Josefina Gallitrico v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 15 and City of Burlington, 2024 CanLII 55718

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

ISSUE DATE: June 14, 2024

FILE NO.: WR 186351

Assessed Person(s): Josefina Gallitrico

Appellant(s): Josefina Gallitrico

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 15

Respondent(s): City of Burlington

Property Location(s): 5250 Lakeshore Road, Unit 1005

Municipality(ies): City of Burlington

Roll Number(s): 2402-080-800-11783-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3520273 and 3525565

Taxation Year(s): 2023 and 2024

Hearing Event No.: 783709

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

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Josefina Gallitrico	Self-represented
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation	Terence Johnston
City of Burlington	No one appeared

HEARD: May 21, 2024, by telephone conference call

ADJUDICATOR(S): Anita Lovrich, Member Carly Stringer, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

Background

1Josefina Gallitrico (the “Appellant”) has brought an appeal before the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) relating to the returned assessment of $384,000 for 5250 Lakeshore Road, Unit 1005 (the “Subject Property”) in the City of Burlington for the 2023 and 2024 taxation years. The Appellant says the assessment is too high and asks the Board to reduce the value to $333,000.

2The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) is responding to these appeals. MPAC asks the Board to confirm the assessment of $384,000.

3The City of Burlington is a statutory party to these appeals, but did not attend the hearing nor provide submissions to the Board.

4At the end of the hearing, the Board issued a decision with oral reasons. MPAC subsequently requested written reasons. This Decision reflects the Board’s reasons for its decision on May 21, 2024.

Issues for the Hearing

5At issue in this proceeding is:

1. What is the current value of the Subject Property as of the statutory valuation date of January 1, 2016?; and
2. Is the current value equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity?

Result

6For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that the current value of the Subject Property is $434,000 (rounded).

7The Board also finds that there is evidence to support a reduction in the current value to make the current value equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity. The Board therefore orders that the current value is $390,000 in the residential property class.

ANALYSIS

Description of Subject Property

8The Subject Property is a condominium apartment located on the 10th floor of a 20-storey building. It is a two bedroom, 1.5 bath unit with an area of 1443 square feet.

Issue 1 - What is the current value of the Subject Property as of the statutory valuation date of January 1, 2016?

Applicable Law

9In accordance with s. 44(3)(a) of the Act, the Board must first 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.”

10Accordingly, the Board must first determine what the Subject Property would have sold for in an arm’s length transaction on the statutory valuation day. The valuation day for the 2023 and 2024 taxation years is January 1, 2016.

Evidence on Current Value

MPAC’s Evidence

11MPAC’s documentary evidence shows that the Subject Property sold on April 29, 2016 for $444,500. When MPAC’s time adjustment factor is applied to the Subject Property’s sale, the value is $434,000 (rounded).

12MPAC submitted that the best evidence of current value is this time-adjusted sale value of the Subject Property.

13MPAC also considered the time-adjusted sale prices of four properties that MPAC deemed similar: 5250 Lakeshore Road Unit 1406, 5250 Lakeshore Road Unit 506, 5250 Lakeshore Road Suite 1806, and 5250 Lakeshore Road Unit 2006. MPAC calculated the rate per square foot of each property by dividing the time-adjusted sale price by each property’s square footage. MPAC then determined the median rate per square foot of the four properties, which was $304.30 per square foot. When this is multiplied by the square foot area of the subject property (1443) this amounts to a value of $439,000 (rounded), which MPAC submits is very close to the time-adjusted sale price of the Subject Property.

Appellant’s Evidence

14The Appellant did not dispute the validity of the Subject Property sale. She testified that comparable properties were selling at higher prices than the Subject Property, but were being assessed lower than the Subject Property. The Appellant submits that the Subject Property should be assessed at $333,000 like Unit 607 in the same building as the Subject Property.

Findings on Issue 1

15The Board has widely held that the time-adjusted sale price of a subject property is the best evidence of its current value, if that sale occurs close to the valuation day of January 1, 2016.

16The time adjustment factor is applied to sale prices so that those prices may be compared to one another as though they occurred on the valuation day. The time adjustment factor applied by MPAC was not refuted by the Appellant.

17The Board finds that the best evidence of current value is the uncontested evidence from MPAC that the Subject Property sold as an arm’s length transaction on the open market, and that it occurred on April 29, 2016, which is only five months from the valuation date.

18Therefore, based on the best evidence, the Board finds that the current value of the Subject Property is the time-adjusted sale price of the Subject Property, which is $434,000 (rounded).

Issue 2 - Is the current value equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity?

Applicable Law

19Section 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.”

Evidence on Equitable Adjustment

Appellant’s Evidence

20The Appellant provided evidence detailing the sales of properties located in the same building, including Units 607, 1407, 1507, 506 and 1806. She also provided a chart of assessed values of other units throughout her building.

21The Appellant argues that an adjustment is required, and her property should be assessed the same as Unit 607 at $333,000 because that unit sold within three months of hers at $440,000. She says it is the most comparable.

MPAC’s Evidence

22MPAC provided an equity analysis detailing the sales of 25 properties located within the same building as the Subject Property, occurring in the shoulder years to the valuation day of January 1, 2016. MPAC’s analysis reflected a median Assessment to Sale Ratio of 0.90. MPAC submits that this demonstrates that properties have been assessed under their current value and an adjustment is required for the purpose of equitable assessment.

23MPAC is not seeking an increase in the current value for the 2023 and 2024 taxation years, submitting that its evidence supports the current value returned of $384,000. MPAC asked the Board to confirm the assessed value.

Findings on Issue 2

24The Board does not accept the evidence of the Appellant for two reasons: first, she did not time adjust the sale prices of the properties on which she relied, therefore the Board is not able to accurately compare the sale prices as of January 1, 2016 to the assessed values. Further, the Board does not accept the Appellant’s proposed equitable value of $333,000 – the Appellant initially stated in examination-in-chief that Unit 607 was similar, but in cross-examination changed her evidence that it was 100 square feet bigger and not a corner unit. For these reasons, the Board finds that Unit 607 is not sufficiently similar and does not rely on the Appellant’s evidence.

25The Board prefers the evidence of MPAC because the assessment to sale ratio (ASR) from a reasonable sample of sold properties is usually the best indicator for determining whether an equitable adjustment is required. The Board finds that the sales on which MPAC relies represent similar lands in the vicinity.

26The Board finds MPAC’s evidence is the best evidence on equitable assessment, and accepts that an adjustment for an ASR of 0.9 is appropriate.

27The Board finds a reduction is necessary to make the current value equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity.

28Applying the ASR of 0.9 to the current value of $434,000 results in a reduction in the current value to $390,000. The Board finds this is the equitable current value.

CONCLUSION

29The Board finds that the current value of the Subject Property is $434,000.

30The Board also finds that there is evidence to support a reduction in the current value to make the current value equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity. The Board therefore orders that the current value is $390,000 in the residential property class.

ORDER

31The Board orders that the current value be increased to $390,000 in the residential property class for the 2023 and 2024 taxation years.