Tribunals Ontario
Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario
Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE:
May 09, 2024
FILE NO.:
WR 186042
Assessed Person(s):
Sarah Goel
Appellant(s):
Sarah Goel
Respondent(s):
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 09
Respondent(s):
City of Toronto
Property Location(s):
47 Warren Road
Municipality(ies):
City of Toronto
Roll Number(s):
1904-054-330-00400-0000
Appeal Number(s):
3519382 and 3525173
Taxation Year(s):
2023 and 2024
Hearing Event No.:
783479
Legislative Authority:
Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Representative
Sarah Goel
Self-represented
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
Stephen Stadelmann
City of Toronto
No one appeared
HEARD:
April 22, 2024 by video conference call
ADJUDICATOR(S):
Subuola Awoleri, Member
DECISION
OVERVIEW
1Sarah Goel, (the “Appellant”), owner of 47 Warren Road (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 $2,937,274.
3The Subject Property was assessed by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) at $4,042,000 for the 2023 and 2024 taxation years. MPAC submitted that, although it is not seeking an increase in the current value of the Subject Property, based on market sales the current value of the Subject Property should be $4,469,000 without a further reduction to make the current value equitable with the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity. Therefore, MPAC requests that the Board confirm the assessed value as returned at $4,042,000.
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 correct current value of the Subject Property for the 2023 and 2024 taxation years is $4,089,000 (rounded).
7The Board finds that a downward adjustment to the current value to $3,737,000 (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 reduces the assessment of the Subject Property from $4,042,000 to $3,737,000 (rounded) for the 2023 and 2024 taxation years.
ANALYSIS
Description of the Subject Property
9The Subject Property is a two-storey residential dwelling built in 2020 located in the City of Toronto. It has a lot with 50 feet (“ft.”) of effective frontage and 150 ft. of effective depth for an effective site area of 7,500 square feet (“sq. ft.”). It has a total building area (“TBA”) of 4,877 sq. ft., with construction quality of 8.5 and a basement area of 2,175 sq. ft. of which 1,957 sq. ft. is finished. The Subject Property is a corner lot with an attached garage.
Issue 1 - What is the correct current value of the Subject Property for the 2023 and 2024 taxation years?
10In 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.
11The 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. If no such transaction took place, the next best measure of current value is 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
12MPAC presented the Board with six proposed comparable property sales. These six proposed comparable property sales were improved with residences built between 1996 and 2016. Their effective site areas range from 3,875 to 12,060 sq. ft. and building sizes from 2,792 to 4,711 sq. ft. The quality of construction of the residences are between 7.5 and 9.0. The sale dates range from 2014 to 2017. The details of MPAC’s proposed comparable property sales are in Attachment 1 to this Decision.
13MPAC submitted that Property Sales 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 are inferior to the Subject Property, due to age, smaller lot and building sizes. According to MPAC, these inferior property sales have a sale rate from $766.80 to $1,004.18 per square foot (“psf.”). MPAC further testified that Property Sale 4 is superior to the Subject Property due to its larger lot size of 12,060 sq. ft., higher quality of construction of 9.0 and it abuts a ravine. Property Sale 4 has a time-adjusted sale price of $5,950,250 with a rate of $1,329.37 psf. MPAC argued that the best comparable property sales are Property Sales 2 and 4. MPAC testified that Property Sale 2 has a similar building and lot size with the Subject Property, and it is also a corner lot, while Property Sale 4 has a slightly smaller building size and was constructed in 2008.
14MPAC testified that the median rate psf. of all six proposed comparable property sales is $916.42. MPAC applied it against the TBA of the Subject Property of 4,877 sq. ft. which MPAC testified provides a value of $4,469,374. MPAC argued that this amount is between the time-adjusted sale prices of Property Sale 2 at $3,950,000 and Property Sale 4 at $5,590,000. MPAC submitted that the correct current value of the Subject Property is $4,469,000.
15The Appellant disagreed with MPAC. The Appellant argued that MPAC is incorrect for using sales of properties since there are no similar properties to the Subject Property. The Appellant further argued that the Board should only use the assessed values of properties within the immediate vicinity of the Subject Property to determine its correct current value. In line with this argument, the Appellant presented the assessed values of 16 properties to assist the Board in determining the correct current value of the Subject Property. The Appellant used 14 of these properties to propose the correct current value of the Subject Property at $2,937,274. The Appellant did not provide the Board with the sale dates of these properties, only the lot and building sizes, assessed values, and the quality of construction.
Findings on Issue 1 - Current Value
16The Board finds that the Appellant’s approach in deriving the current value of the Subject Property is not in line with the definition of current value in the Act. Section 19 of the Act provides that the assessment of land shall be based on its current value. MPAC provides the assessed values of properties, using its model to make an estimation, since most properties would not have been sold on the valuation day of January 1, 2016. This is what is referred to as the assessed value of the Subject Property, i.e., the value that was entered on the assessment roll.
17The legislative mandate of the Board is to determine the correct current value of the Subject Property.
18Current value is the market value of the Subject Property as defined under s. 1 of the Act. The Appellant relies on assessed values of comparable properties, whereas the Board’s determination of the correct current value of the Subject Property requires evidence of the market value of the comparable properties. A sale price is evidence of value, but an assessed value is not, as properties may be over or under-assessed. Consequently, the Board finds that the assessed values of these 16 properties do not assist the Board in determining the correct current value.
19MPAC provided background details regarding some of the Appellant’s 16 properties. Ten properties were sold between 2011 and 2023. Four of the properties had no sale dates and MPAC did not provide details about one of the properties (43 Warren Road). None of these properties transacted within the shoulder years of the valuation day of January 1, 2016, which are 2015 and 2016. The Board does not rely on these sales to determine the correct current value of the Subject Property, as the Board finds that the further a sale is from the valuation day, the less likely it reflects the market at that time.
20In determining the correct current value of the Subject Property, the Board used MPAC’s evidence. In reviewing MPAC’s proposed comparable properties, the Board finds that Property Sales 1, 4 and 6 are too far removed from the valuation day of January 1, 2016, with sale dates in 2014 and 2017, therefore, the Board does not rely on these sales.
21The Board finds that Property Sales 3 and 5 are inferior to the Subject Property, due to their age, lot and building sizes. The lot sizes range between 3,875 to 4,050 sq. ft., building sizes are between 2,792 and 2,958 sq. ft., and years built are 1996 and 2016. This is compared to the Subject Property that was newly built in 2020, with a lot size of 7,500 sq. ft., and a building size of 4,877 sq. ft. Property Sale 3 also abuts a multi-residential building.
22The Board determines that Property Sale 2 is the best comparable property with the Subject Property. This property is a corner lot like the Subject Property. It has a similar lot size of 6,800 sq. ft., a similar building size of 4,711 sq. ft., with an attached garage like the Subject Property. Although it is 23 years older than the Subject Property, it still has a quality of construction of 9.0, comparable with the Subject Property’s quality of construction of 8.5. This property is located within the same homogenous neighbourhood as the Subject Property, 0.2405 kilometers away and therefore it is also subject to the same market influences.
23The Appellant argued that Property Sale 2 is not comparable with the Subject Property since it is not close to schools like the Subject Property. MPAC testified that the Subject Property does not abut nor is it within proximity to an educational institution although there are two schools within the neighbourhood. The Board finds that this does not affect its comparability to the Subject Property, in terms of its structure, size and quality of construction.
24Property Sale 2 sold in January 2015 at $3,500,000 at a time-adjusted sale price of $3,950,135, with a rate of $838.49 psf. The Board applied this rate to the TBA of the Subject Property of 4,877 sq. ft, which provides a value of $4,089,315.
25The Board finds the correct current value of the Subject Property for the 2023 and 2024 taxation years is $4,089,000 (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.
Appellant’s Evidence
27The Appellant presented the Board with 16 properties. She used the assessed values of 14 properties which she testified are within the immediate vicinity of the Subject Property and divided it against their building and lot sizes. This provided an average of $676 psf. for the building size and an average of $344 psf. for the land size. The Appellant applied these averages against the building and lot size of the Subject Property which she testified provides a value of $3,297,703 for the building and $2,576,844 for the land. The Appellant submitted that the mid-point of these values is $2,937,274, which represents the equitable value of the Subject Property. A summary of the Appellant’s evidence is provided below in Table 1.
Table 1
Address
Assessment ($)
Building/Size (sq. ft.)
Lot Size (sq. ft.)
Year Built/Reno. Year
Type
Subject Property
47 Warren Road
4,042,000
4,877
7,500
2020
Sigle-family Detached (SFD)
1
43 Warren Road
2,572,000
4,140
8,525
N/A
N/A
2
69 Lynwood Ave.
2,640,000
4,738
7,025
1909/1996
SFD
3
74 Lynwood Ave.
2,562,000
4,781
7,500
1908/1999
Duplex
4
78 Lynwood Ave.
2,465,000
4,254
7,500
1908/1999
Duplex
5
48 Warren Road
3,227,000
5,885
9,000
1906/1990
SFD
6
83 Lynwood Ave.
2,148,000
3,449
7,025
1915
SFD
7
56 Warren Road
2,530,000
4,084
9,000
1911/1990
SFD
8
70 Lynwood Ave.
2,088,000
3,096
7,500
1911/1990
SFD
9
44 Warren Road
3,487,000
4,464
9,000
1908/2003
SFD
10
80 Lynwood Ave.
2,057,000
3,373
6,900
1909/1990
SFD
11
73 Lynwood Ave.
2,896,000
3,852
7,025
1909/2005
SFD
12
85 Lynwood Ave.
3,248,000
4,136
7,527.99
1914/1998
SFD
13
48 Warren Road
Repeated
Repeated
Repeated
Repeated
Repeated
14
68 Warren Road
3,204,000
3,906
9,000
1911/1987
SFD
15
72 Warren Road
3,415,000
5,614
10,800
1912/2005
SFD
16
34 Warren Road
4,659,000
6,694
18,000
1907/2001
More than 1 structure
MPAC’s Evidence
28MPAC used the Assessment to Sales Ratio (“ASR”), which is a tool often used to determine if a reduction in the assessment below current value is required to make that 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 (TAS) price of a sold property.
29MPAC presented an ASR analysis of 29 residential properties which have not been altered, renovated or reassessed since the time of sale. MPAC’s analysis included property types Single-Family Detached not on water, Duplex, Semi-Detached residential, and Freehold Townhouse/Rowhouse within 0.56 kilometers of the Subject Property, where sales occurred from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2017. The median ASR of the properties is 0.95. MPAC submitted that the International Association of Assessing Officers standards states 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.
30MPAC submitted that with a median ASR of 0.95, similar properties in the vicinity have been assessed at or near their current value, therefore an equity adjustment is not required.
Findings – Issue 2 – Equitable Adjustment
31The Act does not stipulate a specific method of determining equity. The Divisional Court in Municipal Property Assessment Corporation v Schumacher et al., 2016 ONSC 3239 at para. 18 noted, “Section 44(3)(b) does not specify any particular methodology”.
32The Ontario Divisional Court in Municipal Property Assessment Corporation. v Loblaw Properties Limited, 2017 ONSC 1299, (“Loblaw”) determined at para. 23:
The reference to "many points of comparison" is of interest because it mirrors wording used in a later judgment of this court, namely, Trizec Equities Ltd. v. Ontario (Regional Assessment Commissioner, Region No. 27), [1988] O.J. No. 182 (Div. Ct.). In that decision, Saunders J. was faced with the same issue, that is, what constitutes similar properties. He referred to the decision in Downtown Oshawa and found that, based on that decision, the Board was required to "consider all points of comparison". Saunders J. then concluded on the issue by saying:
All points of comparison must be considered. The Board must make a factual finding based on such a consideration. One point of similarity such as use may be, but is not necessarily, determinative. Some similarities may be overridden by other characteristics and some differences may be subordinated.
33Therefore, an equitable reduction should only be made where there is clear evidence to support that such a reduction is warranted. In this regard, the burden of proof rests with the party that alleges that it would be inequitable to assess the Subject Property at its correct current value, and in this appeal that is the Appellant. The Appellant must establish, on a balance of probabilities, that an equitable reduction is required. In choosing which properties are “similar properties”, the Board must consider all points of comparison.
34The Board does not accept the Appellant’s approach in arriving at an equitable value of $2,937,274. The Appellant used the assessed values of these 14 properties divided it by their building and land sizes. Thereafter, she used the average of the building and land values and divided it by the building and land size of the Subject Property.
35Applying, the Loblaw edict that "... [a]ll points of comparison must be considered“. The Subject Property is a Single-Family Detached (not on water) dwelling. The Appellant analyzed other types of dwellings such as duplexes and a property with more than one structure. When MPAC questioned the Appellant regarding the use of a duplex, which is not similar to the Subject Property, the Appellant indicated that she was focused on the assessed value. The Board finds that the duplex properties and the property with more than one structure are not similar to the Subject Property therefore the Board will not rely on these properties in its analysis.
36The assessed values of the remaining 12 properties range from $2,057,000 to $3,487,000. The property with the highest assessed value within this range is 44 Warren Road which has a lot size of 9,000 sq. ft. and building size of 4,464 sq ft., with original year built of 1908, renovated in 2003. This property is 17 years older than the Subject Property with a smaller building size, quality of construction of 8.0, with a detached garage. The Board finds that 44 Warren Road is inferior to the Subject Property. The Board finds that the assessed value of the Subject Property should be higher than $3,487,000, due to its superior features.
37The Appellant argues that 72 Warren Road and 34 Warren Road have superior features but have assessments lower than the Subject Property. 72 Warren Road has a larger lot and building size, but it is 15 years older than the Subject Property, renovated in 2005, with an original year built of 1912 and it abuts a multi-residential building. Its assessed value is $3,415,000. The Board does not accept the Appellant’s submission in relation to 72 Warren Road and finds that it is inferior to the Subject Property. The Board accepts the Appellant’s submission in relation to 34 Warren Road and finds that it is superior to the Subject Property, although not similar to the Subject Property. This is a property with more than one structure on it and its assessed value is $4,659,000.
38Therefore, the Appellant’s approach does not assist the Board in making a determination that similar properties in the vicinity are assessed lower than the Subject Property, however it provides an indication of the lowest end of the range, using the assessed value of 44 Warren Road at $3,487,000.
39MPAC provided evidence of 29 residential property sales within 0.56 kilometers of the Subject Property which sold between January 2014 and December 2017. MPAC included different types of residential dwellings in its equity analysis as its search criteria included different residential property types such as duplex, Semi-Detached Residential and Freehold Townhouse/Rowhouse. MPAC did not confirm which properties on its list are Single-Family Detached (not on water), which would be similar to the Subject Property. The Board finds that these properties are not similar to the Subject Property.
40Furthermore, MPAC has used sales of properties that occurred outside the shoulder years of the valuation day of January 1, 2016. The Board disregarded these sales in determining the correct current value of the Subject Property, and the Board will also disregard them in determining the equitable value of the Subject Property. See Brueckner v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 15, 2023 CanLII 66856 (ON ARB) at para. 51.
41For these reasons, the Board finds that MPAC’s equity analysis is not reliable and does not assist the Board to determine whether the correct current value requires any adjustment for equity.
42The Board has the legislative mandate to determine whether an adjustment to the correct current value is necessary to ensure that the assessment of the Subject Property is equitable with the assessment of similar lands in the vicinity. Therefore, in making this determination, the Board used three of MPAC’s proposed comparable properties (41 Clarendon Avenue, 3B Clarendon Avenue and 377 Walmer Road) provided in its current valuation report that sold within the shoulder years of the valuation day of January 1, 2016, which are 2015 and 2016. These three comparable properties were also included in MPAC’s equity analysis.
43The Board finds that these three properties are sufficiently similar to the Subject Property for determining the Subject Property’s equitable value, as they are all Single-Family detached (not on water), they are all within less than 1.00 kilometer of the Subject Property and used as residential. The assessed values range from $2,223,000 to $3,518,000. The Board determined their ASR’s by dividing their assessed values by their TAS prices, which provides the following ASRs of 0.890, 1.038 and 0.815. The average ASR for these three properties is 0.914, which suggests that an equitable reduction is appropriate. Applying this ASR to the correct current value of $4,089,000 provides an equitable value of $3,737,346. This value is higher than the assessed value of 44 Warren Road at $3,487,000. Accordingly, the Board finds that the equitable value of the Subject Property is $3,737,000 (rounded).
CONCLUSION
44The Board finds the correct current value of the Subject Property for the 2023 and 2024 taxation years is $4,089,000 (rounded). The Board finds that a downward adjustment to $3,737,000 (rounded) is necessary for the current value to be equitable with the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity.
ORDER
45The Board orders that the assessment of the Subject Property is reduced from $4,042,000 to $3,737,000 (rounded) for the 2023 and 2024 taxation years.
“Subuola Awoleri”
SUBUOLA AWOLERI
MEMBER
Assessment Review Board
Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb
ATTACHMENT - 1
Roll Number
190405433000400
190405434002400
190405427000250
190405426001110
190405424008100
190405338001900
190405424007000
Address
47 WARREN RD
260 POPLAR PLAINS RD
41 CLARENDON AVE
3B CLARENDON AVE
75 GLEN EDYTH DR
377 WALMER RD
96 BOULTON DR
Neighbourhood
D69 – 937
D69 - 937
D69 - 937
D69 - 937
D69 - 937
D68 - 937
D72 - 861
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)
(301) Single-Family Detached (Not On Water)
Distance in km
0.1527
0.2405
0.4122
0.4841
0.5583
0.566
Valuation
Current Value Assessment
$4,042,000
$3,207,000
$3,518,000
$2,223,000
$5,035,000
$2,423,000
$2,708,000
Sale
Sale Date
20140630
20150130
20160824
20170810
20161013
20141021
Sale Amount
$3,190,000
$3,500,000
$2,300,000
$7,100,000
$3,250,000
$2,700,000
Time Adjusted Sale Amount
$3,906,048
$3,950,135
$2,140,892
$5,950,250
$2,970,379
$3,153,032
Site
Actual Frontage
50
41.17
98.87
30.7
67
38
36.5
Actual Depth
150
124.75
63.89
135
130
Actual Site Area (SF)
7500.00
5135.96
6316.80
4144.50
4745.00
Effective Frontage (F)
50
41.17
68
30
67
31
36.5
Effective Depth (F)
150
124.75
100
135
180
125
130
Effective Site Area (SF)
7500.00
5135.96
6800.00
4050.00
12060.00
3875.00
4745.00
Abuts Variable(s)
(K) Traffic Pattern - Light
(M) Abuts Multi- Residential
(1) Abuts Ravine Type 1
(V) Abuts Green Space Or Park (Not Playground Or Sports Field) , (K) Traffic Pattern - Light
Proximity Variable(s)
(M) Proximity To Multi-Residential
On Site Variable(s)
(C) Corner Lot , 76) Offical Plan Designated - Residential
(76) Offical Plan Designated - Residential
(83) Offical Plan Designated - Natural Heritage System , (76) Offical Plan Designated - Residential
(C) Corner Lot , (76) Offical Plan Designated - Residential
Variance
Regular
Regular
Irregular
Irregular
Irregular
Irregular
Regular
Residential Structure
Structure Code & Desc.
(301) Single Family Detached
(301) Single Family Detached
(301) Single Family Detached
(301) Single Family Detached
(301) Single Family Detached
(301) Single Family Detached
(301) Single Family Detached
Year Built
2020
2010
1997
1996
2008
2016
2004
Quality of Construction
8.5
9
9
7.5
9
8.5
8.5
Building Total Area (SF)
4,877
3,941
4,711
2,792
4,476
2,958
3,746
Modifications
Secondary Structure(s) Structure Description
(116) Attached Garage
(121) Basement Garage
(116) Attached Garage
(121) Basement Garage
(121) Basement Garage
(116) Attached Garage
Year Built
2020
2010
1997
1996
2008
2004
Building Total Area (SF)
400
423
480
480
756
264
Quality of Construction
4
5
5
4
4
4
Quantitative Analysis
Sale Rate
991.13
838.49
766.80
1329.37
1004.18
841.71
Median Sale Rate
916.42
Applied to Subject
$4,469,374
equity 0.95
$4,245,906
Improved Site Sale Rate
760.53
580.90
528.62
493.39
766.55
664.50
Median Improved Site Rate
622.70
Applied to Subject
$4,670,242
Qualitative Analysis
Location
D69 - South Hill
D69 - South Hill
D69 - South Hill
D69 - South Hill
D69 - South Hill
D68 - Casa Loma
D72 - lower South Hill
Site Area
7500 SF
smaller site
smaller site
smaller site
Larger Site
smaller site
smaller site
Site Description
Corner Lot
Traffic and Prox to MultiRes
abuts MultiRes
Heritage Ravine Lot
corner lot
traffic and abuts park
Structure Year Built
2020
2010
1997
1996
2008
2016
2004
Structure Area
4877
smaller home
similar sized home
smaller home
similar sized home
smaller home
smaller home
inferior CV
BEST COMP 1 -inferior CV
inferior CV
BEST COMP 2 -superior CV
inferior CV
inferior CV
Qualitative Analysis: Subject has been bracketed between 75 Glen Edyth Dr and 41 Clarendon Ave suggesting a probable range in current value of $3,950,000 to $5,950,000.
My quantified estimate of current value of $4,469,000 sits within this range indicating that it is reasonable and appropriate.