Tribunals Ontario
Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario
Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE:
February 08, 2024
FILE NO.:
WR 185699
Assessed Person(s):
Joel Gregory Gianfrancesco; Ashley Sarah Inguanez
Appellant(s):
Joel Gianfrancesco
Respondent(s):
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 15
Respondent(s):
City of Burlington
Property Location(s):
193 Grove Park Drive
Municipality(ies):
City of Burlington
Roll Number(s):
2402-010-107-04900-0000
Appeal Number(s):
3516260
Taxation Year(s):
2023
Hearing Event No.:
782712
Legislative Authority:
Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Representative
Joel Gianfrancesco
Self-represented
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
Arik Mahler
City of Burlington
No one appeared
HEARD:
January 29, 2024 by telephone conference call
ADJUDICATOR(S):
Dan Weagant, Member
DECISION
OVERVIEW
1Joel Gianfrancesco (the “Appellant”) appealed the current value assessment of the property at 193 Grove Park Drive (the “subject property”) for the 2023 taxation year, because he believed the value returned by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) of $532,000 was too high.
2From the 2017 thorough 2022 taxation years, the assessment of the subject property was $437,000. The subject property was purchased by the Appellant in 2022 for $1,049,000. As a result of this sale, MPAC chose to review the assessment of the subject property and revised the assessment from $437,000 to $532,000 for the 2023 taxation year.
3As a result of the Request for Reconsideration process, MPAC offered a reduction in the revised assessment to $499,000 and recommends this value as the assessment of the subject property for 2023.
4The Appellant believes the assessment of the subject property should be reduced to approximately $437,000, the same assessment that applied prior to the sale of the subject property in 2022. The Appellant believes the assessment of $437,000 that applied for the 2017 through 2022 taxation years should still apply because nothing changed at the subject property since the 2016 valuation day.
Issues for the Hearing
5At issue in this proceeding is:
A determination of the current value of the subject property;
The effect of a renovation of the subject property on its current value; and
Whether a reduction in the current value should be made to achieve equitable assessment.
Result
6The Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) finds that the current value of the subject property is $515,000, and that there is no effect on this value from the renovation applied to it by MPAC.
7The Board also finds that, when reference is made to the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity, the current value requires a reduction for it to reflect equitable assessment.
8Therefore, for the 2023 taxation year the assessment of 193 Grove Park Drive is reduced from the value returned, to $437,000 in the Residential property class.
ANALYSIS
Description of Subject Property
9The subject property comprises approximately 8,538 square feet of land on Grove Park Drive in the City of Burlington. The existing single storey dwelling was constructed in 1961 and has a total of 1,081 square feet of living area. The basement includes a 240 square foot garage, 211 square feet of unfinished area and 630 square feet of finished area.
Issue 1 - What is the current value of the subject property?
MPAC’s Evidence and Submissions
10To arrive at its opinion of current value, MPAC applied the ‘direct comparison approach’ to value, whereby a subject property is compared to other properties that have sold in proximity to the valuation day in the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”) that applies to the years under appeal. For 2023, the valuation day is January 1, 2016.
11MPAC selected five proposed comparable properties that sold between September 2015 and October 2016. In order to compare these sale values as though they sold on the valuation day, MPAC applied Time Adjustment Factors (“TAFs”) to each of the five sale values in its sales study. These TAFs were derived from a “price changes over time” study where the sale values of 545 single family dwellings in the market area of the subject property that sold between January 2015 and December 2016 were plotted on a linear graph. The resulting graph indicates the TAF to be applied to property sale values in each of the 24 months of the study.
12By applying the corresponding TAF to the sale prices of the five properties in its study, MPAC derives a Time Adjusted Sale (TAS) for each.
13MPAC submitted that when the sale values of the comparable properties are considered, the range of TAS values is between $477,925 and $692,254. This comparison resulted in TAS values per square foot ranging from $422 to $564.
14MPAC noted that one of these five sale comparisons was the sale of the subject property in October 2016 for $595,000. Using MPAC TAF’s that sale value was reduced owing to the impact of the passage of time during that part of the market cycle. The reduced, TAS value of the subject sale was determined to be $515,000, rounded. MPAC further submitted that this TAS value did not represent the current value of the subject property because it did not account for the impact of a renovation to the property.
15MPAC submitted that the property was renovated some time before MPAC’s most recent review of the 2022 sale to the present owners. MPAC cited a review of interior photographs published during the listing of the property that indicated some updates had been made beyond what would be expected of a property that was constructed in 1961. Those photographs were not in evidence at this hearing.
16MPAC originally applied a renovation year of 2021, but upon the response from the Appellant in the context of this appeal, it changed that renovation date to 2002.
17MPAC testified that the other for comparable sales in its sample all had some kind of renovation in the past and were chosen so as to represent a more accurate indication of the subject property, including the value of its renovation. The TAS price per square foot of MPAC five sales is $485.25.
18MPAC submitted that when the average value per square foot of the five sales in its study is applied to the 1,081 square feet of living area at the subject property, the result is $524,000, rounded and that this is the best evidence of its current value.
Appellant’s Evidence and Submission
19The Appellant submitted that there are notable shortcomings with the property that were not suitably addressed in MPAC determination of the current value. In summary:
− Proximity to a railway;
− The presence of an adjacent parking lot used in connection with the nearby Aldershot Go Station.
20The Appellant did not provide any quantitative adjustments for these perceived shortcomings as an adjustment to any current value determined otherwise.
21In order to arrive at a current value for the subject property, the Appellant relied on the assessments of properties that he believed were the best indicators of current value. These properties are in close proximity to, and with many of the same attributes as, the subject property. A full review of those properties appears below under the Issue 2 analysis.
22Using these comparisons, the Appellant submitted that regardless of the current value determined, the assessment of the subject property should be the same as it was prior to the 2022 sale of $437,000, because nothing has changed at the property since it was assessed for the 2017 year under MPAC’s January 1, 2016 Current Value Assessment (CVA).
Findings on Issue 1
23The Act defines current value as being “…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…” on the valuation day set for the year under appeal. Included in this definition is a presumption that the valuation attributed is based on the physical attributes, location, condition size and age of the property being evaluated.
24This Board had widely held that a sale of a property under appeal that occurred at or near the valuation day set for the year under appeal is the best indication of its current value. In fact, MPAC relied in part on the sale of the subject property to determine its current value. It chose however, to adjust that TAS value to account for the value of a renovation it says occurred at the subject property and that was not reflected in the sale price in October of 2016.
25This is a logical approach, but it requires proof through documentary evidence. There was no evidence of this renovation at the hearing, except the Assessor’s testimony that photographs of the interior during the listing of the subject property prior to the 2022 sale indicated that updates appeared to have been made. No reference was made to any building permits that may have been issued for such updates. In the end, MPAC changed its opinion of the year of the renovation from 2021 to 2002; 14 years prior to the 2016 valuation day.
26The Appellant’s response to MPAC’s assertion was that any updates made were normal maintenance and surface treatments like painting that would likely occur over the 60 years since the subject dwelling was constructed, as they would for any property in the circumstances. The Appellant adduced no evidence related to the correct value of the subject property. The only evidence the Board has with respect to current value is that of MPAC.
27The Board finds therefore that the best evidence of the current value of the subject property is the October 2016 sale value of $595,000, reduced by the TAF drawn from MPAC’s time adjustment study of 0.866.
28The Board finds that the correct current value of the subject property is $515,000, rounded.
Issue 2 - Does the current value determined require a reduction to achieve equitable assessment when reference is made to the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity?
Appellant’s Evidence and Submissions
29The Appellant submitted that the fair and equitable assessment of the subject property should be in the range of the assessments applied to those properties most similar to the subject property and that are closest in proximity.
30The Appellant submitted a summary, reproduced below, outlining the attributes of six single-family dwelling properties on the same street as the subject property. The Appellant submitted that when the comparison is made between the subject property and these six similar properties, the range of assessments suggests the assessment of the subject property should be somewhere between $405,000 and $442,000.
31The Appellant further suggested that when the physical differences among the six similar properties are taken into account, it is evident that 199 Grove Park Drive is superior to the subject property and therefore should have a higher assessment than the subject property. The Appellant then submitted that the other five properties are inferior to the subject property and therefore should have a lower assessment that the subject property.
32Noting that the highest assessment of the inferior properties in his sample is $420,000 and that the assessment of the lone superior property is $442,000, the Appellant submitted that the assessment of the subject property should lie between those two values.
33Finally, the Appellant submitted that the assessment previously applied to the subject property prior to MPAC’s review of the 2022 sale was $437,000 and that there is no reason to change that value.
MPAC’s Evidence and Submissions
34MPAC prepared an equity study, where the assessments of 18 properties in the vicinity of the subject property are compared to their respective time-adjusted sale prices. The results of these comparisons are the respective Assessment to Sale Ratios (“ASRs”) for the 18 properties selected.
35MPAC’s search criteria for similar properties included single family dwellings, within two kilometres of the subject property.
36When MPAC analyzed this data set, the result was a median ASR of 1.02. According to MPAC this means that similar properties in the vicinity of the subject property are generally assessed at a value of two percent above their respective current values, as determined by their time-adjusted sale values.
Findings on Issue 2
37Section 44 (3) (b) of the Act states:
(3) – For 2009 and subsequent taxation years, in determining the value at which any land shall be assessed, 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.
38There is no specific method established in law for the Board to adopt in determining whether a downward adjustment in a current value is necessary for it to be equitable. In this case, the parties applied two different methods. One method considers the assessments of other properties; the other considers assessments as they relate to respective, time-adjusted sale values.
39The Appellant’s method focused on the assessments of six properties that lie in close proximity to the subject property and that display similar attributes to the subject property.
40MPAC’s approach was to compare the assessments of 18 properties in the vicinity to their respective TAS price, thereby arriving at a median ASR. The result was a median ASR of 1.02 that lies within the range determined by MPAC to reflect equitable assessment.
41In making its decision on the best method of determining whether the current value determined represents equitable assessment, the Board relies on Municipal Property Assessment Corporation v Loblaw Properties Limited, 2017 ONSC 1299 (“Loblaw”), where Justice Nordheimer wrote, in paragraph 25:
In my view, the proper approach to be taken to determining what are “similar lands in the vicinity” is that set out by Saunders J. in Trizec, that is, that all points of comparison must be considered.
42MPAC’s selection criteria for its equity study are:
Single-family detached dwellings;
Within two kilometres of the subject property.
43The Appellant’s selection criteria for his equity comparison are:
Single-family detached, one-storey dwellings;
Building area of 981 to 1,104 square feet;
Lot size of 7,519 square feet to 9,455 square feet
On the same side of the same street as the subject property
Within 300 metres of the subject property
Backing on to the same GO Station parking lot
Proximity to the same railway line
Built in 1959 or 1960
2016 Current Value Assessment
44The Appellant’s comparison is summarized below:
Address
Year Built
Building Size (square feet)
Lot Size (square feet)
2016 Current value Assessment (CVA)
Subject Property 193 Grove Park Drive
1961
1,081
8,538
$532,000
155 Grove Park Drive
1960
981
7,843
$418,000
161 Grove Park Drive
1960
981
7,669
$413,000
165 Grove Park Drive
1960
981
7,519
$405,000
179 Grove Park Drive
1960
1,104
7,680
$420,000
189 Grove Park Drive
1960
981
7,689
$414,000
199 Grove Park Drive
1959
1,081
9,455
$442,000
45From the Appellant’s data, it is clear that similar properties in the vicinity, are assessed at a level below the current value determined for the subject property. These six similar properties establish a range of assessments in the vicinity of the subject property of $405,000 to $442,000. At the hearing, MPAC confirmed that the assessments attributed to the six similar properties were correct.
46In the Board’s view, it is the Appellant’s evidence that is the best measure ‘all points of comparison’ as set out in Loblaw. These are the most similar properties to the subject property in evidence. The Board concurs with the Appellant’s logic, that the assessment of the subject property should lie between $420,000 and $442,000 as this is a reasonable range of assessment in comparison to the six most similar properties in evidence.
47The Board finds therefore that a reduction in the current value is required for an assessment at the subject property to be considered equitable.
48The equitable assessment is $437,000.
CONCLUSION
49The Board finds that the current value of the subject property is $ 515,000.
50The Board also finds that, when reference is made to the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity, the current value requires a reduction for it to reflect equitable assessment.
ORDER
51The Board orders that the assessment of 193 Grove Park Drive, for the 2023 taxation year is reduced to $437,000, in the Residential property class.