Tribunals Ontario

Assessment Review Board

ISSUE DATE: November 10, 2025

FILE NO.: WR 189292

Assessed Person(s): Sha Li

Appellant(s): Sha LI

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 15

Respondent(s): City of Burlington

Property Location(s): 1501 Newlands Crescent

Municipality(ies): City of Burlington

Roll Number(s): 2402-090-903-12000-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3530681 and 3535298

Taxation Year(s): 2024 and 2025

Hearing Event No.: 788884

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

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel/Representative
Sha Li	Andrew Attard
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation	Terence Johnston
City of Burlington	Paul Lacelle

HEARD: October 7, 2025 by video conference

ADJUDICATOR: Steve Gilchrist, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1Sha Li, (the “Appellant”), is the owner of a residential property located at 1501 Newlands Crescent in Burlington (the “Subject Property”). The Appellant appealed the 2024 and 2025 assessment of the Subject Property to the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) under s. 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”) on the ground that the assessments are too high.

2Under s. 19(1) the assessment of land for purposes of municipal taxation is based on the land’s 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”.

3Pursuant to s. 19.2 of the Act, January 1, 2026 is the day on which the Subject Property is valued for these taxation years.

4For the 2024 taxation year, the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) assessed the current value of the Subject Property at $577,000. After an onsite inspection, MPAC further assessed the Subject Property at $539,000 for the 2025 taxation year.

5The Appellants argued that the current value of the Subject Property should be $461,000 less an equity adjustment for a final value of $432,000.

6MPAC submitted that the correct current value of the Subject Property should be $552,000 without a further reduction to make the current value equitable with the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity.

7At the completion of the hearing, the Board rendered its decision orally.

Issues for the Hearing

8The issues to be determined are:

1. What is the correct current value of the Subject Property, as of the January 1, 2016 valuation day?
2. Is the current value as determined by the Board equitable in reference to the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity?

Result

9The Board finds that the correct current value of the Subject Property, as of the January 1, 2016 valuation day, is $514,000 (rounded).

10The Board finds that the assessment of the Subject Property is equitable with the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity so no equitable adjustment is required.

11Accordingly, the Board determines that the correct current value of the s. 40 assessments is $514,000 for the 2024 and 2025 taxation years effective January 1, 2024, and January 1, 2025.

ANALYSIS

Description of the Subject Property

12The Subject Property is a one-story single-family detached (not on water) residential dwelling built in 1973 located in the City of Burlington. It has a lot with 91.97 square feet (“sq. ft.”) of effective frontage and 43.08 sq. ft. of effective depth for an effective site area of 6,507 square feet (“sq. ft.”). It has a total building area (“TBA”) of 1,054 sq. ft., with construction quality of 6.5 and a basement area of 533 sq. ft. of which 480 sq. ft. is finished. The Subject Property has an attached garage with a TBA of 240 sq. ft. The Subject Property is a corner lot.

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

13In 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, 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.

14The 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 Evidence and Submissions

15MPAC presented the Board with three proposed comparable property sales. These three proposed comparable property sales were improved with residences built between 1968 and 1976. Their effective site areas range from 6,131 sq. ft. to 6,239 sq. ft. and building sizes from 1,078 sq. ft. to 1,265 sq. ft. The quality of construction of the residences is 6.0. 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 properties sales are in Table 1 below:

Table 1

	Subject Property	Sale 1	Sale 2	Sale 3
Address	1501 Newlands Crescent	1365 Vancouver Crescent	3103 Palmer Drive	3104 Northview Crescent
Current Value Assessment	$539,000	$550,000	$474,000	$492,000
Sale Date	N/A	May 2016	September 2015	June 2016
Sale Amount	N/A	$636,000	$480,000	$500,000
Time Adjusted Sale $	N/A	$603,564	$501,600	$468,500
Building/Size (sq ft)	1,054	1,265	1,161	1,078
Lot Size (sq ft)	6,507	6,131	6,289	6,258
Year Built	1973	1976	1973	1968
Quality of Construction	6.5	6.0	6.0	6.0

16MPAC argued that the direct comparison approach was the only appropriate means of determining the value of the Subject Property.

17MPAC indicated that, from a sample size of approximately 30 properties, they selected the three they consider are most comparable to the Subject Property. They then suggest that having determined the time adjusted sale price for those three properties, the fairest way to determine the value of the Subject Property was to place its value at the midpoint between the values given to a superior and inferior home. In this case, they offer only one property they deemed superior and two they deem inferior, indicating that, for the purposes of bracketing, it is their practice to take the higher (or highest, if more than two options) valued of the inferior homes.

18Under questioning by the Appellant, MPAC indicated that they had opted for the bracketing calculation as the optimal means of determining value, as they had been unable to find a property which had exactly the same attributes as the Subject Property.

19MPAC argues that property Sale 1 is superior to the Subject Property while property Sales 2 and 3 are inferior with the Subject Property. The time-adjusted sale price range (“TASP”) of these three comparable properties is between $468,500 to $603,564 and that the correct current value of the Subject Property is $552,000.

20MPAC’s opinion of the correct current value of $552,000 was obtained by bracketing the TASP for property Sales 1 and 2, which they deemed the most appropriate comparable properties for that purpose. MPAC indicated that it was their practice to take the higher priced inferior property, for the purpose of establishing the lower end of the “bracket”, where there was a choice of more than one property.

Appellant’s Proposed Comparable Properties and Submissions

21The Appellant’s representative presented sales of six properties he submits were more appropriate comparable properties. His six proposed comparable properties were improved with residences built between 1972 and 1976. Their effective site areas ranged from 4,998 sq. ft. to 5,193 sq. ft. with building sizes ranging from 1,177 sq. ft. to 1,221 sq. ft. The quality of construction ranged from 6.0 to 6.5. The details of the Appellant’s properties are shown in Table 2.

Table 2

	Subject Property	Sale 1	Sale 2	Sale 3	Sale 4	Sale 5	Sale 6
address	1501 Newlands Crescent	1446 Allangrove Drive	1490 Clinton Court	3199 Palmer Drive	3249 Palmer Drive	1435 Allangrove Drive	3247 Palmer Drive
Current Value Assessment	$539,000	$480,000	$448,000	459,000	$510,000	$564,000	$492,000
Sale Date	N/A	October 2015	May 2016	July 2015	June 2015	October 2016	October 2016
Sale Amount	N/A	$505,000	$527,500	$450,000	$549,000	$590,000	$705,000
Time Adjusted Sale Amount ($)	N/A	$520,655	$500,598	$482,400	$595,665	$529,230	$632,475
Building/Size (sq ft)	1,054	1,177	1,221	1,177	1,211	1,221	1,212
Lot Size (sq ft)	6,507	5,115	4,998	5,193	5,179	5,025	5,147
Year Built	1973	1973	1973	1973	1976	1972	1976
Quality of Construction	6.5	6.0	6.0	6.0	6.0	6.5	6.0

22The Appellant asserts that his comparable properties are geographically closer to the Subject Property than those selected by MPAC and that the larger the sample size provides to a more reliable indicator of the Subject Property’s correct current value.

23He submits the best comparability criteria is on the basis of the selling price per square foot, nothing that his six properties yielded an average $438/sq. ft. while the three properties selected by MPAC yielded an even lower $435/sq. ft. The Appellant points out that MPAC's witness stated that he indicated that, in this case, valuations per square foot are not useful.

24The Appellant submits that the Subject Property has experienced significant issues with foundation leaks, claiming that the renovation to a bathroom, as noted by MPAC, was done to address a leak problem, not for cosmetic reasons, and that maintenance repairs shouldn’t be considered “improvements”. Under questioning by MPAC, the Appellant agreed “they were all fixed” when asked about the status of the foundation and bathroom issues by the time of the MPAC inspection.

Findings on Issue 1

25The Board first observes that the parties substantially agree on the construction quality, building area, basement and finished basement area and lot size of the Subject Property They also agree that the correct method to appraise the value of the property is the Direct Comparison Approach.

26The Board finds the higher valued inferior home is not the best evidence in this case. Instead, the Board finds that, the property at 3104 Northview Crescent is the most comparable property to the Subject Property because its building size, basement and finished basement most closely parallel those of the Subject Property. Under questioning by the Board, MPAC agreed that, based on those specific criteria, Sale 3 is a closer match to the Subject Property than Sale 2. For this reason, the Board finds that Sale 3 is preferred as the “inferior” property in the bracketing calculation.

27Utilizing the same “bracketing” methodology that MPAC used to arrive at its original valuation, using the TASP for the superior property, 1365 Vancouver Crescent, of $603,564 and the TASP of the inferior property, 3104 Northview Crescent, of $468,5000, the median (i.e. 50% of the difference between the higher and lower values) of those two values is $536,000. Had the building size of the Subject Property been comparable, this is the value the Board would have found to be the correct current value.

28However, the Board notes that the building size of the superior property,1365 Vancouver Crescent, is 14% larger than the Subject Property. The Board considers this a significant factor, although it is somewhat offset by the Subject Property’s higher construction quality and slightly larger lot size. For this reason, the Board finds that, to account for the smaller building size of the Subject Property, a discount of 66% of the difference between the superior and inferior property (instead of the 50% used by MPAC in its bracketing calculation) is required. In numerical terms, that 66% discount, which equals $89,142, should be subtracted from the value of the superior property which, rounded, then produces a correct current value of the Subject Property of $514,000.

Issue 2 - 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?

29Section 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.

MPAC’s Evidence and Submissions

30MPAC conducted an Assessment to Sales Ratio (“ASR”) study for the purposes of the equity calculation. For the purpose of the study, it used all single-family home sales within 1 kilometre of the Subject Property, between 1,000 sq. ft. and 1,400 sq. ft., quality 6 - 6.5 sold between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2016. This yielded a total of 30 properties in the homogeneous neighbourhood in which the Subject Property is located. MPAC states that this list comprises 100% of the sales, in that category, in the index years. The sale value for all the properties used in the study were time-adjusted to the January 1, 2016 valuation day.

31The result of their analysis of the ASR for those 30 homes, is a median value of 0.961. MPAC submits that the International Association of Assessing Officers Standards states that the level of appraisal for all properties should fall between 0.90 and 1.10. MPAC takes the position that equity is achieved if the median ASR falls between 0.95 and 1.05. As 0.961 falls within this range, MPAC submits that no equitable adjustment is required.

Appellant’s Evidence

32The Appellant’s representative submitted his own list of 30 properties which he states reflects properties sold in the homogeneous neighbourhood in 2015 and 2016. The result of his analysis, for those 30 homes, is a median value s 0.89, if the sale value are not time-adjusted to the January 1, 2016 valuation day, and 0.88, if the sale values are time-adjusted.

33Under questioning by MPAC, the Appellant’s representative admitted that he was not aware how many, or which, of the 30 homes fell within the category of single storey. The Appellant further admitted he did not know the year of construction, the construction quality, the square footage or the lot area, nor any unique characteristics of any of the properties used in his analysis. He did not know if any of the homes had had improvements and he admitted that any differences, in the criteria outlined above, would alter the value of a property.

Findings on Issue 2

34The Board finds that MPAC provided the best evidence for an equity reduction.

35The parties provided different methodologies in the determination of whether an equity reduction is necessary. There is no particular methodology which must be followed to provide evidence to the Board. As determined by the Divisional Court in Municipal Property Assessment Corporation v Schumacher et al., 2016 ONSC 3239 at para. 18, "Section 44(3)(b) does not specify any particular methodology."

36The Act requires that if the Board determines that the current value of the Subject Property is inequitable, when comparing it to the assessed values of similar properties in the vicinity, the Board can reduce the assessment to a value that is lower than the Subject Property’s current value.

37As determined by the Divisional Court in Municipal Property Assessment Corporation v Loblaw Properties Limited, 2017 ONSC 1299 (“Loblaw”), applying the decision in Trizec Equities Ltd v Ontario (Regional Assessment Commissioner, Region No. 27), [1988] O.J. No. 182, 27 OAC 203, 37 MPLR 175, 8 ACWS (3d) 399, “…All points of comparison must be considered …”

38The limitations implicit in the Appellant’s equity study and the inability to determine whether the chosen properties were, in fact, comparable to the Subject Property, cast some doubt on the accuracy of the Appellant’s analysis. The Board finds that MPAC’s study provides more reliable evidence, and, for this reason, the Board accepts MPAC’s evidence. Consequently, the Board finds that no reduction of the correct current value is required pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act.

CONCLUSION

39The Board has found that the correct current value of the Subject Property is $514,000 for the 2024 and 2025 taxation years and no reduction of this value is required pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act.

ORDER

40The Board orders that the current value of the Subject Property for the 2024 and 2025 taxation years is $514,000.