Tribunals Ontario

Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario

Assessment

Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

November 05, 2025

FILE NO.:

WR 189192

Assessed Person(s):

Brent Fields; Helen Fields; Graham Fields

Appellant(s):

Brent Fields; Helen Fields

Respondent(s):

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 03

Respondent(s):

City of Ottawa

Property Location(s):

2305 Marshwood Road

Municipality(ies):

City of Ottawa

Roll Number(s):

0614-423-825-04105-0000

Appeal Number(s):

3528984 and 3534513

Taxation Year(s):

2024 and 2025

Hearing Event No.:

786883

Legislative Authority:

Sections 36 and 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel/Representative

Brent Fields and Helen Fields

Helen Fields

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation

David Lynch

City of Ottawa

No one appeared

HEARD:

April 30, 2025 by video conference

ADJUDICATOR(S):

Anita Lovrich, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

Background

1Brent Fields and Helen Fields (the “Appellants”) appealed the assessment for the 2024 taxation year for 2305 Marshwood Road (the “Subject Property”) on the basis of incorrect classification pursuant to s. 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”). Pursuant to s. 40(26) of the Act, the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) has deemed an appeal for the 2025 taxation year (the 2024 and 2025 appeals together, the “Subject Appeals”).

2The Subject Property has a structure single-family detached residential structure located on it and has a site area of 5.05 acres.

3The Appellants state that 4 acres of the Subject Property is “farm lands used only for farm purposes” such that s. 19(5) of the Act applies for the relevant taxation years and that the correct current value of the Subject Property should be between $520,000 and $550,000.

4The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) is responding to the Subject Appeals. MPAC’s position is that the entire 5.05 acres of the Subject Property is properly classified as Residential. MPAC inspected the Subject Property in May 2024. MPAC then determined that the farming activity on the property was minimal and considered to be hobby in nature and not a farming business. MPAC’s position is that the assessment of the Subject Property should be $568,000 and that the Subject Property is properly classified as Residential.

5The City of Ottawa is a party to this appeal proceeding but did not make submissions or otherwise participate in the proceeding.

Issues for the Hearing

6At issue in this proceeding is:

1. Is the Subject Property, or a portion thereof, “farm lands used only for farm purposes” such that s. 19(5) of the Act applies for the relevant taxation years?

2. What is the current value of the Subject Property?

3. Is a reduction of current value required pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act?

4. Is there an issue as to whether any part of the Subject Property can be classified in the Farm Property Class?

Result

7For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that the Subject Property is not “farm lands used only for farm purposes.” The Board finds the correct current value of the Subject Property is $581,000. The Board also finds that there is no evidence to support a reduction in the current value to make the current value equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity. Therefore, the Board finds that the current value of the Subject Property for the taxation years 2024 and 2025 is $581,000. As the Subject Property is not “farm lands used for farm purposes”, there is no issue that the Subject Property can be classified in the Farm Property Class.

Preliminary Matters - Jurisdiction of the Board

Valuation as Farm Lands Pursuant to s. 19(5) of the Act versus Farm Classification

8When an appeal raises an issue as to whether land should be included in the Farm Property Class, s. 31 of Ontario Regulation 282/98 (“O. Reg 282/98”) prescribes the Board’s role:

31. The following apply with respect to an appeal under subsection 40 (1) of the Act that raises an issue as to whether land should be included in the farm property class:

32. If the applicability of subsection 19 (5) of the Act to the land is in issue, the Assessment Review Board shall determine that issue and, if necessary as a result of that determination, redetermine the current value of the land. The application of subsection 19 (5) of the Act shall be deemed to be in issue if the current value of the land was not determined in accordance with that subsection.

33. If, after the determination under paragraph 1, there is still an issue as to whether the land should be included in the farm property class, the Assessment Review Board shall refer the issue to the Tribunal.

9Pursuant to paragraph 1 of s. 31 of O. Reg 282/98”), if the application of s. 19(5) of the Act to the land (i.e. does the land qualify as farm land), is in issue on an appeal, the Board must first determine the issue and, if necessary as a result of this determination, redetermine the current value of the land. It further states that “the application of subsection 19(5) of the Act shall be deemed to be in issue if the current value of the land was not determined in accordance with that subsection”.

10In the Subject Appeals, MPAC’s position is that no part of the Subject Property qualifies as farm land under s.19(5) of the Act. Therefore, the application of s. 19(5) is in issue.

11Section 19(5) of the Act states that:

Farm lands and buildings

(5) For the purposes of determining the current value of farm lands used only for farm purposes by the owner or used only for farm purposes by a tenant of the owner and buildings thereon used solely for farm purposes, including the residence of the owner or tenant and of the owner’s or tenant’s employees and their families on the farm lands,

(a) consideration shall be given to the current value of the lands and buildings for farm purposes only;

(b) consideration shall not be given to sales of lands and buildings to persons whose principal occupation is other than farming; and

(c) the Minister may, by regulation, define “farm lands” and “farm purposes”.

12The Board’s task is to determine whether the Subject Property is “farm lands used only for farm purposes”. If it does, the Board must value the property without considering the sales of lands and buildings to persons whose principal occupation is other than farming.

13Following this determination by the Board, if there is still an issue as to whether the land should be included in the Farm Property Class, the Board has no jurisdiction to determine the classification issue, and must instead refer this question to AFRAAT for adjudication.

14The Board considered the interpretation of s. 19(5) in a review decision, Lortie v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 01, 2022 CanLII 25778 (ON ARB) (“Lortie”) and clarified the difference between lands qualifying as “farm lands” as distinct from the classification of “farmlands”:

21The Board notes that it is important to clarify the use of the term “classification”. As is discussed greater detail below, s. 19(5) of the Act is a finding made in respect of the determination of current value. Under this section, lands must qualify as farm lands. “Classification” refers to the determination of a property’s classification which is a separate and distinct issue. The provisions of O.Reg. 282/98 (“General Regulation”) govern property classification. Each property class is defined by specific requirements which must be satisfied. As discussed in greater detail below, two property classes, the Residential Property Class and the Farm Property Class, both contain a provision in which the qualification under s. 19(5) is one of the criteria that must be met. Therefore, it is a misleading to state that land is classified under s. 19(5) of the Act. The wording of the Act and the General Regulation reinforce this interpretation. When referencing s. 19(5) of the Act, both the Act and the General Regulation use the term “farm lands”, whereas, when referring to property classification, the General Regulation uses the term “farmlands”. Therefore, the correct terminology is whether land “qualifies as farm lands under s. 19(5)” and whether land “can be classified in the Residential Property Class or the Farm Property Class”.

ANALYSIS

Description of Subject Property

15The Subject Property is a 5.05-acre property with a single family detached residence that is not on water.

Issue 1 - Is the Subject Property, or a portion thereof, “farm lands used only for farm purposes” such that s. 19(5) of the Act applies for the relevant taxation years?

Applicable Law

16In Slough Estates Canada Limited v. Regional Assessment Commissioner, Region No. 15, 2000 CanLII 5705 (ON CA), the Court of Appeal for Ontario considered the interpretation of “farm lands used only for farm purposes” in the Act. The Court confirmed that the focus is on the use of the land, which is a factual issue.

17In its Lortie decision, the Board confirmed at paragraph 67 that “a determination of whether a parcel of land qualifies as farm land is a case specific determination.” Relevant factors will be considered on a case-by-case basis based on the submissions of the parties and the factual circumstances of the case. A non-exhaustive list of the factors that may be considered in determining whether land qualifies as farm lands includes:

1. Physical characteristics of the land, including soil quality and its capacity to support crops if the activity is raising crops.

2. Use of surrounding lands, to the extent that activities in the immediate vicinity suggest that the land on the property will support a farming activity.

3. The history of use of the property, including whether the land has previously been farmed.

4. Whether the activities are undertaken with a legitimate intention to “farm”, as opposed to activities intended to create an appearance of farming, for purposes of obtaining favourable tax treatment.

5. The scale of the farming activity (i.e. whether the activity is too limited to indicate that farming is taking place).

6. Permitted use of the land, including zoning.

7. The general nature of the locality.

8. Whether the lands have physical characteristics of a farm; and

9. Whether the lands involve a bona fide farmer.

Evidence of the Parties

Appellant

18The Appellant claims that the Subject Property is a bona fide farm and relies on the following:

a. The Appellants have established a farm business, White Spruce Farm. They describe it as a boutique operation that specializes in producing holiday decorations, an apiary and artisanal goods using foraged organic materials.

b. They also state that White Spruce Farm engages in multiple forms of primary agricultural production, including “cultivating Christmas trees, producing holiday wreaths and planters, maintaining beehives, and producing seasonal crops such as apples, pumpkins, vegetables and blueberries.” It includes the production of primary agricultural commodities like Christmas trees, ornamental horticulture, and beekeeping.

c. The business plan states “White Spruce Farm is a boutique Christmas tree, ornamental planter, and wreath farm nestled on a five-acre forested property. We are dedicated to producing exquisite holiday decorations and artisanal products using sustainably harvested, organic materials. Our offerings include Christmas trees, wreaths, ornamental foliage planters, honey, beeswax candles, and seasonal produce.”

d. The Subject Property is exclusively used for agricultural purposes, including tree cultivation, foraging for organic foliage, and beekeeping.

e. They state that their products are recognized agricultural commodities under Agriculture Canada. They offer Christmas trees, wreaths, and ornamental foliage planters (Commodity Code 138 and 133), honey, beeswax candles, and seasonal produce (Commodity Code 374 and 375), crops such as apples, blueberries, and garlic (Commodity Code 060, 067, 113).

f. As a start-up business, they plan to utilize the Agricorp Start-Up Farm Business Property Tax Program. Since their gross farm income was under $7,000 in 2024, they are applying for an exemption from the requirement for a Farm Business Registration number, in accordance with Agricorp guidelines.

g. They started their business in 2022 but have been growing crops since 2021 when they moved into the Subject Property. They planted 10 apple trees in 2024. In 2024, they acquired four beehives. In 2024, they planted 50 white spruce and blue spruce trees. They planted 20 Red Dogwood Plants, 6 Patriot Hybrid Blueberry bushes in 2024, planted 12 Strawberry plants in 2024, planted 50 pumpkin/squash every year since 2019, planted 25 San Marzano Tomato Bushes yearly, planted 50 Garlic bulbs annually, 6 Bobo Hydrangea plants for cut and dried flowers, planted 6 lavendar plants for cut and dried flowers, planted 4 Green Giant Cedar for ornamental baskets and wreaths, planted 12 wintergreen boxwoods for ornamental baskets and wreaths.

h. Their professional website and social media form part of their marketing plan which has been the primary source of their customer base.

i. The fourth quarter holiday markets are their largest revenue stream as they allow the Appellants to connect directly with their customers and showcase their products. In 2024, White Spruce Farm participated in three holiday markets. They state that due to sick children, they were unable to participate in more markets.

j. In 2024, the farm had over $3,000 in farm income.

k. In response to MPAC’s evidence that the Subject Property does not look like a conventional Christmas tree farm with rows and rows of trees, the Appellants state that they do not want to cut trees down. They want the Subject Property to look aesthetically pleasing and have an organic look to the farm where the farm is integrated in the natural landscape of property. They testified that farming operations have modernized in recent years and many contemporary farm businesses don’t look like stereotypical farms.

l. They state that part of the farm income comes from foraging, which they argue constitutes farming.

m. The fact that the farm does not have $7,000 in farm income should not be determinative as there is an exemption available through Agricorp.

n. The Appellants cannot become a member of a farming association or obtain a farm registration number unless the Subject Property to be classified as a farm.

o. The uses and general nature of locality of the surrounding area includes some farms and an industrial property, and home businesses.

MPAC

19MPAC says that this is not a bona fide farm operation and is instead a small hobby farm being used for recreational purposes rather than farm purposes. In support of this position, MPAC testified as follows:

a. An exterior property inspection of the Subject Property was performed for the 2024 Request for Reconsideration on May 16, 2024, where the structure was remeasured. During the inspection a new shed was measured at 206 square feet, a new hot tub was observed on the basement concrete porch and the missing basement level concrete covered porch was measured and all added for the 2025 tax year.

b. At time of the inspection, when asking about the farming activity on the property, one of the Appellants indicated they planted 10 fruit trees in spring 2024. They also indicated they planted 50 spruce trees in among the existing bush at the back of the property. The spruce trees were planted for Christmas trees but there are no firebreaks, thinning or clearing of the existing bush or any other measures to help facilitate a Christmas tree plantation. They mentioned they planned on obtaining honeybees, but no beehives were present on property at time of inspection. The last thing the Appellant mentioned was that they were foraging in the existing bush for different species of trees and shrubs to manufacture and sell ornamental Christmas planter baskets and wreaths.

c. When the MPAC assessor asked how they advertised for the planters, the Appellant advised that they currently did not advertise and up to that point in time only provided the ornaments to friends and family. When the assessor asked if they made over $7,000 in farming income, they advised that they did not.

d. At the time of inspection, the farming activity on the property was minimal and considered to be hobby in nature and not a farming business.

Submissions of the Parties

MPAC

20MPAC’s states that, considering the degree of farming activity on the Subject Property and the income earned, the farming is hobby in nature. It states that it appears that the Subject Property will likely constitute a farm in a few years but that it does not currently meet the threshold.

21MPAC’s states that, considering the degree of farming activity on the Subject Property and the income earned, the farming is hobby in nature. It states that it appears that the Subject Property will likely constitute a farm in a few years but that it does not currently meet the threshold.

22MPAC provided the Board with three cases in support of its position on this issue:

1. In Barclay v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp., Region No. 25 [2003] O.A.R.B.D. No. 458 (“Barclay”) the Appellant argued that harvesting wild crops that grew on an owner’s property as may occur naturally on the land, without ploughing, planting, or confining the crops to rows, constitutes farming. The Board rejected the contention that the collection of whatever may grow naturally, is farming, by any reasonable definition of the activity.

2. In McArthur v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 28, 2021 CanLII 26724 (ON ARB) (“McArthur”), the Board found that the Appellant’s 20 beehives did not meet the threshold of 50 beehives to be assessed as farm land by MPAC.

3. In Fury v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 22, 2020 CanLII 21745 (ON ARB) (“Fury”) the Appellants submitted that hosting two bee hives on the Subject Property meant that the Subject Property constituted farm lands used only for farm purposes but the Board found that two beehives did not satisfy the farm land criteria. MPAC submitted that land has to have “50 or more hives” before MPAC will assess it as a commercial bee keeping operation. The Hearing Panel found that the existence of only two hives was a significant barrier, in the Board’s view, to having the property] classification partitioned. The Hearing Panel found that the land is not farm land and while keeping two bee hives may be a farming activity or purpose it only raises to the level of a recreational or hobby farm.

Appellants

23The Appellants provided the following responses to the decisions cited by MPAC:

24In Barclay the Appellants argue as follows:

a. Mr. Barclay relied on harvesting naturally occurring wild crops without any cultivation or structured activity to meet recognized farming standards. The commodities offered for sale in the complainant's literature did not even grow in his region. They state that his approach “was criticized for its lack of planning, cultivation, or adherence to agricultural practices, as confirmed by the assessment review board. In contrast, the Appellants’ business adheres to clear and well-defined operational principles. Although foraging is a component of their business, it is conducted within the framework of a sustainable and professional horticultural strategy. The Subject Property is already cultivated in a way that supports their business needs. Replanting and regeneration are performed thoughtfully and organically, reflecting current best practices in horticulture and ensuring long-term viability and environmental harmony. Unlike Mr. Barclay’s ad hoc and unstructured approach, their methods ensure the land is actively maintained, managed, and replenished in line with industry standards.

25In McArthur, the Appellants argue as follows:

a. The fundamental distinction between this case and the Subject Property lie in the scope, diversification, and structure of the agricultural operations. White Spruce Farm operates as a multi-faceted agricultural enterprise, producing sustainably cultivated Christmas trees, artisanal holiday wreaths and planters made from farm-sourced organic materials, as well as honey, beeswax candles, and seasonal produce. In contrast, McArthur’s property focused solely on beekeeping with a limited number of hives. Further, White Spruce Farm operates with a clear business plan that includes a strategy for scaling up production, including doubling beekeeping operations annually to exceed 50 hives in Year 5, integration of complementary revenue streams like tree sales, holiday decorations, and seasonal produce. The Appellants testified that White Spruce Farm has established multiple revenue-generating agricultural activities, supported by environmentally sustainable practices. Its diversified products and business plan demonstrate its bona fide commercial intent.

26In Fury the Appellants argue that the facts are not similar to the those of the Subject Property as the Subject Property operates “as a legitimate business with a comprehensive business plan that outlines structured growth, diversified agricultural production, and plans to double beekeeping production annually.” They argue that the Appellant in that case did not present any evidence of a business plan, future growth, or commercial intent. Her testimony emphasized altruistic motives to support the honeybee population rather than pursuing farming as a bona fide commercial activity. White Spruce Farm, in contrast, has documented plans for sustainable expansion, including increasing beekeeping production to achieve MPAC’s 50-hive threshold within five years, along with other revenue streams such as Christmas trees, ornamental wreaths/baskets, seasonal produce, and artisanal products byproducts. In addition, the Appellant’s two-beehive operation lacked the scale necessary for commercial designation, while the Subject Property is a five-acre property, integrating multiple revenue-generating agricultural activities. Its operations are designed to grow sustainably.

Findings on Issue 1

27Considering the relevant factors in Lortie and the evidence provided by the parties, the Board finds that the Subject Property is not farm land used only for farm purposes.

28The Board finds that the following facts weigh in favour of a finding that the Subject Property is farm lands used only for farm purposes

1. The Appellants presented a business plan that includes a description of the products available, a market analysis, and marketing details, although it lacks a detailed financial plan.

2. The permitted use of the land includes farm use

29The Board finds that the following facts weigh against a finding that the Subject Property is farm lands used only for farm purposes:

1. The scale of the farming activity is limited.

2. The evidence of reported income that was filed by the Appellant indicates that the Subject Property made some farming income but not $7,000.

3. There was no clear evidence before the Board regarding the specific uses of surrounding lands and the general nature of the locality, to the extent that activities in the immediate vicinity include farms.

4. There was no evidence or submissions before the Board that the history of use of the property included the land having previously been farmed.

5. The Appellants are not full-time bona fide farmers, in the sense that they have other jobs and provided evidence that they dedicate an average of approximately 20 hours per week to farm activities outside of the holiday season during which it is 60 hours a week. The Appellant who testified before the Board provided evidence that her work and childcare duties mean that she could not dedicate more time over certain periods over the past few years.

6. With respect to the factor of whether the lands have the physical characteristics of a farm, the evidence before the Board was that the Subject Property did not have the physical characteristics of a conventional farm, such as barns, buildings for farm storage, equipment for growing crops, hay fields, pastureland, gates, sheds, or evidence or ploughing and planting The Appellants submit that the farming on the Subject Property was “conducted within the framework of a sustainable and professional horticultural strategy […] . Replanting and regeneration are performed thoughtfully and organically, reflecting current best practices in horticulture and ensuring long-term viability and environmental harmony. […] their methods ensure the land is actively maintained, managed, and replenished in line with industry standards.” However, the Appellants did not present evidence of what specifically this involved.

7. The Appellants are not currently members of any farming or agricultural associations.

30The Board considered the interpretation of s. 19(5) in Lortie, where the Board held at paragraphs 35 and 36 that s. 19(5) is to be narrowly construed to exclude lands that are not being used for farming and noted that the purpose of this provision is to maintain farm lands in production.

31Unlike in Barclay and McArthur, Appellants’ activities are not limited solely to beekeeping or foraging. The Board finds that the decisions cited by MPAC are not sufficiently similar to the circumstances in this case to serve as persuasive precedents.

32The Board has considered the totality of the evidence, including each of the facts weighing in favour and against a finding that the Subject Property is farm lands used only for farm purposes. Considering all of the above, and in particular:

1. The limited scale of the farming activity.

2. The evidence of reported income that was filed by the Appellant indicates that the Subject Property made some farming income but not $7,000.

3. The lack of evidence that the Subject Property had previously been farmed.

4. The Appellants are not full-time registered farmers or members of any farming associations.

5. The Appellants are not currently members of any farming or agricultural associations.

The Board find that the Subject Property is not farm land used only for farm purposes.

Issue 2 - What is the current value of the Subject Property?

Applicable Law

33In 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.”

34Accordingly, the Board must 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 2024 and 2025 taxation years is January 1, 2016.

35In 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

36MPAC provided evidence regarding the sale of five properties. MPAC performed a time adjustment to reflect what these properties would have sold for on January 1, 2016. See Attachment 1 at the end of the decision.

37MPAC testified that the time-adjusted sales prices of the five proposed comparables range from $525,000 to $628,000 and MPAC’s final estimate of value was $568,000 for 2024 and $588,000 for 2025 based on a number of changes to the property, including the addition of a shed, hot tub and porch as those were reasonable points within the range for the condition of the property for those years under appeal.

Appellant

38The Appellant submits that the Subject Property should be assessed between $520,000 and $550,000 to reflect environmental restrictions, access challenges, comparable properties, and local market trends.

39The Appellant’s evidence regarding MPAC’s proposed comparables was as follows:

a. 144 Country Carriage Way: While it is only 2 acres, and the Subject Property covers five acres, the three acres are unusable due to an environmental prohibition of any construction or development on the restricted portion, effectively making the Subject Property comparable to a two-acre lot in terms of valuation. The Subject Property should be compared to 144 Country Carriage Way, provided that appropriate deductions are made for the in-ground swimming pool, detached, permanent one-car garage and pool shed, 1046 finished basement, and its location within a paved, executive subdivision with full streetlights. In addition, a deduction be made for agricultural use. While both properties technically have 2 acres of land as the restrictions on our property significantly limit its usability. Additionally, the square footage is larger so there should be an adjustment for that.

b. 1750 Burnt Lands Road: this is situated on a sprawling 25-acre property with dual road access via Burnt Lands Road and Carroll Side Road. The property features two spacious detached garages, each accessible by a separate driveway on Carroll Side Road. The property also boasts a large wraparound deck, complete with a screened-in room for added comfort. Notably, the entire 25 acres of this property are unrestricted.

c. 1641 Bearhill Road has three full bathrooms, compared to the two in the Subject Property, and includes 1,459 square feet of finished walk-out basement, whereas in the Subject Property has none finished. The property is situated directly backing onto a premier 400-acre golf course and features an in-ground swimming pool.

d. 1816 Corkery Road: the property includes a large detached permanent two-car garage, in addition to the attached two-car garage, and a paved driveway. The property is located in an executive subdivision of 2-acre lots with paved roads and custom homes. The property features 4 bedrooms (compared to our 3), 3 full bathrooms, and a 1,491 sq. ft. finished walkout basement (Subject Property basement is unfinished).

e. 1813 Corkery Road: This property is situated in an executive subdivision featuring other 2-4 acre lots, paved roads, and custom-built homes. In comparison, the Subject Property has several distinguishing features including four bedrooms, 4 bedrooms, 3 full bathrooms, 1,636 sq ft of finished walkout basement space.

40The Appellant provided evidence regarding the following proposed comparable properties:

a) 2305 Marshwood Road

• Current Assessment: $568,000

• Property Size: 5.05 acres (3 acres are environmentally protected and unusable)

• Home Size: 2,111 sq ft, walkout basement, bungalow style

• Additional Factors: Bungalow, Dirt road access, nearby natural gas pipeline, and exposed power lines, not in executive subdivision, unfinished basement

• Market Context: Surrounding houses are assessed low in the $400,000

b) 2660 Marshwood Road

• Current Assessment: $569,000

• Property Size: 8.24 acres

• Built: 2020

• Home Size: 2261 sq. ft. + 617 sq. ft. finished basement

• Additional Factors: Bungalow, Paved Road but backs onto the highway

• Market Context: Very close to an executive subdivision, access to high speed internet

c) 2748 Marshwood Road

• Current Assessment: $531,000

• Property Size: 4 acres

• Built: 2009

• Home Size: 1,829 sq. ft. + 6,000 sq. ft. Commercial Building + Industrial Lot

• Additional Factors: Bungalow + Full industrial commercial property. About 30 vehicles here daily. Excavators and Utility Equipment

• Market Context: Very close to an executive subdivision, access to high speed internet

d) 135 Country Meadow

• Current Assessment: $529,000

• Property Size: 8123 m2

• Built: 2019

• Home Size: 1985 sq. ft.

• Additional Factors: Bungalow, Professional landscaping, High-end designer finishes, In ground Swimming Pool, Covered cabana. Large 1,000 sq ft addition being completed right now

• Market Context: Luxury, sought after subdivision next to golf course

e) 3404 Vaughn Side Road

• Current Assessment: $566,000

• Property Size: 20.58 acres

• Built: 2012

• Home Size: 4222 sq. ft.

• Additional Factors: Two-storey, Paved road, timber frame construction,

• Market Context: Surrounding houses are assessed in the $400,000

f) 3565 Vaughn Side Road

• Current Assessment: $532,000

• Property Size: 2.01 acres

• Built: 2022

• Home Size: 2000 sq ft

• Additional Factors: Bungalow, Paved road, walk-out basement

g) 2295 Marshwood Road

• Current Assessment: $569,000

• Property Size: 5.05 acres

• Built: 2021

• Home Size: 2,615 sq. ft.

• Additional Factors: Two storey, Dirt road access, nearby natural gas pipeline, and exposed power lines, not in executive subdivision, unfinished basement, no environmental protection on the full 5 acres

• Market Context: Surrounding houses are assessed low in the $400,000

h) 2400 Marshwood Road

• Current Assessment: $437,000

• Property Size: 19 acres

• Built: 1986

• Home Size: 2,218 sq. ft. + 5,000 sq. ft. shop

• Additional Factors: Walk out bungalow and Large 5,000 sq. ft. garage

i) 199 Country Meadow

• Current Assessment: $541,000

• Property Size: 8,175.4 sq meters

• Built: 2019

• Home Size: 2196 sq. ft. + 420 sq. ft. of finished basement

• Additional Factors: Bungalow, Professional landscaping, High-end designer finishes

• Market Context: Luxury, sought after subdivision next to golf course

Findings on Issue 2

41The Board does not accept the Appellant’s proposed current value of between $520,000 and $550,000 nor does it rely on the Appellant’s proposed comparable properties to determine current value of the Subject Property, as 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 the Appellant’s proposed comparables.

42The only evidence of market-based sales near the valuation day was adduced by MPAC. The Board accepts and relies on MPAC’s evidence regarding proposed comparable properties, excepting MPAC’s proposed Sale 5, 1750 Burnt Lands Road. It has a significantly larger lot and older structure and is not comparable to the Subject Property for this reason. As a result, the Board will not rely on this property.

43Proposed Sales 1-4 are all single-story residential dwellings less than 6 kilometres from the Subject Property. All sales occurred within sufficient proximity to the valuation day, and the sale prices were appropriately adjusted for time. The structures are of the same or comparable size and quality of construction. The Board finds that these sales are the best evidence of current value of the Subject Property before the Board.

44Calculating the median time-adjusted sale prices of MPAC’s proposed Sales 1, 2, 3, and 4 yields a current value of $581,865. Based on the best evidence before the Board, the current value of the Subject Property is $581,865.

Issue 3 - Is a reduction of current value required pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act?

45Section 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

46The Appellants did not provide separate evidence on this issue. The Appellants relies on their evidence respecting the current value of the Subject Property.

MPAC

47MPAC 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.

48MPAC 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 7 kilometres of the Subject Property that have a building age of 1978-2012, a building size of 1,261-2,533 square feet, one-story structures, and a quality level of 6.5-7.5. MPAC testified that the analysis reveals an ASR of 0.99, 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 3

49The Board does not rely on the Appellant’s proposed properties to determine whether an equitable adjustment should be applied, for the following reasons:

50The Appellant has not provided properties with evidence of market-tested sales transactions at or near the valuation day, such that the Board cannot determine an ASR using these properties.

51The Board prefers and relies on MPAC’s ASR analysis that demonstrates an ASR of 0.99. 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 representative sample size, which will provide a general level of assessment of similar lands in the vicinity and demonstrates that there is no trend of underassessment of similar lands in the vicinity.

52The Board accepts that an ASR of 0.99 indicates that similar properties in the vicinity have been assessed at or near their current values and therefore, an equitable adjustment is not required.

53The 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.

54The Board finds that the equitable current value is $581,000 (rounded).

Issue 4 - Is there an issue as to whether any part of the Subject Property can be classified in the Farm Property Class?

55The Board has determined that no portion of the Subject Property is “farm lands used only for farm purposes” such that s. 19(5) of the Act applies for the relevant taxation years. Based on the Board’s finding, there is no issue as to whether the land should be classified as land in the farm property class.

CONCLUSION

56The Board has found that the correct value of the Subject Property is $581,000. (rounded) and that no reduction of this value is required pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act.

57Therefore, the Board finds that the current value of the Subject Property for the taxation years 2024 and 2025 is $581,000.

ORDER

58The current value of the Subject Property for the taxation years 2024 and 2025 is $581,000.

"Anita Lovrich"

ANITA LOVRICH

MEMBER

Assessment Review Board

Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb

Attachment 1

Subject Property

Property 1

Property 2

Property 3

Property 4

Property 5

Roll Number

061442382504105

061442381533022

061442381536350

061442382502930

061442382502964

061442382508901

Address

2305 MARSHWOOD RD

144 COUNTRY CARRIAGE WAY

1641 BEARHILL RD

1813 CORKERY RD

1813 CORKERY RD

1750 BURNT LANDS RD

Neighborhood

Cg3-370

Cg3-370

Property Code & Desc.

(301) - Single-family detached (not on water)

(301) - Single-family detached (not on water)

(301) - Single-family detached (not on water)

(301) - Single-family detached (not on water)

(301) - Single-family detached (not on water)

(301) - Single-family detached (not on water)

Distance in km

5.8424

5,1386

3,2938

3,4031

4,9712

Valuation

Current Value Assessment

$592,000

$532,000

$625,000

$558,000

$547,000

$574,000

Returned Base Year

2016

2016

2016

2016

2016

2016

Sale

Sale Date

20150622

20170706

20140828

20140319

20150716

Sale Amount

$544,500

$652,500

$540,000

$575,000

$520,000

Time Adjusted Sale Amount

$551,578

$628,357

$559,980

$603,750

$526,760

Time Adjusted Sale Ratio

0.9645

0.9947

0.9965

0.906

1.0897

Time Adjustment Factor

1.013

0.963

1.037

1.05

1.013

Site

Effective Site Area (Acres)

5.05

2.34

Actual Site Area (Acres)

5.05

2

3.096

2.05

25.57

Residential Structure

Structure Code & Desc.

(301) - Single-family detached

(301) - Single-family detached

(301) - Single-family detached

(301) - Single-family detached

(301) - Single-family detached

(301) - Single-family detached

Year Built

2020

2008

2012

2005

2009

1989

Effective Yer Built

2020

2008

2012

2005

2009

1989

Quality Construction

7

7

7

7

7

7

Full Storeys

1 Storey

1 Storey

1 Storey

1 Storey

1 Storey

Building Total Area (SF)

2,111

2,125

2,162

1,983

1,841

1,747

Basement Area (SF)

2,111

1,439

2,162

1,983

1,841

1,747

Finished Basement Area (SF)

1,036

1,459

1,686

1,491

974

Secondary Structure(s)

Structure Description

(102) Shed

(116) Attached Garage

(116) Attached Garage

(116) Attached Garage

(116) Attached Garage

(102) Shed

Year Built

2022

2008

2012

2005

2009

1990

Total Building Area (SF)

206

631

589

819

658

487

Quality of Construction

1

4

4

4

4

1

Structure Description

(116) Attached Garage

(121)Basement Garage

Year Built

2020

1989

Total Building Area (SF)

1067

464

Quality of Construction

4

4

Structure Description

(127) Outdoor Sauna/Hot Tub

Year Built

2022

Subject Property

Property 1

Property 2

Property 3

Property 4

Property 5

Total Building Area (SF)

Quality of Construction