Dodaro v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 14, 2024 CanLII 60438

Tribunals Ontario

Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

June 28, 2024

FILE NO.:

WR 186392

Assessed Person(s):

Dawn Tara Whitehead; Nino Dodaro

Appellant(s):

Nino Dodaro

Respondent(s):

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 14

Respondent(s):

Township of King

Property Location(s):

93 Bird's Lane

Municipality(ies):

Township of King

Roll Number(s):

1949-000-115-69500-0000

Appeal Number(s):

3520316, 3520317, 3520291 and 3525386

Taxation Year(s):

2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024

Hearing Event No.:

784099

Legislative Authority:

Sections 33 and 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Representative

Nino Dodaro

Self-represented

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation

Kelly McGhee

Township of King

Karen Wootton

HEARD:

June 6, 2024 by video conference

ADJUDICATOR(S):

Anita Lovrich, Member Carly Stringer, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1Nino Dodaro (the “Appellant”) brought an appeal before the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) relating to assessments of 93 Bird’s Lane in the Township of King (the “Subject Property”).

2The Subject Property was assessed pursuant to s. 33 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”) at $682,000 for the 2021 to 2023 taxation years. It was assessed at $1,007,000 pursuant to s. 40 of the Act for the 2024 taxation year. It is the Appellant’s position that these assessed values are too high, and the Board should reduce them to reflect a total current value assessment (“CVA”) of $850,000.

3The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) is responding to these appeals. MPAC takes the position that the s. 33 assessment values should be reduced to $667,000 and the s. 40 assessment value should be reduced to $992,000.

4A representative for the Township of King attended the hearing but did not make submissions or otherwise participate in the proceeding.

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 day of January 1, 2016?; and

2. Is the current value equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity and, if not, should an equitable reduction be made?

Result

6For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that the current value is $992,000 (rounded).

7The Board finds that an equitable reduction is required to make the assessments of the Subject Property equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity, resulting in a current value assessment of $972,000 (rounded) for the 2024 taxation year and $653,000 (rounded) on the s. 33 assessments for the 2021, 2022 and 2023 taxation years.

ANALYSIS

Description of Subject Property

8The Subject Property is a one-storey residential dwelling with attached garage. It was built in 2020 and has a total building area of 2,597 square feet. It is located at the end of a laneway on one acre of land.

Issue 1 – What is the current value of the Subject Property as of the statutory valuation day 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 2021 to 2024 taxation years is January 1, 2016.

11In general, the best evidence of current value would be the sale of the Subject Property on or close to the valuation day of January 1, 2016. If no such sale occurred, the Board will consider sales of comparable properties to establish the current value of the Subject Property.

Evidence on Current Value

MPAC

12MPAC provided evidence regarding the sale of six properties. MPAC performed a time adjustment to reflect what these properties would have sold for on January 1, 2016. MPAC also adjusted the sale prices to reflect property variables such as larger/smaller garages, finished basements, and age.

MPAC’s Proposed Comparable Properties and Sales Information

Property Address

17415 11^th^ Concession

40 Second Street

5 Blue Beech Trail

120 Edward Pottage Crescent

1 Moore Park Drive

56 Cutting Crescent

Sale Date

July 2015

November 2015

April 2016

July 2016

September 2015

April 2016

Time Adjusted Sale Amount

$918,465

$1,029,399

$1,044,088

$942,993

$749,455

$785,461

Site Area (Acres)

1.48

0.8

0.15

0.47

0.24

0.66

Year Built

1998

1992

2012

1992

1999

1994

Quality of Construction

7

6.5

7.5

7.5

7

6.5

Full Storeys

1

1

1

1

1

1

Building Total Area (Sq. Ft.)

2,033

2,300

2,301

2,180

2,022

2,380

Secondary Structures

Attached Garage

Attached Garage

Attached Garage

Attached Garage

Attached Garage

Attached Garage

Final Sale Amount Adjusted for Property Variables and Time

Adjusting the time adjusted sale amount for garage differential, age depreciation $951,278

Adjusting for garage differential, basement age depreciation $1,034,369

Adjusting for garage differential and age depreciation $1,121,376

Adjusting for garage differential and age depreciation $1,039,892

Adjusting for garage differential and age depreciation $847,425

Adjusting for garage differential and age depreciation $886,693

13MPAC testified that the Subject Property should sell for more than 1 Moore Park Drive and 56 Cutting Crescent, and for similar or more than the remaining four properties. MPAC testified that this creates a range of value between $847,425 and $1,121,376 based on the Final Sale Amount Adjusted for Property Variables and Time. MPAC testified that the current value should be $992,000 (rounded) based on the median time-adjusted sale prices of all six properties. MPAC testified that this value would be reflected at $667,000 for the s. 33 assessments.

Appellant

14The Appellant submits that the Subject Property should be assessed at $850,000. In support of this position, the Appellant provided evidence regarding four proposed comparable properties.

Appellant’s Proposed Comparable Properties and Information

Property Address

5024 Lloydtown Aurora Road

4590 Lloydtown Aurora Road

4862 Lloydtown Aurora Road

5000 Lloydtown Aurora Road

Sale Date

2015

Information not provided

Information not provided

2015

Sale Price

$887,000

Information not provided

Information not provided

Information not provided

Building Total Area (Sq. Ft.)

3,115

3,597

2,547

2,858

Year Built

1962

2021

1995

2013

Site Area (Acres)

2

1

1.5

3.8

Current Value Assessment

“Same Value” as the Subject Property*

$1,097,000

$852,000

$971,000

*The Appellant stated it was assessed at the same value as the Subject Property, but did not confirm whether that means the s. 40 assessment value of $1,007,000 or the reduced value proposed by MPAC of $992,000.

15The Appellant submits as follows:

a. 5024 Lloydtown Aurora Road has 16% more square footage than the Subject Property and has double the acreage. It sold for $887,000 in 2015. As 5024 Lloydtown Aurora Road is a larger home with more land, it does not “add up” that it is assessed at the same value as the Subject Property.

b. 4590 Lloydtown Aurora Road is 27% larger in terms of square footage yet it assessed at a 9.6% differential. To better reflect the size differential, the Subject Property should be assessed in the range of $850,000.

c. 4862 Lloydtown Aurora Road is similar in building area to the Subject Property. The larger acreage of this property cancels out the fact that this property was built in 1995 compared to the Subject Property in 2020. This property is assessed at $852,000.

d. 5000 Lloydtown Aurora Road is 8% larger than the Subject Property and the acreage is 3.5 times larger, yet it is assessed less than the Subject Property at $971,000.

Findings on Issue 1

16The Board does not accept the Appellant’s proposed current value of $850,000, nor does it rely on the Appellant’s proposed comparable properties to determine current value of the Subject Property, for the following reasons:

a. With respect to 4590 Lloydtown Aurora Road and 4862 Lloydtown Aurora Road, neither property sold on or close to the statutory valuation day of January 1, 2016, or in the year preceding or following that date. Instead, the Appellant asks the Board to rely on the assessment value of these properties. The Board does not accept this approach – the Board requires market-tested sales evidence to determine current value, not assessment values. Accordingly, the Board does not rely on 4590 Lloydtown Aurora Road or 4862 Lloydtown Aurora Road.

b. With respect to 5000 Lloydtown Aurora Road, the Appellant testified that the property sold in 2015, but did not provide evidence regarding the sale price. As noted above, the Board does not accept the approach of relying on the assessment value without the sale price. Accordingly, the Board does not rely on this sale as evidence of current value.

c. With respect to 5024 Lloydtown Aurora Road, the Appellant testified that it sold for $887,000 in 2015. However, the Appellant did not time adjust this sale price to January 1, 2016, nor did the Appellant confirm when in 2015 the sale occurred for the purposes of a time adjustment. Accordingly, the Board does not rely on this sale as reflective of current value.

17The Board accepts and relies on MPAC’s evidence regarding comparable properties, for the following reasons:

a. The Appellant did not contest MPAC’s evidence, or otherwise argue that its proposed sales are not appropriate comparable properties.

b. The Board finds that MPAC’s proposed comparable properties are sufficiently comparable to the Subject Property for the purpose of determining current value using the Direct Comparison Approach valuation methodology. They are all one-storey residential dwellings within 10 kilometres of the Subject Property. All sales occurred within sufficient proximity to the valuation day, and the sale prices were appropriately adjusted for both time and differences from the Subject Property, like garage size and age. The structures are of the same or very comparable quality of construction.

18The Board accepts and relies on MPAC’s submission regarding current value, based on the median adjusted sale price of MPAC’s six comparable properties. The Board therefore finds that the current value is $992,000 (rounded) in relation to the s. 40 assessment, and $667,000 (rounded) in relation to the s. 33 assessments.

Issue 2 - Is the current value equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity and, if not, should an equitable reduction be made?

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

20The Appellant did not differentiate in their evidence regarding current value and equitable adjustment. For this reason, the Appellant’s evidence and submissions with respect to equitable adjustment is consistent with paragraphs 14 and 15, above.

MPAC

21MPAC provided an equity analysis report reflecting an Assessment to Sales Ratio (“ASR”) analysis. The ASR of a sample of sold properties is a tool often used to determine if a property in the vicinity is assessed below its current value. If sold properties are being assessed below their current value, as demonstrated in an ASR less than 1.0, a reduction in the Subject Property’s assessment below the correct current value may be required to make the subject assessment equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity. The ASR is determined by comparing the assessment as returned to the time-adjusted sale price, expressed as a mathematical ratio. MPAC takes the position that equity is achieved if the median ASR falls between 0.95 and 1.05.

22MPAC relies on the sales of 30 single-family detached residential properties (not on water) that sold between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2016 within 2.0 kilometre of the Subject Property. MPAC testified that the analysis reveals an ASR of 0.98, which means that similar properties in the vicinity have been assessed at or near their current values and an equity adjustment is not required.

Findings on Issue 2

23The Board does not accept the Appellant’s proposed equitable current value of $850,000 nor does it rely on the Appellant’s proposed comparable properties to determine whether an equitable adjustment should be applied, for the following reasons:

a. As outlined above, the Appellant has not provided adjusted sale prices for the four proposed comparable properties, such that the Board cannot determine an ASR using these properties.

b. The Appellant has not provided sufficient evidence regarding the particulars of these proposed similar properties for the Board to determine whether they are sufficiently similar to the Subject Property for the purposes of relying on their assessed values as reflective of the equitable current value. The square footage and acreage of these four proposed similar properties, alone, is insufficient information for the Board to confirm whether these are sufficiently similar to the Subject Property for the purposes of an equity analysis.

24The Board accepts and relies on MPAC’s ASR analysis that demonstrates an ASR of 0.98. The analysis is uncontested by the Appellant, and the Board finds that the ASR is a tool routinely relied on to ascertain whether a property requires an equitable adjustment.

25That said, the Board does not accept MPAC’s submission that this ASR reflects that no adjustment is required. In this instance, an ASR of 0.98 is less than 1.0, which suggests there is some measure of similar properties in the vicinity being underassessed. The Board finds that an equitable reduction is appropriate in the circumstances, as follows:

a. Section 40: Current value of $992,000 x ASR of 0.98 = $972,160

b. Section 33: Current value of $667,000 x ASR of 0.98 = $653,660

26The Board finds that the equitable current value is $972,000 (rounded) as reflected on the s. 40 assessment, and $653,000 (rounded) as reflected on the s. 33 assessments.

CONCLUSION

27The Board finds that the correct current value is $992,000, and that an equitable reduction is required such that the equitable current value is $972,000 (rounded) as reflected on the s. 40 assessment and $653,000 as reflected on the s. 33 assessments.

ORDER

28The Board orders that the current value reflected on the s. 40 assessment for the 2024 taxation year is reduced to $972,000, and the current value reflected on the s. 33 assessments for the 2021, 2022 and 2023 taxation years is reduced to $653,000.