Rick Ainsley v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 16 and Township of Adjala-Tosorontio, 2024 CanLII 126279

Tribunals Ontario Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario Assessment Review Board Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: December 20, 2024

FILE NO.: WR 187196

Assessed Person(s): Rick Ainsley

Appellant(s): Rick Ainsley

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 16

Respondent(s): Township of Adjala-Tosorontio

Property Location(s): 99415 Mono - Adja TLine

Municipality(ies): Township of Adjala-Tosorontio

Roll Number(s): 4301-010-005-00600-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3424084, 3446276, 348933, 3513200 and 3525771

Taxation Year(s): 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024

Hearing Event No.: 782669

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

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel/Representative
Rick Ainsley	Self-represented
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation	Micheal Rose
Township of Adjala-Tosorontio	No one appeared

HEARD: December 11, 2023 by telephone conference call

ADJUDICATOR(S): Pierre R. Lavigne, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1Rick Ainsley (the “Appellant”) appeals the correctness of the 2020 current value assessment for his property located at 99415 Mono – Adja Tline (the “subject property”). The principal issue is whether the 2016 current value has been affected by nuisance and by being landlocked. Pursuant to provisions of the Assessment Act, appeals are deemed for each subsequent year.

Background

2This is an 82.77-acre vacant rural property. The opinion of the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) is that, without being subject to nuisances and landlocked, the valuation would be $531,000. MPAC has acknowledged the adverse effect of these conditions on the valuation and has reduced its assessment by 60% to arrive at an assessment of $212,000. MPAC is not seeking an increase from this assessment. The Appellant is of the view that the adverse effects on the property render the property nearly worthless and requests a 75-80% reduction from unadjusted value.

Areas of Agreement

3In accordance with the Case Management Report and Order of October 12, 2023 the following issues are no longer in dispute:

a. The 82.77 acre area of the subject property.

b. The Direct Comparison Approach is the appropriate valuation methodology.

c. No equitable adjustment is required.

Issues for the Hearing

4At issue in this proceeding is:

1. A determination of the current value of the subject property;

a. Governing statutory provisions

b. Comparable Properties

c. Adjustment for nuisance and access

Result

5The Assessment Review Board (“Board”) finds that the current value of the subject property is $152,000.

ANALYSIS

Description of Subject Property

6The subject property is an 82.77-acre parcel of vacant rural land adjacent to Hockley, in the Township of Adjala-Tosorontio, in the County of Simcoe.

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

Governing Statutory Provisions

7Section 19(1) of the Act provides that the assessment of land shall be based on its current value. 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.”

8Section 19.2(1) paragraph 4 of the Act requires that the valuation day for the 2017 to 2020 taxation years be as of January 1, 2016. Section 48.6 of Ontario Regulation 282/98 requires that the valuation day for the 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024 taxation years be as of January 1, 2016, as well.

9Pursuant to s. 40(17) of the Act, the onus is on MPAC to prove the correct value of the subject property.

Comparable properties

10MPAC submitted the following sales as comparable properties:

	Subject Property	Property #1	Property #2	Property #3	Property #4
Roll Number	430101000500600	430102000305220	430101000203303	430102000316200	430101000217200
Address	994159 MONO – ADJALA TLINE	6500 CONCESSION RD 4	3005 CONCESSION RD 4	6323 CONCESSION RD 6	3409 CONCESSION RD 7
Neighbourhood	T01 - 302	T15 - 300	T10 - 301	T15 - 300	T10 - 301
Property Code & Desc.	(100) Vacant Residential Land Not On Water	(100) Vacant Residential Land Not On Water	(100) Vacant Residential Land Not On Water	(100) Vacant Residential Land Not On Water	(100) Vacant Residential Land Not On Water
Distance in KM		20.4771	4.9187	20.8523	9.5656
Valuation
Current Value Assessment	$212,000	$231,000	$259,000	$128,000	$429,000
Sale
Sale Date		20160804	20151130	20161114	20161209
Sale Amount		$350,000	$212,000	$235,000	$429,000
Site
Effective Site Area (Acres)	82.77	33.53	10.02	49.5	96.21
		New house added after sale.	New house added after sale.

11The Appellant submitted no sales of comparable properties.

12MPAC’s evidence was that the per acre values of the above properties ranged from $4,458 per acre for Sale 4 to $21,157 for Sale 2. MPAC’s opinion was that the unadjusted current value assessment of $531,000 for 82.77 acres produces a per acre value of $6,415, at the lower end of the range and by implication a reasonable valuation. No explanation was provided by MPAC as to how the figure of $531,000 was arrived at.

13The Board has held previously in Pacey v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 02, 2018 CanLII 104614 (ON ARB) at para. 30, that MPAC must show the path from the evidence to the opinion of value. While the per acre value is within the range of values of the submitted sales, this is simply derived from the unsupported $531,000. No path was shown to this figure. The Board will provide its own analysis of the sales to arrive at a current value, unadjusted for adverse effects.

14The Board finds that Sales 1 and 2 are not comparable to the subject property because they are substantially smaller acreages resulting in higher per acre values of $10,448 and $21,158 respectively. Sales 3 and 4 are comparable sales of larger acreages more in line with the subject property’s 82. 77 acres. The per acre price of Sale 3 is $4,747 and the per acre price of Sale 4 is $4,459. The Board finds that the average per acre price of these two sales provides the best indication of unadjusted value. That average of $4,603 applied to the 82.77 acres of the subject property produces a value of $381,000 (rounded).

Adjustment for nuisance and access

15The Appellant testified extensively with respect to the neighbourhood nuisances his property is subject to. These include unknown persons dumping garbage on the property, destruction of fencing, removal of survey markers, trespassing. He stated that it would cost $100,000 to replace the fencing. The Board ruled that certain documents the Appellant sought to rely on in support of his claim were not admitted in evidence as they had not been produced in compliance with Rule 48 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.

16The Appellant also testified that a cell phone tower was installed that has blocked his access to the town road effectively landlocking him because other portions of his property adjacent to the town road are too steep to install a driveway.

17MPAC acknowledged that the subject property is subject to the nuisances described by the Appellant and that the subject property is effectively landlocked. The reduction of 60% is an admission against MPAC’s interests which is evidence of a required adjustment of 60%. As the Appellant has not established by evidence, from sale prices of similarly affected properties, that a reduction of greater than 60% is required, MPAC’s admitted adjustment of 60% will apply to the Board’s finding of unadjusted value.

18As the finding of unadjusted value is $381,000, a negative adjustment of 60% results in a correct value of $152,000 (rounded).

CONCLUSION

19The Board finds that the correct 2016 value for the subject property is $152,000.

ORDER

20The Board orders that the assessment for the 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024 taxation years be reduced to $152,000.