Tribunals Ontario / Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario

Assessment Review Board / Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: August 01, 2024

FILE NO.: WR 186395

Assessed Person(s): Varand Abedi

Appellant(s): Varand Abedi

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 15

Respondent(s): City of Mississauga

Property Location(s): 173 Mineola Road East

Municipality(ies): City of Mississauga

Roll Number(s): 2105-010-011-13400-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3520278 and 3525612

Taxation Year(s): 2023 and 2024

Hearing Event No.: 784094

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

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Varand Abedi	Self-represented
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation	Tanya Janeczek-Boyle
City of Mississauga	No one appeared

HEARD: June 11, 2024 by telephone conference call

ADJUDICATOR(S): Anita Lovrich, Member Dan Weagant, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1Varand Abedi (the “Appellant”) appealed the 2023 omitted assessment of $1,642,000 for 173 Mineola Road East in the City of Mississauga (the “Subject Property”) to the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) under s. 33 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”). Pursuant to s. 40(26) of the Act a further appeal of the assessment was deemed for the 2024 taxation year pursuant to s. 40 of the Act. The omitted 2023 assessment reflected the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation’s (“MPAC”) valuation of the new single detached dwelling constructed in 2021. When added to the land value of $743,000, the total assessment applied by MPAC, effective January 1, 2023 is $2,385,000 in the Residential property class. In preparation for the hearing MPAC amended its opinion of current value from $2,385,000 to $2,202,000.

2The Appellant states that this assessment is too high because the newly constructed dwelling was built using modern techniques, with simplified construction methods and fewer materials than a traditionally-built property. The Appellant argues that the correct current value of the Subject Property, effective January 1, 2023 should be in the range of $1,750,000 to $1,850,000.

Areas of Agreement

3The Parties agree that the Subject Property is in the Residential property class and that the correct effective date of the omitted assessment applied by MPAC is January 1, 2023.

Issues for the Hearing

4At issue in this proceeding is:

1. What is the correct 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?

Result

5For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that the correct current value of the Subject Property is $2,202,000 for the 2024 taxation year, with $743,000 attributed to the land value and $1,459,000 attributable to the improvements. The Board further finds that the value of the s. 33 omitted assessment, effective January 1, 2023 is $1,459,000 (rounded).

6The Board finds that there is no evidence to support an equitable reduction.

ANALYSIS

Description of Subject Property

7The Subject Property is a two-storey single detached dwelling of 3,825 square feet of living area situated on a 0.22-acre lot in an established residential area. Construction of the dwelling was completed in 2023 and includes an attached garage and a finished basement area of 1,989 square feet.

Issue 1 – What is the correct current value of the Subject Property as of the statutory valuation day of January 1, 2016?

Applicable Law

8In 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”.

9Accordingly, the Board must first determine what the Subject Property would have sold for in an arm’s length transaction on the statutory valuation day. Section 19.2(1) of the Act confirms that the valuation day for the 2023 and 2024 taxation years is January 1, 2016.

Evidence on Current Value

10The 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 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.

11MPAC provided the Board with evidence regarding five sales of proposed comparable properties which occurred at or within one year of January 1, 2016.

12The five proposed comparable properties sold between July 2015 and August 2016, with sale values ranging from $2,150,000 to $2,800,000. MPAC performed a time adjustment to reflect what the properties would have sold for on January 1, 2016. All five of these proposed comparable properties are two-storey single detached dwellings with an attached garage, and a quality of construction rating of 8.5 applied by MPAC. Additional details of each are provided in the chart below:

MPAC’s Proposed Comparable Properties and Sales Information

Property	Land Area (Acres)	Building Area (square feet)	Year Built	Finished Basement Area (square feet) / Basement Height (feet)	Bedrooms / Bathrooms	Other	Sale Price / Date of Sale	Time-adjusted Sale Price
1384 Broadmoor Avenue	.37	3,848	2015	0 / 9	5 / 5.5		$2,560,000 / August 2016	$2,390,707
1365 Broadmoor Avenue	.37	4,052	2007	1,888 / 8.0	4 / 4.5	Outdoor Pool	$2,150,000 / July 2015	$2,267,763
1383 Broadmoor Avenue	.37	4,491	2013	2,107 / 8.5	4 / 4.5		$2,800,000 / March 2016	$2,735,432
148 Kenollie Avenue	.24	4,165	2008	1,790 / 8	4 / 4.5		$2,410,000 / January 2016	$2,398,676
1305 Northhaven Drive	.19	3,554	2016	1,864 / 9	4 / 6.5		$2,150,000 / July 2016	$2,025,681
173 Mineola Rd East (Subject Property)	.22	3,825	2023	1,989 / 10	5 / 6.5

13Having determined that these five sales were the best indication of a sale value of the Subject Property, MPAC calculated the per square foot, time-adjusted sale value of each proposed comparable property. The range of those values is $559.66 to $609.09, with a median of $575.91.

14By applying the median per square foot, time-adjusted sale value of its sample ($575.91) to the square footage of the Subject Property (3,825), MPAC determined its current value opinion of $2,202,855.

15The Appellant argues that the properties cited by MPAC should not be relied on as some have a larger lot size than the Subject Property.

16The Appellant submitted the assessments of several nearby properties which he deemed to be comparable to the Subject Property: 156 Mineola Road, 117 Hollywood Heights Road, 1390 Wilson Avenue, 101 Oakes Drive, 215 Mineola Road, 181 Mineola Road, 131 Mineola Road, and 172 Mineola Road.

Appellant’s Proposed Comparable Properties and Information

Property	Land Area (square feet)	Building Area (square feet)	Year Built	Number of storeys	Assessed value
156 Mineola Road	9.375	2,643	1953	2	$1,164.000
117 Hollywood Heights Road	12,285	3,271	1952	2	$1,717,000
1390 Wilson Avenue	7,800	3,309	2015	2	$1,887,000
101 Oakes Drive	4,140	Not provided	2012	2	$2,619,000
215 Mineola Road	17,713.50	2,694	1986	2	$1,385,000
181 Mineola Road	17,377.41	2,763	1985	2	$1,202,000
131 Mineola Road	7405.2		1934		$1,013,000
172 Mineola Road	11,325.6		1936		$1,182,000

17Finally, the Appellant submits that the Subject Property was constructed using more modern methods than the methods used in MPAC’s proposed comparables. He argues that the materials used and the simplified construction methods of modern construction result in lower costs, and hence, lower value than would be the case with the more traditional construction methods used in constructing the properties cited by MPAC.

18The Appellant testified that the modern construction methods used result in a building valuation that is approximately 25% - 35% lower than traditional methods and, for that reason, the value of the dwelling should be reduced accordingly. In addition, he believes the land value should also be reduced because the subject lot is smaller than most of the properties in MPAC’s sample.

19To account for these differences, the Appellant reduced the assessed value on the assessment roll by MPAC of $743,000 by 25% and similarly, applied a 25% reduction to the $1,642,000 originally applied by MPAC in its omitted assessment. With these adjustments made, the Appellant submits the correct current value of the Subject Property is $1,788,750, with $557,250 attributed to the land value and $1,231,500 attributed to the omitted assessment for the new dwelling.

20The Appellant did not reference a specific source for the 25% reduction he applied to arrive at his opinion of current value. It was based only on his perception of the market. There was no documentary evidence adduced at the hearing as to why 25% was the appropriate reduction, or whether a reduction was warranted at all.

Findings on Issue 1

21In determining the current value of the Subject Property, the Board must consider the best evidence at the hearing that represents the amount that the Subject Property would have sold for on January 1, 2016.

22The Appellant referenced assessments of other properties, without providing proposed comparable properties with sales at or near the valuation day. The Appellant asks the Board to rely on his oral testimony regarding building costs related to the Subject Property and the assessment value of other properties in his neighbourhood. The Appellant did not provide evidence that the proposed properties he submitted sold on or close to the statutory valuation day of January 1, 2016, or in the year preceding or following that date. The Board does not accept these approaches as it requires market-tested sales evidence of sales that occurred at or near the valuation day to determine current value.

23For these reasons, the Board does not rely on the proposed assessment values of the proposed comparable properties submitted by the Appellant, nor on his estimate of the building costs related to the Subject Property.

24The 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 two-storey single detached dwellings with an attached garage, similar size, and a quality of construction rating of 8.5. All sales occurred within sufficient proximity to the valuation day, and the sale prices were appropriately time-adjusted. The median time-adjusted sale price per square foot of the five comparable properties proposed by MPAC is the best evidence of the current value of the Subject Property.

25The Board accepts and relies on MPAC’s submission regarding current value, based on the median adjusted sale price of MPAC’s five proposed comparable properties. The Board therefore finds that the current value of the Subject Property is $2,202,000.

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

Applicable Law

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”.

Evidence on Equity

27The Appellant relied on the assessments of eight properties in the vicinity to address the question of equitable assessment. Those properties were summarized in paragraph [16] above.

28The Appellant submitted that this comparison with other properties in the vicinity shows that the Subject Property is over-assessed, and that its assessment should be reduced to be equitable with similar properties in the vicinity.

29MPAC prepared an assessment to sales ratio (“ASR”) analysis of 30 properties that sold in the vicinity of the Subject Property in 2015 and 2016. The ASR analyses are a means of determining how properties are assessed in comparison to their time-adjusted sale prices. The ratio derived is expressed as a percentage of 1.00. Where a ratio is less than 1.00, the indication is that a property is assessed at a level below its current value, while a ratio above 1.00 indicates that a property is assessed above its current value.

30The properties selected by MPAC were all two-storey, single detached dwellings, not on water and within 2.5 kilometres from the Subject Property.

31MPAC calculated a range of ASRs from its sample of 30 properties of 0.89 to 1.15, with a median of 0.975.

32MPAC submitted that a median ASR lying between 0.95 and 1.05 from a sample such as this indicates that similar properties in the vicinity of the Subject Property are assessed at or near their respective current values. As a result, MPAC submits that no reduction in the current value determined for the Subject Property is required for it to be considered equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity.

Findings on Issue 2

33There are two aspects of the task the Board must carry out when determining the equitable assessment of the Subject Property; the vicinity and the similarity of other properties being considered. There is no issue for the Board to determine here on the question of vicinity. All properties available for consideration are within a reasonable distance of the Subject Property to be considered within the vicinity of the Subject Property.

34The Board does not rely on the Appellant’s proposed comparable properties to determine whether an equitable adjustment should be applied because the Appellant has not provided properties with evidence of market-tested sales transactions at or near the valuation day. Further, most of the Appellant’s proposed comparable properties are substantially older than the Subject Property (with built dates including 1934, 1936, 1952, 1953, 1985 and 1986). Where property size and dwelling size data was available, these properties were shown to be substantially smaller.

35The Board accepts and relies on MPAC’s ASR analysis using 30 properties single detached, two-storey dwellings within 2.5 kilometres from the Subject Property that demonstrates an ASR of 0.97. The Board finds that the ASR is a tool routinely relied on to ascertain whether a property requires an equitable adjustment. Furthermore, MPAC provided a more representative sample size, which is preferred and will provide a general level of assessment of similar lands in the vicinity.

36The Board accepts that an ASR of 0.97 and coefficient of dispersion of 7.2 indicates that similar properties in the vicinity have been assessed at or near their current values and therefore, an equitable adjustment is not required.

37The Board finds that, when reference is made to the assessments of the most similar properties in the vicinity of the Subject Property, no downward adjustment to the current value determined is required for it to be equitable.

CONCLUSION

38The Board finds that the current value of the Subject Property for 2024 taxation year as reflected on the s. 40 assessment is $2,202,000 and $1,459,000 as reflected on the s. 33 assessment.

39Lastly, the Board finds that there is no evidence to support a reduction in these values for the purposes of equitable assessment when reference is made to the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity.

ORDER

40The Board orders that the assessment be reduced from $2,385,000 to $2,202,000 for the 2024 taxation year and from $1,642,000 to $1,459,000 for the omitted assessment effective January 1, 2023 in the Residential property class.