprised of 8.11 acres of land. Located on this land is a that is 1,410 square feet and was built in 1925.
Issue 1 - What is the current value of the Subject Property as of the statutory valuation day of January 1, 2016?
Applicable Law
33In 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.”
34Accordingly, 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.
35The 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 and Submissions of the Parties
MPAC
36MPAC provided evidence regarding the sale of five properties. MPAC performed a time adjustment to reflect what these properties would have sold for on January 1, 2016:
Table 1
Property Address
59 Glen Street (Subject Property)
Sale 1 9 Mississagi Crescent
Sale 2 26 Main Street
Sale 3 8 King Street
Sale 4 23 Bridge Street
Sale 5 5 Allen Street
Sale Date
Nov 2015
January 2015
March 2016
August 2015
February 2014
Time Adjusted Sale Amount
$62,721
$67,141
$109,501
$98,555
$123,113
Current Value Assessment
$37,500
$64,000
$58,000
$99,000
$86,000
$129,000
Site Area (Acres)
8.11
0.28
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.99
Effective Year Built
1925
1977
1966
1961
1954
1976
Quality of Construction
5
5
4.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
Full Storeys
1 3/4
1
1 1/4
1
1 3/4
1
Bathrooms
1
1
1
1
1
1
Heating type
Other
Forced air
Forced air
Electric (baseboard/wall insert)
Forced air
Forced air
Building Total Area (Sq. Ft.)
1,410
757
953
1,208
1,568
1,527
Secondary Structures
Detached garage
Shed
Detached garage
37MPAC testified that all of its proposed comparable properties are single family detached homes on well and septic with low quality of construction and a quality class of between 4.5 and 5.5.
38MPAC testified that its proposed Sales 1 (9 Mississagi Crescent) and 2 (26 Main Street) are similar to the Subject Property while the remaining three proposed Sales are superior to it, noting that the residence on the Subject Property is in “fair” condition while all five proposed comparable properties are in average condition.
39MPAC testified that Sale 1 is the most comparable property to the Subject Property as it has the same quality class of 5 and is located very close to the Subject Property. It testified that 9 Mississagi Crescent is smaller but it is newer and has an average condition compared to the fair condition of the Subject Property.
40MPAC submits that the Subject Property would transact near the time-adjusted sale price of Sale 1 at $62,721 but stated that MPAC is only seeking to confirm the returned current value on the assessment for the 2023 and 2024 taxation years at $37,500 and that it is not seeking a higher current value.
Appellant
41The Appellant testified that MPAC’s proposed comparable properties are not comparable to the Subject Property as they are “livable” whereas the Subject Property is not. She testified that the Subject Property has no heating source, no water, no bedrooms, no working washroom and no hydro, which was not contested by MPAC.
42The Appellant provided evidence regarding seven proposed comparable properties.
Table 2
Property Address
7 Glen Street
Highway 17
2 Glen Street
19 Warnock Road
23 Warnock Road
21 Warnock Road
22148 Highway 17 East
Property description
Mobile home
Vacant residential land not on water
Vacant residential land not on water
Vacant residential land not on water
Vacant residential land not on water
Single family detached (not on water)
Single family detached (not on water)
Year built
1970
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1972
1900
Building exterior square footage
1,151
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1,415
1,846
Lot size (acres)
0.38
13.9
0.46
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.23
Current value assessment
$21,000
$13,000
$9,200
$9,100
$9,100
$165,000
$65,000
Sales indicator
No valid sales
No valid sales
Not provided
No valid sales
Not provided
No valid sales
No valid sales
43The Appellant proposed 7 Glen Street as the most comparable property to the Subject Property. She stated that although MPAC is assessing it as a mobile home, it does not look like a mobile home, but a house, and is in a better condition than the Subject Property.
44The Appellant testified that an MPAC inspector inspected the Subject Property in in mid-2023 when her brother was at the house and advised her brother that the house is in “poor” condition and that the house itself is “worth $5,000.”
45The Appellant testified that the vacant land properties she adduced as evidence were assessed at between $9,000 and $13,000 and so the vacant land of the Subject Property should not be valued at more than $13,000. She also stated that the “farmhouse” on the Subject Property should not be valued at more than $5,000 as per the inspector who she testified spoke to her brother in 2023. As a result, she submits that the correct current value should not be higher than $18,000. She stated that it is difficult to find a property that is comparable to the Subject Property and therefore based her view of the current value on the analysis above.
46The Appellant stated at times that the Subject Property is a one-acre property and at other times stated that, based on MPAC’s property profile of an effective frontage of 423.61 square feet and an effective depth of 614.73 square feet, the property amounts to just over 5 acres. However, as outlined in the analysis of the preliminary matter, the Board’s jurisdiction does not extend to making a determination as to the correct boundary lines of a property.
MPAC’s Response
47MPAC testified that it does not believe that any of the Appellant’s proposed properties are comparable to the Subject Property as none has sales that occurred near the valuation day and one was a gravel pit, one was a mobile home, two were residential vacant land, and it could not identify the rest. MPAC submitted that none was comparable to the Subject Property.
Findings on Issue 1
48The Board does not accept the Appellant’s proposed current value of $18,000, nor does it rely on the Appellant’s proposed comparable properties to determine the current value of the Subject Property, because the properties proposed by the Appellant did not sell on or close to the valuation day. Accordingly, there is no sale price for these properties on which the Board may rely. The direct comparison property appraisal approach requires consideration of arm’s length, market-tested sales. The Appellant presented the assessed values of seven proposed comparable properties, but an assessed value is not an arm’s length, market-tested sale.
49The time adjusted sales prices of the suggested comparable properties provided by MPAC, range from $62,721 (for the property deemed most comparable by MPAC) to $123,113. The Board notes that the Subject Property is older than the proposed comparable properties, and does not have a heating source, water, bedrooms and working washroom. The Subject Property is the only property that is only of “fair” condition which is lower than the “average” condition of the properties proposed by MPAC.
50As a result, the Board finds all of MPAC’s proposed comparable properties to be superior to the Subject Property.
51Given the lack of sales of comparable proposed properties, the Board finds that the best evidence of current value is MPAC’s proposed property Sale 1, which sold for $62,721, as it has the same quality class of 5 and is located very close to the Subject Property. However, to reflect the inferior condition and characteristics of the Subject Property, the Board finds that it should apply a reduction of 40% to the time-adjusted sale price. Accordingly, the Board finds that the correct value of the Subject Property is $37,632.
Issue 2 - Is the current value equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity?
Applicable Law
52Section 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
MPAC
53MPAC provided an equity analysis using an Assessment to Sales Ratio (“ASR”) analysis using its five proposed comparable properties. 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 that is 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. The ASR is determined by comparing the assessment as returned to the time-adjusted sale price, expressed as a mathematical ratio.
54MPAC relies on the sales of five single family detached residential properties (not on water) that sold between February 2014 and March 2016 within the same neighbourhood as the Subject Property (H24-204). MPAC testified that the analysis reveals an ASR of 0.90.
55MPAC also testified that the CVA per square foot of Sale 1 is $84 based on an average condition while the CVA per square foot of the Subject Property is $26 a square foot.
56Based on the above analysis, MPAC testified that the Subject Property is equitably assessed, and that no equitable adjustment is necessary, but if the Board finds that an equitable adjustment is necessary, that the equitable adjustment should be no more than 10%.
Appellant
57The Appellant did not differentiate in her evidence regarding current value and equitable adjustment. Therefore, the Board references the Appellant’s evidence regarding proposed similar properties as outlined in paragraphs 41 to 46, above.
Findings on Issue 2
58The Board does not accept nor rely on the Appellant’s proposed comparable properties to determine whether an equitable adjustment should be applied, for the following reasons:
a. The Appellant’s proposed comparable properties have no valid sales near the valuation day, such that the Board cannot determine an ASR using these properties.
b. The Appellant has not provided sufficient evidence regarding the particulars of these proposed similar properties for the Board to determine whether they are sufficiently similar to the Subject Property for the purposes of relying on their assessed values to determine whether an equitable reduction is required. The square footage and acreage of these proposed similar properties, alone, provides insufficient information for the Board to confirm whether these properties are sufficiently similar to the Subject Property for the purposes of an equity analysis.
59The Board accepts and relies on MPAC’s ASR analysis that demonstrates an ASR of 0.90 because it is the best evidence before the Board.
60That said, the Board does not accept MPAC’s submission that their equity analysis indicates that no equitable adjustment is required. In this instance, an ASR of 0.90 is less than 1.0, which suggests there is some measure of similar properties in the vicinity that have been underassessed. The Board finds that an equitable adjustment is appropriate in the circumstances, as follows:
Equitable reduction to current value: $37,632 x 10% = $3,763.
Current value - equitable reduction: $37,632 - $3,763 = $33,869
61Therefore, the resulting assessed value of the Subject Property is $34,000 (rounded).
CONCLUSION
62The Board finds that the correct current value of the Subject Property is $37,632, and that an equitable adjustment (reduction) of $3,763 is required such that the resulting assessed value of the Subject Property is $34,000 (rounded).
ORDER
63The Board orders that the Subject Property’s current value assessment for the 2023 and 2024 taxation years be reduced from $37,500 to $34,000.