Tribunals Ontario

Assessment Review Board

Issue Date: January 07, 2025 File No.: WR 187194

Assessed Person(s): Joncarlo Lista; Carolyn Lista Appellant(s): Joncarlo Lista; Carolyn Lista Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 15 Respondent(s): City of Mississauga

Property Location(s): 869 Sangster Avenue Municipality(ies): City of Mississauga Roll Number(s): 2105-020-019-02200-0000 Appeal Number(s): 3523062, 3525541 and 3527372 Taxation Year(s): 2023 and 2024 Hearing Event No.: 784879

Legislative Authority: Sections 32 and 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31

Appearances:

Parties	Counsel/Representative
Joncarlo Lista; Carolyn Lista	Self-represented
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation	Marissa Cheddi
City of Mississauga	No one appeared

Heard: December 4, 2024 by video conference

Adjudicator(s): Christopher Voutsinas, Vice-Chair

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1Joncarlo Lista and Carolyn Lista (the “Appellants”) are the owners of 869 Sangster Avenue in the City of Mississauga (the “Subject Property”). The Appellants appealed their 2023 taxation year property assessment to the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) on the ground that the assessment is too high.

2The 2023 current value assessment (“CVA”) for the subject property was returned on the roll at $1,398,000. This same CVA was returned for the 2024 taxation year. Pursuant to s. 40(26) of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”) an appeal of this CVA is deemed for the 2024 taxation year. The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) issued a Post Roll Amended Notice (“PRAN”) effective January 1, 2024 reducing the 2024 CVA to $1,347,000. An appeal of this reduced 2024 CVA is also deemed for the 2024 taxation year pursuant to the Act.

3The Appellants took the position that the assessed value for the taxation years in question is incorrect and too high, and that the correct current value is $932,250.

4MPAC opposes the Appellants’ appeals. MPAC took the position that the correct current value of the Subject Property for the 2023 and 2024 taxation years is $1,576,000. Per Rule 28 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”), MPAC provided the Appellants with a “Notice of Increase to Current Value Assessment”.

5While the municipality is a statutory party to the appeal proceeding, its representative attended the hearing as an observer only.

6At the hearing, the Board rendered an oral decision subsequent to which the Appellants requested written reasons for the decision from the Board, as reflected herein.

Background

7The Subject Property is a single-family detached residential dwelling located in the area known as Lorne Park Estates, a private community within the City of Mississauga. Lorne Park Estates comprises over 77 acres of privately shared parklands, private beach, and other amenities within wooded surroundings.

8The Subject Property sold on April 16, 2018 for $1 in a transaction considered by MPAC not to reflect an open market sale. It sold again on April 26, 2018 for $1,175,000 in what MPAC considers an open market sale.

Preliminary Matters

9At the hearing, MPAC objected to the Appellants’ late filing, two days before the hearing, of certain evidence.

10MPAC objected on the basis that: (i) the due date of September 10, 2024 for filing all hearing documents and written submissions had long passed per the Schedule of Events (“SOE”) assigned by the Board to these appeals, and (ii) the late evidence includes content of without prejudice settlement discussions between the parties.

11At the hearing, the parties were asked to make oral submissions on the matter.

12Upon hearing the oral submissions, the Board directed that it would: (i) allow the late evidence as it related to certain factual clarifications asserted by the Appellants, namely, building square footage, and (ii) disallow any references to the without prejudice settlement discussions between the parties.

13Both MPAC and the Appellants accepted the Board’s direction.

14The parties agreed that the Subject Property’s total building area is corrected to reflect 2,675 square feet (with no change to the basement area) rather than 2,708 square feet as previously recorded. The parties also agreed that the 2021 addition to the Subject Property measures 522 square feet rather than 549 square feet as previously recorded.

Issues for the Hearing

15At issue in this proceeding is:

1. What is the correct current value of the Subject Property for the 2023 and 2024 taxation years?

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

Result

16The Board finds that the correct current value for the Subject Property for the 2023 and 2024 taxation years is $1,220,000 without the need of a downward reduction for equity purposes.

17The Board notes that the oral decision given at the hearing found the correct current value to be $1,235,000 for the 2023 and 2024 taxation years. This was an error based on calculations using the initial total building area rather than the agreed total building area of 2,675 square feet per the outcome of the Preliminary Matters. The error was detected during the preparation of these written reasons and is corrected herein.

ANALYSIS

Description of Subject Property

18The Subject Property was originally constructed in 1888 and comprises a total building area of 2,675 square feet allocated over two storeys on a land area of 0.11 acres. MPAC characterizes the structure’s condition as average and the overall quality of construction as 7.5 out of 10.

19The Subject Property was renovated in 2021. The renovation included an addition of an agreed upon 522 square feet of building area.

Issues - What is the correct current value of the Subject Property for the 2023 and 2024 taxation years and is the current value equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity?

Applicable Law

20Section 19(1) of the Act provides that the assessment of land shall be based on its current value. 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.” For the 2023 and 2024 taxation years in question, the statutory valuation day is January 1, 2016.

21Section 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 and Submissions of the Parties

MPAC’s Position

22MPAC conducted a valuation of the Subject Property using the direct comparison approach as described in its Valuation Report dated June 17, 2024 (Exhibit 1).

23MPAC identified three properties for valuation comparison purposes – two in Lorne Park Estates and one in Rattray Park Estates (two kilometers away). All three properties sold within 12 months of the statutory valuation day.

24MPAC submitted that these three properties are the most comparable to the Subject Property for valuation purposes and are properties within the same homogenous area and of similar total building area, lot size, and age. All three properties have been renovated and are of a similar quality of construction as the Subject Property.

25Using the three proposed comparable properties, MPAC calculated the average time-adjusted sale price per square foot of total building area equal to $582.12. MPAC applied this value to the Subject Property’s agreed total building area of 2,675 square feet to derive a valuation of $1,557,000 (rounded).

26MPAC also conducted two equity analyses as described in the respective Equity Reports, entered into the record as Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3.

27MPAC used the assessment to sale ratio (“ASR”) to compare current value assessments against time-adjusted sale prices. An ASR is calculated by dividing the assessed value of a property that has sold by its sale price. The median ratio indicates the typical level of assessment. The variation or dispersion of the ratios (measured by the coefficient of dispersion or COD) shows the consistency of assessments relative to current values.

28In the first of the two equity analyses, MPAC searched its database for a variety of residential properties (including single-family detached, semi-detached, townhouse/rowhouse, and others) located within 0.75 kilometers of the Subject Property. MPAC’s search yielded 30 properties with an ASR of 0.97 and a COD of 5.

29As a result, MPAC concluded that similar properties in the vicinity of the Subject Property are assessed at or near their current value, and that an equity reduction in the Subject Property’s current value is not required.

30In the second of the two equity analyses, MPAC searched its database for a narrower set of residential properties being two-storey, single-family detached properties between 2,400 square feet and 3,100 square feet, having a quality construction of 7.5, and located within three kilometers of the Subject Property. MPAC’s search yielded 14 properties with an ASR of 1.03 and a COD of 4.1.

31Again, MPAC concluded that similar properties in the vicinity of the Subject Property are assessed at or near their current value, and that an equity reduction in the Subject Property’s current value is not required.

32MPAC submitted that it did not use the Subject Property sale of April 16, 2018 as the $1 transaction was considered by MPAC not to reflect an open market sale, nor did MPAC use the Subject Property sale of April 26, 2018 in determining value as MPAC considers it too far removed from the statutory valuation day to be useable.

33MPAC concluded that the correct current value of the Subject Property is $1,557,000.

34The Appellants questioned MPAC as to how the current value (as of January 1, 2016) of the Subject Property could be greater than the April 2018 sale price. MPAC responded stating that the Subject Property had changed significantly and that the current value reflects the post-renovation and post-addition value of the property.

35The Appellants also questioned how MPAC had calculated the 2007 effective year built of the Subject Property when it was originally constructed in 1888. MPAC responded that effective year built is a statistical calculation that blends many factors including the 2021 renovation of the Subject Property.

Appellants’ Position

36The Appellants noted that the Subject Property is not connected to a municipal sewer system but rather, it is on a septic system, and that the Subject Property does not benefit from municipal snow clearing. The Appellants further noted that, unlike MPAC’s proposed comparable properties used for valuation purposes, the Subject Property does not have a garage or an outdoor pool.

37When questioned by the Appellants in connection with the above, MPAC indicated that it did not adjust the values of the properties used for valuation comparison purposes to reflect the foregoing factors. Though, MPAC did state that generally amenities such as a garage or a pool tend to increase property value.

38The Appellants submitted that the Subject Property has exterior wood siding whereas as the properties used by MPAC have brick or block exteriors (which they consider superior). Similarly, the Appellants took exception to MPAC’s quality of construction ratings as the Subject Property is rated at 7.5 whereas two of the three MPAC proposed properties are rated lower and the other is rated the same as the Subject Property. MPAC stated that it takes the totality of how a home is built into consideration including exterior materials, interior finishes, and other building materials used. While MPAC submits that it had not conducted an interior inspection of the property, consideration of these factors was given to the Subject Property at the time the building permit for the renovations and addition was issued.

39Further, the Appellants took the position: that land area matters in determining value; that all of MPAC’s properties have significantly larger land lots than the Subject Property; and that MPAC did not adjust for this “excess land”.

40MPAC stated that there are many factors that affect an assessment and that while adjustments can be made, some would offset others, which is why MPAC uses comparisons to similar properties in the vicinity of a subject property to derive value.

41The Appellants objected to the properties used by MPAC in its valuation analysis and noted that the Subject Property’s value changed several times.

42The Appellants testified that their evidence included the analysis of 19 properties – all of which were assessed at a lower value than the Subject Property.

43MPAC objected to the Appellants’ analysis as the sales were either outside of the shoulder years, far removed from the statutory valuation day, or not located in Lorne Park Estates.

44At the hearing, the Appellants took the position that the Subject Property’s value should be based on its assessment in 2016 or $809,000, which the Appellants considered to be an accurate figure at that time.

45The Appellants calculated a per square foot assessed value of the Subject Property in 2016 by dividing $809,000 by the Subject Property’s square footage at that time or 2,153 square feet resulting in a figure of $375 (as rounded by the Appellants). The Appellants then applied the $375 per square foot to the Subject Property’s agreed area for the 2023 and 2024 taxation years of 2,675 square feet resulting in a value of $1,003,125.

46The Appellants also compared the Subject Property to 989 Whittier Crescent (“Whittier”). Both the Subject Property and Whittier are two-storey properties, have unfinished basements, and are on septic systems. However, the Appellants submitted that Whittier is significantly larger in land area (22,215 square feet compared to the Subject Property’s 5,000 square feet); is larger in total building area; has four bedrooms compared to the Subject Property’s three bedrooms; and has five bathrooms compared to the Subject Property’s two bathrooms. Whittier has a garage whereas the Subject Property does not, and Whittier has a brick exterior whereas the Subject Property has a wood exterior.

47The Appellants took the position that Whittier is superior to the Subject Property, yet is assessed at $1,281,000, i.e., lower than the Subject Property.

48MPAC took the position that valuation is based on sale values not assessed values, and that a renovated property would sell for more than an unrenovated property.

49Lastly, the Appellants compared the Subject Property to 913 Sangster Avenue which is 0.15 kilometers away from the Subject Property and is one of MPAC’s three proposed comparable properties. The Appellants calculated an assessed value of the Subject Property reflecting that the Subject Property has a land area that is 5,000 square feet (as rounded by the Appellants) smaller than 913 Sangster Avenue. The Appellants conclude that this implies an assessed value for the Subject Property of $1,154,000 (rounded).

50At the hearing, the Appellants concluded that the correct current value of the Subject Property is $1,154,000 (rounded).

The Board’s Analysis

51The Board does not accept the Appellants’ valuation analysis as it does not fully comply with established valuation methodology and more importantly, the Assessment Act, which, as described under Applicable Law, defines current value as based on ‘open market’ sales and not assessed values, among other things. Nonetheless, the Appellants raised several arguments including points of comparison, excess land, and adjustments.

52The Board considered MPAC’s valuation analysis and its three proposed comparable property sales used in the direct comparison approach. The resulting time-adjusted sale price per square foot of total building area of the three properties varies from a low of $506 to a high of $663 (rounded). The Board considers this a broad range particularly in the context of only three data points. This may be indicative of the variability in characteristics of the three properties including neighbourhood/location (0.14 - 2 km), land area (0.11 - 0.47 acres), effective year built (1974 - 2007), and other/amenities (finished basement, garage, pool).

53At the hearing, the Board asked MPAC to rate its three proposed comparable properties relative to the Subject Property. MPAC submitted that Property 1 was inferior, Property 2 was similar, and Property 3 was also similar but the property had been purchased and the then-existing building torn down, making it a less useful comparator than the other two.

54The Board notes that while MPAC rated its Property 1 as inferior to the Subject Property, Property 1 has the highest sale price per square foot making it an outlier and incongruent with the other two properties.

55Evaluating the evidence and testimony of the parties and, considering MPAC’s rating of its three proposed comparable properties, the Board finds that MPAC’s Property 2 (per Appendix E of Exhibit 1), 1081 McConnell Avenue, constitutes the best available evidence for valuation purposes. The sale price per square foot for this property is $506.82 which, when applied to the Subject Property’s agreed 2,675 square feet, results in a value of $1,355,743.

56Given the testimony of the parties, the Board accepts that a significantly larger land area, a garage, and a finished basement are value-add factors. To reflect the fact that the Subject Property has a smaller land area, no garage, and no finished basement, the Board will apply a 10% negative adjustment to the above value of $1,355,743.

57While the Appellants provided comparisons using assessed values, their analysis for equity purposes was incomplete and inconclusive. The Board accepts MPAC’s equity analyses, both of which conclude that an equity reduction is not required.

CONCLUSION

58The Board finds that the current value of the Subject Property is $1,220,000 (rounded) for the 2023 and 2024 taxation years.

59The Board finds that a reduction in the current value of the Subject Property for equity comparison purposes is not required.

ORDER

60The Board orders that:

1. the Board shall administratively close the appeal of the 2024 taxation year assessment of $1,398,000 (appeal number 3525541) as it is replaced by the PRAN of $1,347,000; and that;

2. the current value assessment be reduced from $1,398,000 to $1,220,000 for the 2023 taxation year and from $1,347,000 to $1,220,000 for the 2024 taxation year.