Tribunals Ontario

Assessment Review Board

ISSUE DATE: December 20, 2024 FILE NO.: WR 187242

Assessed Person(s): Victor Hugo Lucero; Betty Lucero Appellant(s): Victor Hugo Lucero, Betty Lucero Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 16 Respondent(s): Town of Innisfil

Property Location(s): 1078 Wisker Avenue Municipality(ies): Town of Innisfil Roll Number(s): 4316-010-009-12100-0000 Appeal Number(s): 3522359 and 3525705 Taxation Year(s): 2023 and 2024 Hearing Event No.: 784672

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

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel/Representative
Victor Lucero	Self-represented
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation	Adam Parker
Town of Innisfil	No one appeared

HEARD: October 3, 2024 by video conference

ADJUDICATOR(S): Dan Weagant, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1Victor Lucero (the “Appellant”) appealed the current value assessment of the property at 1078 Wisker Avenue (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 (24) of the Assessment Act (the “Act”) that appeal was also deemed to apply to the 2024 taxation year.

2As a result of the Request for Reconsideration process, MPAC offered a reduction in the revised assessment to $1,460,000 and amended the returned value accordingly. For the purposes of this hearing, MPAC produced a valuation report that includes an opinion of current value of $1,814,000. MPAC submits this as evidence that the correct current value assessment should not be lower than the returned value.

3The Appellant believes the assessment of the subject property should be reduced to approximately $1,163,000, based on comparisons with other properties in the same municipality.

Issues for the Hearing

4At issue in this proceeding is:

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

Result

5The Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) finds that the current value of the subject property is $1,675,000.

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 1078 Wisker Avenue is $1,575,000.

ANALYSIS

Description of Subject Property

8The subject property is described by MPAC as being a single detached dwelling on water. The land is divided into two parts by Wisker Avenue. The property has waterfront access to Lake Simcoe by way of a small portion of land east of Wisker Avenue. The dwelling and main portion of the lot lies on the West side of Wisker Avenue with an area of approximately 6,250 square feet.

9The property is improved by 5,763 square feet. dwelling on three levels. The dwelling was constructed in 2016 and features slab on grade construction and has no basement. An attached garage of 734 square feet. is part of the main structure.

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

MPAC’s Evidence and Submissions

10To arrive at its opinion of current value, MPAC applied the ‘direct comparison approach’ to value, whereby a subject property is compared to other properties that have sold in proximity to the valuation day in the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”) that applies to the years under appeal. For 2023 and 2024, the valuation day is January 1, 2016.

11MPAC selected six proposed comparable properties that sold between March 2015 and February 2017. In order to compare these sale values as though they sold on the valuation day, MPAC applied Time Adjustment Factors (“TAFs”) to each of the six sale values in its sales study. These TAFs were derived from a “price changes over time” study where the sale values of 512 single family dwellings in the market area of the subject property that sold between January 2015 and April 2017 were plotted on a linear graph. The resulting graph indicates the TAF to be applied to property sale values in each of the 29 months of the study.

12By applying the corresponding TAF to the sale prices of the six properties in its study, MPAC derived a Time Adjusted Sale (TAS) for each.

13MPAC submitted that the range of TAS values are between $897,564 and $1,675,449. This comparison resulted in TAS values per square foot of above ground living area ranging from $427 to $590. When finished basement areas are added to the above ground living areas of the proposed comparable properties, the range per sq. ft. is $259 to $409. All MPAC’s proposed comparable properties have a ‘waterfront variable’ applied indicating they have direct, lakefront access.

14MPAC submitted that the most comparable sale in its sample of six was Property 1, 1169 Woodland Drive (‘’Woodland’’), and based its valuation of the subject property on that comparison. Woodland is the largest of the comparable dwellings in MPAC’s sample with 3,556 square feet of living area above ground on two levels and 1,708 square feet of basement area; 1,451 square feet of which is finished. Woodland features a walkout basement meaning that the basement level is accessible directly from the exterior of the property. MPAC’s comparison of the subject to Woodland follows:

Table A

	Subject Property	1169 Woodland Drive
Lot Size/Dimensions	50 x 125; 6,259 square feet	60 x 239; 14,340 square feet
Variables	Indirect Waterfront - Lake	Waterfront - Lake
Year Built	2016	2015
Quality of Construction	7.5	8.5
Building Area	5,763 square feet on 3 levels	5,007 square feet on two levels and walkout basement
Attached Garage	734 square feet	759 square feet
TAS Value	N/A	$1,675,449 ($334/square feet of living area on 3 levels)

15From this comparison, MPAC concluded that the current value of the subject property should be higher than that of Woodland owing to the additional living area at the subject property. That additional value was calculated by applying the TAS value per square foot of Woodland ($334) to the 5,763 square feet at the subject property to arrive at a comparable value of $1,942,842.

16MPAC also submitted that an adjustment to the land value should be made to account for the difference in value between Woodland’s direct access to the lake and the subject property’s indirect access. To do so, MPAC compared the sales history of both properties, noting that Woodland sold in June of 2014 for $420,000 and that the subject property sold on January of 2015 for $310,000. MPAC noted that both properties included existing dwellings at the time of those sales and that those dwellings were removed to provide for the construction of the dwellings that now exist on those lots.

17MPAC submitted that this comparison suggests that all other things being equal, the subject property has a land value of approximately $110,000 less than the land value at Woodland. From that adjustment, and other minor adjustments to building area, MPAC determined its current value of $1,814,482 or $1,814,000 rounded.

Appellant’s Evidence and Submission

18The Appellant arrived at his opinion of current value by comparing the subject property with the assessments of nine other properties the local market area. In doing so, the Appellant made adjustments for the differences between the comparable properties and the subject property. The Appellant’s comparisons are summarized below:

Table B

Comparable Number	Waterfront Relationship	Assessed Value	Construction Date	Lot Area (sq. ft)	Living Area (sq. ft)	Assessment Per Square Foot	No. Storeys	Adjusted Comparative Value of the Subject Property
Subject Property	Indirect	N/A	2016	6,996	5,763	3
1. 935 Gilmore Avenue	N/A	$471,000	1969	12,053	3,000	$157	1	$1,128,384
2. 1318 Lormel Gate	N/A	$429,000	2013	3,360	2,095	$205	2	$884,651
3. 1300 Dallman Street	N/A	$443,000	2015	3,748	2,000	$222	1	$881,556
4. 1044 Wisker Avenue	N/A	$527,000	1938	17,011	3,000	$176	2	$1,410,089
5. 1283 Maple Road	Direct	$503,000	1935	11,216	1,500	$335	1	$1,599,606
6. 1048 Green Street	N/A	$538,000	2015	4,620	3,500	$154	2	$801,726
7. 1031 Wisker Avenue	Direct	$1,040,000	1925	19,528	2,500	$416	2	$1,995,301
8. 1377 Maple Road	Direct	$965,000	1996	12,003	5,000	$193	2	$1,058,220
9. 1316 Bardeau Street	N/A	$526,000	2015	7,125	3,500	$150	2	$707,143

19Of the nine properties referenced by the Appellant, three have direct waterfront access and the remaining six have no waterfront access. For each proposed comparable property, the Appellant made value adjustments to their respective assessment values to account for the differences in characteristics between them and the subject property.

20Where the Appellant viewed the comparable property to be superior in a specific characteristic, (e.g. Lot size) the comparable property’s assessed value was reduced by the value of that difference. Conversely, where the Appellant viewed the comparable property to be inferior to the subject property, the comparable property’s assessed value was increased by that difference.

21The Appellant testified that he used generally accepted appraisal values to make the adjustments. For instance, he cited three specifics: $10,000 per year for age difference, $100 per square foot of dwelling living area and $10,000 for each bathroom.

22Using these comparisons, the Appellant submitted that the range of values is from $707,143 to $1,995,300, with an average of $1,162,964 ($1,163,000, rounded). The Appellant submits that this is the best evidence of the correct current value of the subject property and that the assessment returned on the roll for the two years under appeal should be reduced accordingly.

Findings on Issue 1

23The Act defines current value as being “…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…” on the valuation day set for the year under appeal.

24This Board had widely held that a sale of a property under appeal that occurred at or near the valuation day for the year under appeal is the best indication of its current value. Where no such sale exists, the Board has held that the next best evidence is the sale of comparable properties.

25MPAC relied on a comparison of the subject property to the sale of a property on Woodland Drive (‘Woodland’). MPAC explained that this property was selected because it most closely compared to the subject property in terms of size and age, noting that the amount of living area at the subject property was much larger than most comparable properties in its comparison set and that Woodland was the closest property with comparable characteristics. Because of the unique size characteristic of the subject property, MPAC submitted that it needed to expand its search area to over 30 km to come up with a suitable comparison.

26MPAC converted the TAS per square foot value of the living area at Woodland and applied that value to the 5,763 square feet of the subject property to arrive at a value of $1,942,842. That value was adjusted for the difference in the nature of the two lots. Woodland has direct waterfront property while the subject property has indirect access to the lake. To account for that difference, MPAC reduced the value of the lot of the subject property, derived from the difference in the pre-development sale values of the subject property and Woodland.

27MPAC’s result is $1,814,000.

28The Appellant took a different approach to determining the current value of the subject property. Instead of using sale values, the Appellant adjusted the assessed values of nine properties he deemed to be sufficiently similar for the purpose, arriving at a value of $1,163,000.

29The Board disregards the Appellant’s approach. Comparing assessed values does not meet the definition of current value in the Act which stipulates that current value is based on sales. There is no evidence in the Appellant’s submissions that these assessed values represent sale values of the comparable properties used. The Appellant’s approach is akin to a comparison based on assessment. That comparison is a case related to whether or not the current value determined for the subject property is equitable with the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity. The Appellant’s evidence is considered in the section below regarding equitable assessment.

30The Board prefers MPAC’s approach where the subject property was compared to the TAS values of waterfront and indirect waterfront properties. The Board recognizes the unique attributes of the subject property and accepts that the best evidence of its is a direct comparison to Woodland. However, the Board takes a different approach in that direct comparison. Woodland has a larger lot and has direct lake access. It is of similar age (one year older) and has a quality of construction rating of 8.5 as opposed to the 7.5 rating applied to the subject property. It has a similarly sized attached garage and has a living area that is slightly smaller than the subject property. Woodland’s living area includes finished living space in a walk-out basement, as opposed to the additional third floor living space at the subject property.

31By comparing these qualitative differences between Woodland and the subject property, the Board finds that Woodland is superior with respect to quality of construction, lot size and lake access. The Board finds that the subject property is superior to Woodland with respect to dwelling size.

32The Board finds therefore that, on a balance of probabilities, the subject property and Woodland have a similar current value. The Board finds that the current value of the subject property based on the time adjusted sale of Woodland is $1,675.449 ($1,675,000 rounded).

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

33The Appellant submitted that the fair and equitable assessment of the subject property should be in the range of the assessments applied to those properties he deems to be most similar to the subject property and that are closest in proximity. In addition to the properties cited in Table A above, the Appellant considered the assessments of an additional nine properties, as follows:

Table C

	Waterfront Relationship	Current Value Assessment	Living Area (square feet)	Assessment per Square Foot
1058 Wisker Avenue	Indirect	$869,000	3,000	$290
943 Barry Avenue	Direct	$808,000	4,000	$202
968 Degrassi Cove	Direct	$945,000	2,700	$350
1000 Cameron Street	N/A	$468,000	2,000	$234
1171 Belle Aire Beach Road	N/A	$374,000	2,000	$187
1099 Stoney Point Road	Direct	$932,000	3,000	$311
1240 Maple Road	N/A	$474,000	2,500	$190
927 Barry Avenue	Direct	$903,000	2,800	$323
1030 Wisker Avenue	Indirect	$530,000	2,400	$221

34Among this total of 18 properties used by the Appellant, two have indirect waterfront access, seven have direct waterfront access and nine have no waterfront access.

35The average assessment per square foot of the Appellant’s sample of 18 properties is $240, with a median of $213. These figures would indicate an assessment value of between $1,227,519 and $1,383,120.

MPAC’s Evidence and Submissions

36MPAC prepared an equity study, where the assessments of 30 properties in the vicinity of the subject property are compared to their respective time-adjusted sale prices. The results of these comparisons are the respective Assessment to Sale Ratios (“ASRs”) for the 30 properties selected.

37MPAC’s search criteria for similar properties included single family dwellings on water and Seasonal/Recreational Dwellings, first tier on water, within 50 kilometres of the subject property.

38When MPAC analyzed this data set, the result was a median ASR of 0.96. According to MPAC this means that similar properties in the vicinity of the subject property are generally assessed at a value of four percent below their respective current values, as determined by their time-adjusted sale values. MPAC submitted that downward adjustments to current values are not applied by MPAC where the median ASR resulting from an ASR study is above 0.95.

Findings on Issue 2

39Section 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.

40There 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 two different methods. One method considers the assessments of other properties; the other considers assessments as they relate to respective, time-adjusted sale values.

41The Appellant’s method focused on the assessments of 18 properties that lie in close proximity to the subject property and that display similar attributes to the subject property.

42MPAC’s approach was to compare the assessments of 30 properties in the vicinity to their respective TAS price, thereby arriving at a median ASR.

43The Act requires the Board to consider similarity and vicinity when deciding if a downward adjustment to a current value is required for the purposes of equitable assessment. The Appellant’s sample included nine properties with no water access. The Board disregards these properties as waterfront is an important aspect of similarity in this case. When those nine properties are removed from consideration, the remaining direct and indirect waterfront properties result in assessments per square foot ranging from $193 to $416 with an average of $316 and a median of $311. When applied to the subject property’s 5,763 square feet of living area, the result is $1,792,293 to $1,821,108.

44MPAC’s ASR study included all the properties it relied on to determine current value except Woodland. Woodland’s ASR as determined by its assessment of $1,465,000 and its time adjusted sale value of $1,675,000 is 0.87. When added to MPAC’s sample, the median ASR of the resulting 31 properties is 0.94.

45The result of the Appellant’s approach to an equitable adjustment result in a value higher than the current value determined and therefore no adjustment would be required. MPAC’s findings, adjusted to include Woodland results in an ASR of 0.94. When that ASR is applied to the current value determined, the result is an equitable assessment of $1,574,500, or $1,575,000 rounded.

46The Board finds that when the similarity and vicinity of properties used in determining equitable assessment of the subject property, the current value requires a reduction to $1,575,000.

CONCLUSION

47The Board finds that the current value of the subject property is $1,675,000.

48The 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.

ORDER

49The Board orders that the assessment of 1078 Wisker Avenue is reduced for the 2023 taxation year to $1,575,000 and is increased to $1,575,000 for the 2024 taxation year.