Hamideh Aminzadeh v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 15, 2025 CanLII 118672

Tribunals Ontario / Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario

Assessment Review Board / Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: November 12, 2025

FILE NO.: WR 189393

Assessed Person(s): Hamideh Aminzadeh

Appellant(s): Hamideh Aminzadeh

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 15

Respondent(s): Town of Oakville

Property Location(s): 2139 Constance Drive

Municipality(ies): Town of Oakville

Roll Number(s): 2401-040-210-54400-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3529449 and 3535399

Taxation Year(s): 2024 and 2025

Hearing Event No.: 789664

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

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel/Representative
Hamideh Aminzadeh	Andrew Attard
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation	Avi Maharaj
Town of Oakville	No one appeared

HEARD: October 23, 2025 by video conference

ADJUDICATOR(S): Steve Gilchrist, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1Hamideh Aminzadeh, (the “Appellant”), owner of a residential property located at 2139 Constance Drive, (the “Subject Property”), in the Town of Oakville, 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. Pursuant to s. 40(26) of the Act, a further appeal was deemed for the 2025 taxation year.

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 and 2025 taxation years, the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) assessed the current value of the Subject Property at $1,124,000. MPAC made a continuous effort to secure access to the home, in order to provide the most informed appraisal of its features, but that access was denied. Instead, the Appellant supplied a series of photographs of the interior.

5The photographs illustrated significant renovations and the addition of a basement apartment. As a result, MPAC increased the current value the Subject Property to $1,315,000 which will take effect on January 1, 2026 for the 2026 taxation year.

6The Appellant argued that the current value of the Subject Property should be $995,000 less a seven percent equity adjustment for a revised assessment of $925,350.

7MPAC submitted that the correct current value of the Subject Property should be $1,338,802.19 with a 6% equity adjustment to make the current value equitable with the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity, which yielded a final current value of $1,258,000 (rounded).

8At the completion of the hearing, the Board reserved its decision.

Issues for the Hearing

9The 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

10After consideration of the submissions of the parties, the Board finds that the correct current value of the Subject Property, as of the January 1, 2016 valuation day, is $1,315,000.

11The Board finds that an equitable adjustment of 6% will be applied to the assessment of the Subject Property in order to make it equitable with the assessment of similar properties in the vicinity.

12Accordingly, the Board determines that the correct current value of the s. 40.1 assessments is $1,236,000 (rounded) for the 2024 and 2025 taxation years effective January 1, 2024, and January 1, 2025.

ANALYSIS

Description of the Subject Property

13The Subject Property is a one-story single-family detached (not on water) residential dwelling built in 1974 located in the Town of Oakville. It has a lot with an effective site area of 0.26 acres. It has a total building area (“TBA”) of 1,293 square feet (“sq. ft.”), with construction quality of 7 and a basement area of 1,202 sq. ft. of which 1,007 sq. ft. is finished. The Subject Property has an attached garage with a TBA of 480 sq. ft. with construction quality rating of 4.

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

14In 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.

15The 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

16MPAC presented the Board with one proposed comparable property sale. This proposed comparable property was improved with a residence built the same year as the subject property. The effective site area 0.19 acres and building size was almost identical to the Subject Property at 1,276 sq. ft. The quality of construction of the residence is 7.0, which is the same as the Subject Property. This proposed comparable property sold within the shoulder years of the valuation day of January 1, 2016, namely 2015 and 2016. The details of MPAC’s proposed comparable property are in Table 1.

Table 1

	Subject Property	Sale 1
Address	2139 Constance Drive	2133 Dunedin Road
Current Value Assessment	$1,124,000	$1,133,000
Sale Date	N/A	17 October 2016
Sale Amount	N/A	$1,468,000
Time Adjusted Sale $	N/A	$1,321,300
Building/Size (sq ft)	1,293	1,276
Lot Size (sq ft)	0.26 acres	0.19 acres
Year Built	1974	1974
Quality of Construction	7.0	7.0

17MPAC argued that the direct comparison approach was the only appropriate means of determining the value of the Subject Property.

18MPAC asserted that, after the late receipt of photographs of the interior of the subject property, they were required to recalculate the value of the Subject Property, considering there had been significant renovations and the addition of a basement apartment. They considered the work to fall within the Category “C” level of improvement. As a result of this new information, they revised their search to attempt to find comparable properties which were single story, in the homogeneous neighbourhood, with renovations, a similar construction quality and a basement apartment. Their search yielded only the one property they have cited as comparable, 2133 Dunedin Road. Under questioning by the Appellant, MPAC conceded that a larger sample size would have been preferable and they “probably should have used more”.

19When asked by the Appellant’s representative why MPAC had eliminated its previous three comparable properties and substituted one new one, MPAC described how, after receiving the photographs which illustrated the renovations which had taken place in the Subject Property, without the knowledge of MPAC, they had subjected the property to a reconsideration of the appropriate current value. The result of that review resulted in an upward revision in the assessed value, which MPAC described as: Modeled Current Value Assessment Following Capturing Renovation, Finished. In other words, based on all the evidence before them, plus the aggregate knowledge in a database filled with millions of residential properties across the province, MPAC concluded that the most appropriate current value for the Subject Property, after factoring in the renovations and the finished basement, was $1,315,000.

20MPAC provided detailed reasons to support their position that the six properties cited by the Appellant were inferior to the Subject Property and that the MPAC comparable had features which most closely matched those of the Subject Property.

21MPAC derived its valuation of the Subject Property by applying a time adjustment factor of 0.9 to the proposed comparable sale of $1,468,000 on October 17, 2016. Dividing the result, $1,321,000, by the square footage of the proposed comparable property of 1,276 yields a Time Adjusted Sale Price/Square Foot (“TASP/SF”) of $1,035.42. Applying that rate to the 1,293 sq. ft. of the Subject Property produced a value of $1,338,802.19, rounded to $1,338.000.

Appellants’ Proposed Comparable Properties and Submissions

22The 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 1974. Their effective site areas ranged from 0.14 acres to 0.20 acres with building sizes ranging from 1,125 to 1,280 sq. ft. The quality of construction for all the comparable properties was inferior to that of the Subject Property at 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	2139 Constance Drive	415 Canterbury Crescent	441 Canterbury Crescent	456 Canterbury Crescent	2165 Dunedin Road	2129 Constance Drive	406 Canterbury Crescent
Current Value Assessment	$1,124,000	$809,000	$997,000	$882,000	$891,000	$915,000	$881,000
Sale Date	N/A	May 2016	August 2015	May 2016	March 2015	August 2016	July 2016
Sale Amount	N/A	$930,000	$745,000	$870,000	$875,000	$1,040,000	$915,000
Time Adjusted Sale Amount	N/A	$893,000	$782,000	$836,000	$963,000	$968,000	$861,000
Building/Size (sq ft)	1,293	1,125	1,280	1,170	1,269	1,176	1,150
Lot Size (sq. ft.)	0.26 acres	0.15 acres	0.20 acres	0.17 acres	0.16 acres	0.14 acres	0.15 acres
Year Built	1974	1973	1973	1972	1974	1974	1973
Quality of Construction	7.0	6.5	6.5	6.5	6.5	6.5	6.5

23The Appellant asserts that his comparable properties are geographically closer to the Subject Property than those selected by MPAC. He further asserts that his larger sample size of six properties provides a more reliable indicator of the Subject Property’s correct current value.

24He submits the best comparability criteria is the selling price per square foot, noting that his six properties yielded a median of $770/sq. ft. If he includes the comparable property selected by MPAC, the median is an even lower $759/sq. ft. Under questioning by MPAC, the Appellant’s representative admitted that he could not confirm the extent and date of renovations, if any, in the properties he claimed were comparable.

25The Appellant raised significant concerns about the fairness of utilizing a sample size of one for the purpose of arriving at the correct current value of the subject property. The Applicant points out that MPAC admitted that a larger sample size would have been preferable and that altering one or more of the search criteria may have yielded a wider selection of properties.

Findings on Issue 1

26The Board first observes that the parties substantially agree on the 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.

27I find that the applicant’s list of 6 comparable properties had very limited value in terms of determining the correct valuation of the Subject Property, given that four of the six comparable properties had building sizes at least 9% smaller than that of the Subject Property and all of the six had much smaller lot sizes and lower construction quality. MPAC noted their records showed the six properties had ever undergone minimal, or any, renovations and the Appellant could offer no evidence that any of the six had renovations anywhere close to the extent and quality of those of the Subject Property.

28Based on a thorough review of the attributes of both MPAC‘s and the Appellant’s proposed comparable property, the Board finds that the MPAC’s property, 2133 Dunedin Road is the most closely matches the attributes of the Subject Property. That said, the Appellant raised concerns that MPAC provided only one comparable property even though the Subject Property is located in a densely populated urban area. MPAC admitted they could have expanded their search criteria in order to generate a larger comparable sample size.

29The conclusion reached in the MPAC Valuation Report, namely $1,338,000, is relatively close to the $1,315,000 MPAC derived from its “Modelled Current Value Assessment”. In the event that this appeal had not taken place, this is the value that MPAC intended to apply to the Subject Property, as of January 1, 2026. This modelling takes advantage of the Board’s experience in valuing property renovations and expansions and is based on an extremely large sample size. After consideration of the concerns raised by the Appellant regarding the small sample size used in the MPAC comparison study in this case, the Board finds that the current value of $1,315,000 is the preferred valuation.

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?

30Section 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

31MPAC 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-story home sales within two kilometres of the Subject Property, in the same homogeneous neighbourhood, sold between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2016 and for which there have been no changes in the assessment since their sale. MPAC states that the resulting 24 properties 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 date. The result of the analysis of the ASR for those 24 homes is a median value of 0.94.

32MPAC noted that many of the assessment listed in the Appellant’s equity report were incorrect, likely due to missing information. When they adjusted the study to include the accurate assessments, the result was a median value of 0.94, which is identical to the findings in the MPAC equity study.

Appellants’ Evidence

33The 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 ASR value of 0.93, if the sale values are not time-adjusted to the January 1, 2016 valuation day.

34After MPAC submitted their revised report, the Appellant’s representative submitted an updated list of 30 properties, which contained only five properties from the original list plus 25 new additions. Neither the original nor the revised list utilized search criteria as detailed as the one used by MPAC. Under questioning by MPAC, the Appellant’s representative indicated that only the properties on the revised list had had their sale prices time adjusted. However, the Appellant’s representative could not specify which, if any, properties had had renovations or had a basement apartment.

35As an alternative, the Appellant’s representative asserts that the one comparable sale provided by MPAC had a sale price which was well above those of the comparable properties he had offered. Furthermore, it’s selling price was 49% above its current assessment of $984,000. Dividing that assessment by the TASP of $1,3210,000 yields an ASR of 0.74. He submitted that an ASR of 0.74 should, therefore, be applied to the Subject Property.

Findings on Issue 2

36The Board finds that MPAC provided the best evidence for an equity reduction.

37The parties provided similar 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."

38The 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.

39As 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 …”

40The Board prefers the MPAC study as it included properties which are more comparable with the Subject Property than the properties utilized by the Appellant as MPAC included renovations and construction quality as criteria for their search. The Board accepts that renovations and construction quality are highly relevant points of comparison.

41Furthermore, MPAC noted that several of the properties used for the Appellant’s study had inaccurate or outdated assessment values. When the Appellant’s own study was updated to include accurate assessment values, it yielded the same median ASR as the MPAC study. There was agreement by the Appellant’s representative that the results of the MPAC analysis of this revision of the Appellant’s study “were reasonable”. The fact that both the MPAC study and the revised Appellant study yielded the same 6% equity adjustment is most persuasive.

42For these reasons, the Board accepts MPAC’s evidence. Consequently, the Board finds that a six percent (6%) reduction of the correct current value is required pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act.

CONCLUSION

43The Board has found that the correct current value of the Subject Property is $1,315,000 for the 2024 and 2025 taxation and a 6% equity reduction of this value is required pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act.

ORDER

44The current value of the Subject Property for the 2024 and 2025 taxation years is $1,236,000