Tribunals Ontario

Assessment Review Board

ISSUE DATE: December 13, 2024

FILE NO.: WR 187157

Assessed Person(s): Dmytro Yevgeniy Lyeypi; Nouri Mahfam Amini

Appellant(s): Dmytro Lyeypi

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 15

Respondent(s): City of Burlington

Property Location(s): 2213 Lakeshore Road

Municipality(ies): City of Burlington

Roll Number(s): 2402-060-615-01000-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3520756 and 3525687

Taxation Year(s): 2023 and 2024

Hearing Event No.: 784135

Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel/Representative
Dmytro Lyeypi	Andrew Attard
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation	Terence Johnston
City of Burlington	Paul Lacelle

HEARD: August 28, 2024 by video conference

ADJUDICATOR(S): Dan Weagant, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1Dmytro Lyeypi (the “Appellant”) appealed the current value assessment of the property at 2213 Lakeshore Road (the “subject property”) for the 2023 taxation year, because he believed the value returned by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) was too high. Pursuant to s. 40 (26) of the Assessment Act (the “Act”) that appeal was deemed to apply to the 2024 taxation year.

2The Appellant submitted that the correct current value of the subject property is $2,058,000 based on a comparison of sales of properties that the Appellant deems comparable. MPAC submitted that the correct current value is $2,088,000, using the same direct comparison approach to value.

3The Appellant submitted the assessment of the subject property should be reduced to approximately $1,658,000, resulting from a reduction in the current value for the purposes of achieving equitable assessment. MPAC submitted that there is no evidence to support a reduction in the current value determined for the purposes of equitable assessment.

Issues for the Hearing

4At issue in this proceeding is:

1. A determination of the correct current value of the subject property; and
2. Whether a reduction in the current value should be made to reflect equitable assessment.

Result

5The Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) finds that the current value of the subject property is $2,073,000.

6The Board also finds that, when reference is made to the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity, the current value requires a reduction for it to reflect equitable assessment.

7Therefore, for the 2023 and 2024 taxation years, the assessment of 2213 Lakeshore Road is reduced from the value returned, to $1,959,000 in the Residential property class.

ANALYSIS

Description of Subject Property

8The subject property comprises a 0.19-acre lot, on the north side of Lakeshore Road in the City of Burlington. During the years under appeal the property was improved with a two-storey dwelling with a total of 4,815 square feet (sq. ft.) of living area, an attached garage and a partially finished basement.

Issue 1 - What is the correct current value of the subject property?

9Both parties undertook a direct comparison approach to value to determine the current value of the subject property. Each party arrived at their respective positions independently with MPAC determining a value of $2,088,000 and the Appellant determining a value of $2,058,000. The difference reflects near consensus, with the two positions 1.46% apart.

10The Board finds that there is no substantive difference in positions of the parties. They both draw upon the same or similar comparable properties to arrive at their respective positions. The Board finds therefore that, on a balance of probabilities, the correct current value is the mid-point between the two positions of the parties, at $2,073,000.

Issue 2 - Does the current value determined require a reduction to achieve equitable assessment when reference is made to the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity?

Appellant’s Evidence and Submissions

11The Appellant submitted an assessment to sales ratio (“ASR”) study of 30 properties within one kilometre of the subject property that sold in 2015 or 2016. Those properties had time adjusted sale values (“TASs”) ranging from $1,008,800 to $2,208,000, with assessments ranging from $490,000 to $1,427,000. The Appellant testified that all thirty were single family dwellings, not on water.

12ASR studies compare the assessments of properties with their respective time adjusted sale prices. The Appellant submits that these 30 comparisons provide evidence that similar properties in the vicinity of the subject property are assessed at a value below the current value of those properties, as determined by their TAS price.

13According to the Appellant, the ASRs in the study ranged from 0.42 to 0.99, indicating that similar properties in the vicinity of the subject property are assessed below their respective current values. The Appellant further submitted that the median ASR in the study was 0.80; meaning that, in order to achieve equitable assessment, the current value determined for the subject property should be reduced by 20%.

MPAC’s Evidence and Submissions

14MPAC also prepared an ASR study, where the assessments of 30 properties in the vicinity of the subject property were compared to their respective TAS prices. MPAC’s search criteria included assessments from $1,163,000 to $2,561,000 and TAS values from $1,171,000 to $2,479,000. MPAC’s search criteria was also restricted to included single family dwellings, not on water and within two kilometres of the subject property.

15When MPAC analyzed this data set, the result was a median ASR of 0.97. According to MPAC this means that similar properties in the vicinity of the subject property are generally assessed at a value of three percent below their respective current values, as determined by their time-adjusted sale values. MPAC submitted that it is its practice not to recommend reductions to current values based on ASR studies where the median ASR is above 0.95. Accordingly, MPAC submits that the evidence does not support a reduction in the current value to achieve equitable assessment in this case.

Findings on Issue 2

16Section 44 (3) (b) of the Act states:

(3) – For 2009 and subsequent taxation years, in determining the value at which any land shall be assessed, the Board shall,

(b) 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.

17There is no specific method established in law for the Board to adopt in determining whether a downward adjustment in a current value is necessary for it to be equitable. In this case, the parties applied the same methods with different results.

18In making its decision on the best method of determining whether the current value determined represents equitable assessment, the Board relies on Municipal Property Assessment Corporation v Loblaw Properties Limited, 2017 ONSC 1299 (“Loblaw”), where Justice Nordheimer wrote, in paragraph 25:

In my view, the proper approach to be taken to determining what are “similar lands in the vicinity” is that set out by Saunders J. in Trizec, that is, that all points of comparison must be considered.

19At first glance, MPAC’s selection criteria and that of the Appellant were the same, with the exception that MPAC includes sales of properties within two kilometres while the Appellant’s sample included sales within one kilometre. Upon deeper review, the Board notes that the values of assessments and sales in the two studies vary widely and the respective findings vary as a result.

20In considering whether a reduction in the current value is necessary to reflect equitable assessment there are two elements to consider as set out in the Act; vicinity and similarity. There is no issue with vicinity in this case. All of the sales cited are for properties within two kilometres of the subject property.

21However, upon review of the properties in the parties’ equity analyses, there is little to discern among the selected properties to determine their similarity. The subject property lies on the north side of Lakeshore Road. That stretch of Lakeshore Road is somewhat unique in that it is a busy thoroughfare, across the street from lakefront properties. These two characteristics differentiate properties on Lakeshore Road from others that do not share those characteristics.

22In applying the concept of ‘all points of comparison’ the Board finds that the most similar properties used by the parties for the purposes of determining equitable assessment are as follows:

Address	2016 Current Value Assessment	TAS Sale Value	ASR
2173 Lakeshore	$1,034,000	$1,076,000	0.96
2229 Lakeshore	$1,427,000	$1,560,000*	0.915*
2439 Lakeshore	$1,124,000	$1,209,000	0.93
3293 Lakeshore	$2,561,000	$2,312,000	1.11
3361 Lakeshore	$1,550,000	$1,479,000	1.05
3411 Lakeshore	$1,510,000	$1,746,000	0.86

*average findings of Appellant and MPAC

23The median ASR of these six, most similar properties is 0.945 based on the evidence adduced by the parties.

24The Board finds that, when reference is made to the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity of the subject property, the current value determined requires a downward adjustment for it to be considered equitable. Accordingly, the current value determined, of $2,073,000 is reduced by 5.5% for an assessment of $1,958,985 ($1,959,000, rounded).

CONCLUSION

25The Board finds that the current value of the subject property is $2,073,000.

26The Board also finds that, when reference is made to the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity, the current value requires a reduction for it to reflect equitable assessment. That reduced assessment is $1,959,000.

ORDER

27The Board orders that the assessment of 2213 Lakeshore Road is reduced to $1,959,000 for the 2023 and 2024 taxation years.