Jeremy Maierovits v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 09 and City of Toronto, 2024 CanLII 73801

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

ISSUE DATE: July 30, 2024 FILE NO.: WR 186562

Assessed Person(s): Jeremy Maierovits; Adina Bracha Maierovits Appellant(s): Jeremy Maierovits Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 09 Respondent(s): City of Toronto Property Location(s): 479 Coldstream Avenue Municipality(ies): City of Toronto Roll Number(s): 1908-061-200-00800-0000 Appeal Number(s): 3522635 and 3524936 Taxation Year(s): 2023 and 2024 Hearing Event No.: 784266 Legislative Authority: Sections 34 and 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Jeremy Maierovits	Self-represented
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation	Gregory Tom
City of Toronto	No one appeared

HEARD: July 9, 2024 by video conference

ADJUDICATOR(S): Subuola Awoleri, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1Jeremy Maierovits, (the “Appellant”), owner of 479 Coldstream Avenue (the “Subject Property”), appealed the 2023 assessment of the Subject Property to the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) under s. 34 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, a further appeal of the assessment was deemed for the 2024 taxation year.

2For the 2023 taxation year, the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) issued a supplementary assessment for the Subject Property at $1,811,000, effective March 7, 2023. MPAC further assessed the Subject Property at $2,807,000, for the 2024 taxation year.

3The Appellant argued that the current value of the Subject Property should be $1,806,384.80.

4MPAC 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 $3,626,000 without a further reduction to make the current value equitable with the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity. MPAC requests that the Board confirm the assessed value as returned at $2,807,000.

5At the completion of the hearing, the Board reserved its decision.

Issues for the Hearing

6The issues to be determined are:

1. What is the correct current value of the Subject Property, as of the January 1, 2016 valuation day, for the 2024 taxation year?

2. What is the correct value of the s. 34 supplementary assessment for the 2023 taxation year?

3. Is the current value as determined by the Board equitable in reference to the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity?

Result

7The Board finds that the correct current value of the Subject Property, as of the January 1, 2016 valuation day, is $2,740,000 (rounded). The Board reduces the current value assessment of the Subject Property from $2,807,000 to $2,740,000 (rounded) for the 2024 taxation year.

8Accordingly, the Board determines that the correct value of the s. 34 supplementary assessment is $1,744,000 (rounded) effective March 7, 2023 for the 2023 taxation year. The Board reduces the s. 34 supplementary assessment from $1,811,000 to $1,744,000 (rounded) for the 2023 taxation year.

9The Board finds that there is no evidence to support a conclusion that the Subject Property requires a reduction in its determined current value in order to make it equitable with the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity.

ANALYSIS

Description of the Subject Property

10The Subject Property is a two-storey residential dwelling built in 2023 located in the City of Toronto. It has a lot with 44 feet (“ft.”) of effective frontage and 134 ft. of effective depth for an effective site area of 0.14 acres. It has a total building area (“TBA”) of 4,203 square feet (“sq. ft.”), with construction quality of 9.0 and a basement area of 2,170 sq. ft. of which 1,470 sq. ft. is finished. The Subject Property has a basement garage with a TBA of 440 sq. ft.

Issue 1 - What is the correct current value of the Subject Property, as of the January 1 2016 valuation day, for the 2024 taxation year?

11In 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 2024 taxation year, 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.

12The 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

13MPAC presented the Board with six proposed comparable property sales. These six proposed comparable property sales were improved with residences built between 2014 and 2016. Their effective site areas range from 0.15 to 0.19 acres and building sizes from 4,191 to 4,600 sq. ft. The quality of construction of the residences are between 8.5 and 9.0. These proposed comparable property sales sold within the shoulder years of the valuation day of January 1, 2016, which are 2015 and 2016. The details of MPAC’s proposed comparable property sales are in Table 1 below:

Table 1

Address	Assessment ($)	Sale Date & Sale Amt. ($)	Time-Adjusted Sale ($)	Building/ Size (sq. ft.)	Lot Size (Acres)	Year Built	Quality of Construction
Subject Property 479 Coldstream Avenue	2,807,000	N/A	N/A	4,203	0.14	2023	9.0
Sale 1 391 Cortleigh Boulevard	3,049,000	April 2016 (3,150,000)	3,021,651	4,492	0.14	2015	8.5
Sale 2 70 Otter Crescent	3,769,000	August 2016 (4,026,549)	3,682,432	4,242	0.19	2016	9.0
Sale 3 450 Glencairn Avenue	3,468,000	October 2015 (3,310,000)	3,396,564	4,569	0.15	2015	8.5
Sale 4 418 Lytton Boulevard	3,879,000	September 2015 (4,051,000)	4,230,704	4,600	0.15	2015	9.0
Sale 5 290 Lytton Boulevard	3,416,000	April 2016 (3,955,000)	3,793,850	4,191	0.15	2014	8.5
Sale 6 119 Strathallan Boulevard	3,617,000	March 2016 (3,900,000)	3,803,075	4,434	0.15	2014	9.0

14MPAC argued that all six of its proposed comparable property sales are similar to the Subject Property and that they are all within one kilometre of the Subject Property.

15MPAC submitted that the median time-adjusted sale price per square foot is $862.90. MPAC multiplied this by the TBA of the Subject Property which provides a value of $3,626,760.56. MPAC argued that the market value of the Subject Property, based on similar properties within the vicinity, is $3,626,000 (rounded).

16MPAC requested that the Board confirm the value as returned at $2,807,000, since it is not seeking an increase in the assessment of the Subject Property.

17The Appellant disagreed with MPAC. The Appellant argued that all of MPAC’s comparable properties are superior to the Subject Property in terms of location, that they all have luxury landscaping and appliances and other luxury chattels. MPAC submitted that it does not assess properties based on luxury landscaping, appliances and chattels.

Appellant’s Proposed Comparable Property

18The Appellant presented one proposed comparable property sale, 15 Fairholme Avenue. This property sold December 2016 at a sale price of $2,350,000 and a time-adjusted sale price of $2,084,388. It was built in 2016 with a quality of construction of 8.0. It has a frontage of 50 ft. and depth of 103 ft. and its TBA is 3,303 sq. ft. The basement area is 1,520 sq. ft. of which 1,292 sq. ft. is finished. It has an attached garage of 348 sq. ft.

19Although the Appellant presented into evidence the sale of 15 Fairholme Avenue, he did not use it to provide the Board with the current value of the Subject Property. He argued that this comparable property sale is the closest to the Subject Property with a distance of 600 meters. He further argued that although its frontage is 50 ft. it sold for less than the comparable properties presented by MPAC with 50 ft. frontages, due to its location, which is closer to Bathurst Street and Lawrence Avenue. Using this sale, the Appellant argued that the location of the Subject Property, being also closer to Bathurst Street and Lawrence Avenue, should sell for a lower value than MPAC’s comparable properties.

20In presenting the current value of the Subject Property, the Appellant used the average sale price of five of MPAC’s comparable property sales (sales 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6), which provides a value of $3,732,200. The Appellant made a negative 44% adjustment to this value for street difference using two properties (131 Strathallan Boulevard and 468 Coldstream Avenue), which he testified sold at the same time for different prices, based on the market value of these streets. The Appellant added that Strathallan Boulevard is a more superior location and properties on it sell for a higher value. He testified that 131 Strathallan Boulevard sold for $7,000,000, with a frontage of 50 ft. and a depth of 135 ft. while 468 Coldstream Avenue sold for $3,100,000 with a frontage of 40 ft. and a depth of 134 ft. He argued that the difference is in the location of the properties. These two properties sold in 2021.

21The Appellant testified that the 44% negative adjustment to the average of MPAC’s five comparable property sales provides a value of $1,642,168. The Appellant further made a positive 10% adjustment to this value, submitting that this accounts for the larger frontage of the Subject Property at 44 ft., since 468 Coldstream Avenue has a smaller frontage of 40 ft. According to the Appellant, this provides a value of $1,806,384.80. The Appellant submitted that this is the correct current value of the Subject Property.

Findings on Issue 1 – Correct Current Value for the 2024 Taxation Year

22The Board finds that the two sales used by the Appellant in making arbitrary street differential adjustments of 44% and 10%, were based on sales that occurred in 2021 outside the shoulder years of the valuation day of January 1, 2016. Additionally, the Appellant did not present the details of these properties for the Board to determine their comparability with the Subject Property. The Board finds that these adjustments are arbitrary and cannot be used in determining the correct current value of the Subject Property.

23The Appellant argued that all of MPAC’s comparable property sales are not similar to the Subject Property since they have larger frontages, luxury landscaping and appliances. However, the Appellant still used the average sale price of five out of the six sales as a starting point to derive the current value of the Subject Property, prior to accounting for his arbitrary adjustments.

24For these reasons, the Board finds that the Appellant’s method of deriving the current value of the Subject Property is of no assistance to the Board in determining the correct current value of the Subject Property.

25Therefore, in determining the correct current value of the Subject Property, the Board used MPAC’s evidence and the Appellant’s comparable property sale.

26MPAC testified that property sales 1 and 2 have swimming pools. The Appellant argued that property sale 4 also has a swimming pool, based on the property’s brokers brochure, which he reviewed, and it explicitly stated that it had a swimming pool. MPAC advised that it did not have that information in its file. The Board finds that it is possible for the owners of property sale 4 to have constructed the swimming pool without MPAC’s knowledge, as MPAC had earlier confirmed during cross-examination that it did not carry out an interior inspection of the Subject Property and its comparable property sales. Therefore, the Board accepts the Appellant’s testimony and finds that property sale 4 has a swimming pool.

27In reviewing MPAC’s proposed comparable property sales, the Board will disregard property sales 1, 2, 4 and 6. Property sales 1, 2 and 4 have swimming pools. MPAC did not provide any market adjustment for the value of these swimming pools. MPAC testified that the model value for a swimming pool is $66,000 and the Board is at liberty to make this deduction in determining the correct current value of the Subject Property. The Appellant suggested it was worth more than $100,000. MPAC did not present any corroborating evidence to support its value of $66,000. Moreover, the Subject Property does not have a swimming pool, therefore the best evidence of similarity would be to compare it with properties without swimming pools. The Board finds the model value of a swimming pool is not the market value (current value, as defined in the Act), the Board cannot arbitrarily assign a value to the swimming pool without supportive market evidence.

28MPAC’s comparable property sale 6 is a corner lot, the Board finds that a corner lot is not comparable with the Subject Property since it will transact differently in the market than the Subject Property, which is not a corner lot.

29The Board finds that comparable property sales 3 and 5 are superior to the Subject Property. The Appellant testified that most of MPAC’s comparable properties are located south-east of the Subject Property, closer to Eglinton Avenue and Avenue Road, which have more valuable properties with larger lots than properties closer to Bathurst Street and Lawrence Avenue such as the Subject Property. During cross-examination, MPAC admitted that it does not consider market value differences in streets to assess properties. MPAC admitted it considered properties that are within one kilometre of the Subject Property, in addition to reviewing other aspects of similarities such as lot and building sizes. The Board notes that MPAC did not object to the Appellant’s evidence, it only disputed the use of two 2021 sales by the Appellant in accounting for street difference, which the Board also disregarded.

30The Board finds the Appellant’s testimony of properties closer to Bathurst Street and Lawerence Avenue being less valuable than some of MPAC’s comparable properties more compelling. When comparing MPAC’s comparable property sale 5 with the Appellant’s comparable property (15 Fairholme Avenue) they both have 50 ft. frontages, the TBA of 15 Fairholme Avenue is 888 sq. ft. smaller. The quality of construction of 15 Fairholme Avenue is just half a quality lower than sale 5. The two properties sold in 2016, the time-adjusted sale price (“TASP”) of 15 Fairholme Avenue is $2,084,388, while the TASP of property sale 5 is $3,793,850. This gives an indication that, other than difference in TBA, the location may also be driving the value as argued by the Appellant.

31Property sales 3 and 5 have 50 ft. frontages with more depth than the Subject Property, resulting in larger lot sizes than the Subject Property. Property sale 3 has a larger TBA of 4,569 sq. ft. Its basement area and finished basement area are also larger than the Subject Property. Although property sale 5 has a similar TBA of 4,191 sq. ft. like the Subject Property, its basement area is much larger with 2,754 sq. ft. and a finished basement area of 2,147 sq. ft. Moreover, they are both located south-east of the Subject Property, which the Appellant testified is a more superior location.

32Although 15 Fairholme Avenue is closer to the Subject Property, it is still inferior to the Subject Property due to its size and quality of construction. Therefore, the current value of the Subject Property should be higher than 15 Fairholme Avenue but lower than the TASP of property sales 3 and 5.

33The Board determines the current value of the Subject Property, based on the current value range established by this inferior property sale and MPAC’s superior sales 3 and 5, as illustrated in diagram 1 below:

Table 2

Appellant’s Sale Inferior Sale → $2,084,388 →

Subject Property’s Current Value Range $2,740,476

MPAC’s Sales 3 and 5 Superior Sales ← $3,396,564 $3,793,850 →

Current Value Range $2,740,476

34The mid-point of the current value range is $2,740,476. The Board finds that the correct current value of the Subject Property is $2,740,000 (rounded).

Issue 2 – What is the correct value of the s. 34 supplementary assessment for the 2023 taxation year?

35In accordance with s. 34(1)(a) of the Act,

If, after notices of assessment have been given under section 31 and before the last day of the taxation year for which taxes are levied on the assessment referred to in the notices,

(a) an increase in value occurs which results from the erection, alteration, enlargement or improvement of any building, structure, machinery, equipment or fixture or any portion thereof that commences to be used for any purpose;

the assessor may make the further assessment that may be necessary to reflect the change…

36MPAC issued a supplementary assessment for the Subject Property effective March 7, 2023 as a result of the structure constructed on the property. MPAC stated that the original 2016 current value assessment was $996,000 for only the land value.

Findings on Issue 2 – Correct Value of the 2023 Supplementary Assessment

37The Board determined that the correct current value of the Subject Property is $2,740,000 (rounded), therefore the Board finds that the correct s. 34 supplementary assessment for the 2023 taxation year is $1,744,000 (rounded), which results from deducting the original land value assessment of $996,000 from the correct current value of $2,740,000.

Issue 3 - 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?

38Section 44(3)(b) of the Act directs that after determining current value,

… the Board shall,

(b) 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.

39The goal of the Act is to determine the correct current value of properties. Any equitable reduction in the current value results in an incorrect current value. Consequently, 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 current value, and in this appeal that party is the Appellant. The Appellant has to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that an equitable reduction is required.

40The Appellant did not raise this issue and he did not present any evidence on the appropriate reduction based on equity.

Findings on Issue 3 - Equity

41The Board finds that there is no evidence provided by the parties to support a reduction in the current value of the Subject Property, in order to make it equitable with the assessment of similar properties in the vicinity.

CONCLUSION

42The Board finds that the correct current value of the Subject Property as of the valuation day of January 1, 2016 is $2,740,000 for the 2024 taxation year and the correct value of the supplementary assessment for the 2023 taxation year is $1,744,000 (rounded) effective March 7, 2023 with no adjustment for equity.

ORDER

43The Board orders that:

1. the current value of the Subject Property, as of the January 1, 2016 valuation day, be reduced from $2,807,000 to $2,740,000 for the 2024 taxation year; and

2. the supplementary assessment be reduced from $1,811,000 to $1,744,000 effective March 7, 2023 for the 2023 taxation year.