Tribunals Ontario
Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario
Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE:
April 10, 2024
FILE NO.:
WR 185892
Assessed Person(s):
Witold Panek; Marta Ziemirska-Panek
Appellant(s):
Witold Panek
Respondent(s):
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 09
Respondent(s):
City of Toronto
Property Location(s):
192 Wright Avenue
Municipality(ies):
City of Toronto
Roll Number(s):
1904-023-310-13200-0000
Appeal Number(s):
3518759 and 3524998
Taxation Year(s):
2023 and 2024
Hearing Event No.:
783293
Legislative Authority:
Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Representative
Witold Panek
Self-represented
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
Sang Hoo Han
City of Toronto
No one appeared
HEARD:
March 26, 2024 by telephone conference call
ADJUDICATOR(S):
Subuola Awoleri
DECISION
OVERVIEW
1Witold Panek (the “Appellant”), owner of 192 Wright Avenue (the “Subject Property”), appealed the 2023 assessment of the Subject Property to the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) under s. 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”) on the ground that the assessment is too high. Pursuant to s. 40(26) of the Act, the Appellant is deemed to have brought the same appeal in respect of the 2024 taxation year.
2The Appellant argued that the current value of the Subject Property should be $857,000, based on the nuisance he is experiencing with the abutting commercial properties.
3The Subject Property was assessed by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) at $957,000 for the 2023 taxation year. MPAC submitted that based on market sales, the current value of the Subject Property should be $1,030,000 (rounded), with a further reduction to $957,000 (rounded) to make the current value equitable with the assessment of similar properties in the vicinity.
4At the completion of the hearing, the Board reserved its decision.
Issues for the Hearing
5The issues to be determined are:
What is the correct current value of the Subject Property for the 2023 and 2024 taxation years?
Whether there should be an equitable reduction of the current value pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act, and, if so, what the amount of this reduction should be?
Result
6The Board determines the current value of the Subject Property to be $1,140,000 (rounded) for the 2023 and 2024 taxation years.
7The Board finds that a downward adjustment to the current value to $1,060,000 (rounded) is necessary to ensure that the assessment of the Subject Property is equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity.
8The Board increases the assessment of the Subject Property from $957,000 to $1,060,000 (rounded) for the 2023 and 2024 taxation years.
PRELIMINARY MATTERS
9MPAC advised the Board that it did not receive the Appellant’s updated evidence that was filed with the Board. The Appellant submitted that he was not conversant with the procedure at the Board and had initially only filed the evidence with the Board. He was later advised by the Board to serve his evidence electronically with MPAC, which MPAC did not receive.
10The Board ordered the Appellant to forward the documents to MPAC’s assessor and representative, Sang Hoo Han, to review, in order to decide if he could proceed with the hearing. Mr. Han confirmed that he can proceed with the hearing after reviewing the Appellant’s evidence, which was mostly photographs of the nuisance caused by the abutting commercial properties.
ANALYSIS
Description of the Subject Property
11The Subject Property is a two-storey residential dwelling with an effective year built of 1985 located in the City of Toronto. It has a lot with 25 feet (“ft”) of effective frontage and 132 ft. of effective depth for an effective site area of 3,300 square feet (“sq. ft.”). It has a total building area (“TBA”) of 1,028 sq. ft., with construction quality of 6.0 and a basement area of 449 sq. ft. of which 400 sq. ft. is finished. The Subject Property abuts commercial properties for which it benefits from a negative 5% adjustment provided by MPAC.
Issue 1 - What is the correct current value of the Subject Property for the 2023 and 2024 taxation years?
12In accordance with s. 44(3)(a) of the Act, the first mandate of the Board is to 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”. That is, for the 2023 and 2024 taxation years, the Board must determine what the Subject Property would have sold for in an arm’s length transaction on the January 1, 2016 valuation day set by the Act.
13The best evidence the Board can receive of current value is an arm’s length and market-tested sale of the Subject Property on the valuation day or close to it or arm’s length and market-tested sales of comparable properties located nearby, as close as possible to the legislated valuation day of January 1, 2016.
MPAC’s Proposed Comparable Properties
14MPAC presented the Board with five proposed comparable property sales. These five proposed comparable properties have an effective year built between 1962 and 1999, with effective site areas ranging from 1,995 to 3,328 sq. ft. and building sizes from 1,694 to 2,022 sq. ft. The quality of construction of these property sales is 6.0, which is the same as the Subject Property. The details of MPAC’s proposed comparable property sales are included in Attachment 1 to this Decision.
15MPAC submitted that these proposed comparable properties are similar to the Subject Property. MPAC’s assessor and representative, Sang Hoo Han, testified that these proposed comparable properties are all located less than 1.0 kilometers from the Subject Property and are within the same homogenous neighbourhood as the Subject Property. Only two of these proposed comparable properties abut commercial properties similar to the Subject Property.
16MPAC presented three approaches to derive the correct current value of the Subject Property. However, it adopted the first approach:
MPAC provided the median of the building value of the five proposed comparable properties at $679 per square foot (“psf.”) and applied it to the TBA of the Subject Property of 1,028 sq. ft. for a value of $698,400.93. MPAC further provided the median land value of all five comparables at $412.77 psf. and applied it to the lot size of the Subject Property of 3,300 sq. ft. for a value of $1,362,145.40. The average of $698,400.93 and $1,362,145.40 provides the amount of $1,030,273.17.
Using proposed comparable properties that do not abut commercial properties (Property Sales 1, 2, and 3), MPAC provided the median of the building values at $679 psf. and applied it to the TBA of the Subject Property of 1,028 sq. ft. for a value of $698,400.93. MPAC further provided the median land value of these three sales at $409.72 psf. and applied it to the site area of the Subject Property at 3,300 sq. ft. for a value of $1,352,076.00. The average of $698,400.93 and $1,352,076.00, with a 5% downward adjustment in order to make these three property sales have a similar variable of abutting commercial properties as the Subject Property, provides the amount of $973,976.54.
Using only the proposed comparable property sales that abut commercial properties (Property Sales 4 and 5), MPAC provided the median of the building values at $647 psf. and applied it to the TBA of the Subject Property at 1,028 sq. ft. for a value of $665,243.46. MPAC further provided the median land value of the two proposed comparable sales at $544.38 psf. and applied it to the site area of the Subject Property at 3,300 sq. ft. for a value of $1,796,465.05. The average of $665,243.46 and $1,796,465.05 provides the amount of $1,230,854.26.
17MPAC adopted the first approach and submitted that the correct current value of the Subject Property is $1,030,000 (rounded).
18The Appellant did not present the Board with any proposed comparable properties to assist the Board in determining the correct current value of the Subject Property. The Appellant argued that all MPAC’s proposed comparable properties are not similar to the Subject Property, due to the unique situation of the nuisances that depreciate the value of the Subject Property.
19The Appellant submitted that the Subject Property’s value is deteriorating and depreciating due to the abutting commercial properties causing a nuisance and damaging it. He testified that his driveway and the entire street is blocked by delivery trucks that are servicing these businesses or garbage trucks carrying out private garbage collection for these businesses. He further added that these trucks have on several occasions damaged the Subject Property. The Appellant presented into evidence the photographs of the obstruction caused by the delivery trucks and the damages to the Subject Property, which the Board reviewed. He also testified that at the back of the Subject Property and the west side, there are 2 to 3-storey buildings that have been erected, which intrudes on his privacy and further causes a nuisance and a willing purchaser will pay $100,000 less than the amount at which MPAC has assessed the Subject Property.
20MPAC submitted that it did not carry out an on-site inspection of the Subject Property, only an exterior inspection of the neighbourhood, since the Appellant’s issue with the current value assessment (“CVA”) was basically the nuisance caused by the abutting commercial properties. MPAC added that its analysis of the market evidence in the neighbourhood of the Subject Property revealed that there is no negative impact to the CVA of the Subject Property.
Finding on Issue 1 - Current Value
21The Board finds that the Appellant did not present any evidence to quantify the impact of the unique situation he has presented about the nuisances caused by the abutting commercial properties. The Board requires evidence to quantify or measure the impact of this situation against the current value. The Board cannot speculate or arbitrarily calculate the impact of the situation against the current value. Furthermore, the Appellant did not present any market evidence to prove that this nuisance has a negative impact on the current value of the Subject Property to the amount of $100,000, as submitted by the Appellant.
22In determining the correct current value of the Subject Property, the Board used MPAC’s evidence. The Board finds that MPAC’s comparable Property Sales 4 and 5 are the best evidence to establish the current value of the Subject Property. The Subject Property abuts commercial properties, these two comparable properties also abut commercial properties. The Board finds that MPAC’s Property Sales 1, 2 and 3 are not comparable to the Subject Property since they do not abut commercial properties. MPAC did not present evidence on how it derived its 5% negative adjustment, which it applied to Property Sales 1, 2 and 3 to make these sales similar to the Subject Property, therefore the Board will disregard these proposed comparable Property Sales.
23The Board finds that MPAC’s approach of using the median rate psf. of both the building and the land value of all five comparable property sales is flawed. These properties did not sell separately, they sold with the land and the building. Furthermore, all five sales, as determined by the Board, are not similar to the Subject Property.
24Comparable Property Sales 4 and 5 have the following averages: effective year built of 1962, lot size of 2,109 sq. ft., quality of construction 6.0, total building area 1,771 sq. ft., finished basement 525 sq. ft. and they both abut commercial properties. The Board finds that comparable Property Sales 4 and 5 are relatively comparable with the Subject Property. Although they both have larger TBAs of 1,694 sq. ft. and 1,848 sq. ft., respectively, than the Subject Property, which has a TBA of 1,028 sq. ft. this is accounted for in the Subject Property’s larger lot size of 3,300 sq. ft. and age since it is 23 years newer than both properties.
25On a balance of probabilities, the current value of the Subject Property should fall within the time-adjusted sale price range of Property Sales 4 and 5. The time-adjusted sale price range for Property Sales 4 and 5 is between $1,059,059 and $1,221,652. The mid-point of this range is $1,140,355.50. The Board finds that the correct current value of the Subject Property is $1,140,000 (rounded).
Issue 2 - Whether there should be an equitable reduction of the current value pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act, and, if so, what the amount of this reduction should be.
26Section 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.
27The Assessment to Sales Ratio (“ASR”) is a tool often used to determine if a reduction in the assessment below current value is required to make an assessment equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity. The ASR is determined by dividing the assessment as returned by the time-adjusted sale price.
28MPAC presented an equity analysis of 30 Single Family Detached Properties Not On Water, with sales that occurred from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2016, within 1.0 kilometers of the Subject Property. The median ASR of the sales is 0.93. MPAC provided in its equity analysis that the International Association of Assessing Officers standards state that the level of appraisal for all properties should fall between 0.90 and 1.10. MPAC takes the position that equity is achieved if the median ASR falls between 0.95 and 1.05.
29MPAC submitted that with a median ASR of 0.93, based on its equity analysis, similar properties in the vicinity have not been assessed at or near their current value. Therefore, to ensure equity, the Subject Property’s current value should be reduced.
30The Appellant did not present any evidence for equity, neither did he object to MPAC’s equity analysis.
Finding - Issue 2
31The Board finds that a downward adjustment to the current value is necessary to ensure that the assessment of the Subject Property is equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity.
32The Board applied the median ASR of 0.93 to its determined current value of $1,140,000 for an equitable assessment of $1,060,200. The Board finds the equitable assessment of the Subject Property to be $1,060,000 (rounded).
CONCLUSION
33The Board finds that the correct current value of the Subject Property for the 2023 and 2024 taxation years to be $1,140,000 (rounded), with a downward adjustment to $1,060,000 (rounded), to make the current value equitable with the assessment of similar properties in the vicinity.
ORDER
34The Board orders that the assessment of the Subject Property is increased from $957,000 to $1,060,000 (rounded) for the 2023 and 2024 taxation years.
"Subuola Awoleri"
SUBUOLA AWOLERI
MEMBER
Assessment Review Board
Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb
Attachment 1
MPAC’s Proposed Comparable Property Sales
Subject Property
Property #1
Property #2
Property #3
Property #4
Property #5
All 5 Properties
Roll Number
190402331013200
190402327003800
190402336004300
190402332004400
190402326012700
190402326012500
Structure
Address
192 WRIGHT AVE
109 GALLEY AVE
6 LYND AVE
23 WESTMINSTER AVE
150 MARION ST
142 MARION ST
Median
$679
Neighbourhood
E18 - 357
E18 - 357
E18 - 357
E18 - 357
E18 - 357
E18 - 357
Value
$698,400.93
Property Code & Desc.
(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)
(301) Single-Family Detached (Not On Water)
(301) Single-Family Detached (Not On Water)
Land
Distance in km
0.3922
0.4313
0.3439
0.5184
0.5183
Median
$412.77
Valuation
Value
$1,362,145.40
Current Value Assessment
$957,000
$1,239,000
$1,124,000
$1,193,000
$999,000
$1,042,000
Sale
Average of Values
$1,030,273.17
Sale Date
20150813
20150810
20150828
20150827
20160728
Sale Amount
$1,310,000
$1,221,000
$1,225,000
$1,165,000
$1,130,000
Property sales not abutting Comm
Time Adjusted Sale Amount
$1,373,703
$1,280,375
$1,284,570
$1,221,652
$1,059,059
Structure
Time Adjusted Rate per Sqft
$931
$679
$750
$670
$721
$573
Median
$679
Site
Value
$698,400.93
Effective Frontage (F)
25
26
25
25.5
35
39
Land
Effective Depth (F)
132
128
125
125
57
57
Median
$409.72
Effective Site Area (Sqft)
3300
3328
3125
3187.5
1995
2223
Value
$1,352,076.00
Time Adjusted Rate per Sqft Land
$290
$412.77
$409.72
$403.00
$612.36
$476.41
Effective Site Area (Acres)
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.07
0.05
0.05
Average of Values
$1,025,238.47
Actual Site Area (Acres)
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.07
0.05
0.05
5% adjustment applied for comm abut
$973,976.54
Abuts Variable(s)
(C) Abuts Commercial
(C) Abuts Commercial
(C) Abuts Commercial
Residential Structure
Property sales abutting Comm
Effective Year Built
1985
1999
1991
1988
1962
1962
Structure
Quality of Construction
6
6
6
6
6
6
Median
$647
Full Storeys
2 1/2 Storeys
2 Storeys
2 1/2 Storeys
1 3/4 Storeys
2 Storeys
Value
$665,243.46
Building Total Area (SF)
1,028
2,022
1,708
1,918
1,694
1,848
Land
Basement Area (SF)
449
779
854
785
909
903
Median
$544.38
Finished Basement Area (SF)
400
580
543
600
630
420
Value
$1,796,465.05
Average of Values
$1,230,854.26