Tribunals Ontario Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario Assessment Review Board Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: November 20, 2025
Assessed Person(s): Kirsten Eastwood; Katrina Eastwood
Appellant(s): Kirsten Eastwood
Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 05
Respondent(s): City of Kingston
Property Location(s): 1656 Daylan Avenue and Daylan Avenue, Lot 12
Municipality(ies): City of Kingston
Roll Number(s): 1011-080-270-07300-0000; 1011-080-270-07400-0000
Appeal Number(s): 3522587, 3529014, 3534552; 3522588;3527804 and 3534573
Taxation Year(s): 2023, 2024 and 2025
Hearing Event No.: 788966
Legislative Authority: Sections 36 and 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel/Representative |
|---|---|
| Kirsten Eastwood | Andrew Grace |
| Municipal Property Assessment Corporation | Kalin Doucet |
| City of Kingston | No one appeared |
HEARD: September 22, 2025, by video conference
ADJUDICATOR(S): Gulzar Ladhani, Member Subuola Awoleri, Member
DECISION
OVERVIEW
Background
1Kirsten Eastwood (the “Appellant”) filed an appeal with the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) relating to assessments of 1656 Daylan Avenue (the “Subject Property”) and the adjacent vacant Lot 12 on Daylan Avenue (the “Vacant Property”) in the City of Kingston (the “City”).
2The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) assessed the Subject Property pursuant to s. 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”) for the 2023 taxation year at $369,000. This appeal was subsequently deemed for the 2024 and 2025 taxation years, pursuant to s. 40(26) of the Act.
3The Vacant Property was also assessed by MPAC pursuant to s. 40 of the Act for the 2023 taxation year at $158,000. This appeal was subsequently deemed for the 2024 and 2025 taxation years, pursuant to s. 40(26) of the Act.
4MPAC’s opinion of value for the Subject Property is $355,000. MPAC’s opinion of value for the Vacant Property is $200,000, however MPAC is requesting the Board to confirm the returned assessment of the Vacant Property at $158,000.
5The Appellant submitted that these assessments are too high and that the current value of the Subject Property and the Vacant Property combined should be $138,000 due to an oil contamination issue on both properties in 2012, arising from a fuel oil tank release, resulting -in an underground contamination.
6On February 5, 2025, the parties requested that the two appeals be combined as they share the same statement of issues dealing with current value and concerns of contamination and are in the same location, abutting each other.
7On February 11, 2025, the Board determined that Rule 84 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure applied and granted the request to combine these appeals.
8The City is also a statutory party to this appeal but was not represented at the hearing.
Issues for the Hearing
9At issue in this proceeding is:
- What is the correct current value of the Subject Property and the Vacant Property for the 2023, 2024 and 2025 taxation years?
- Should there be a reduction to the correct current value of the Subject Property and the Vacant Property due to the contamination on both properties?
- 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?
Result
10For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that the correct current value of the Subject Property is $238,000 and the correct current value of the Vacant Property is $107,000.
11A reduction to the current value is necessary to account for the oil spill contamination. These current values are reduced to $88,000 for the Subject Property and $39,000 for the Vacant Property. Therefore, the Board finds that the correct current value of the Subject Property is $88,000 for the taxation years 2023, 2024 and 2025 and that the correct current value of the Vacant Property is $39,000 for the taxation years 2023, 2024 and 2025.
12The Board finds that there is no evidence to support a reduction in the current values determined when reference is made to the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity, for the purposes of equitable assessment.
ANALYSIS
Description of Subject Property and Vacant Property
13The Subject Property is a one-story residential waterfront dwelling built in 1963 located in the City of Kingston. It has a lot with 122.37 feet (“ft.”) of effective frontage and 67.64 ft. of effective depth for an effective site area of 0.19 acres. It has a total building area of 1,278 square feet (“sq. ft.”), with construction quality of 6.5. It has a boathouse built in 1963 with a total building area of 334 sq. ft. and construction quality of 2.0.
14The Vacant Property is a vacant residential waterfront land located beside the Subject Property. It has an effective frontage of 66 ft. and effective depth of 132 ft. for an effective site area of 0.2 acres. It has a 539 sq. ft. shed, built in 1935 with construction quality of 1.0.
Issue 1 – What is the correct current value of the Subject Property and the Vacant Property for the 2023, 2024 and 2025 taxation years?
Applicable Law
15In 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.”
16Accordingly, the Board must first determine what the Subject Property and the Vacant Property would have sold for in an arm’s length transaction on the statutory valuation day. The valuation day for the 2023, 2024 and 2025 taxation years is January 1, 2016.
17In 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 determine the current value of the Subject Property and the Vacant Property.
Evidence on Current Value
MPAC – Subject Property
18MPAC produced a valuation report that compared the Subject Property with four other properties, that it deemed were sufficiently similar to the Subject Property to be used to determine its current value. MPAC performed a time adjustment to reflect what these properties would have sold for on January 1, 2016. The details of these proposed comparable property sales can be seen in Table 1 below:
Table 1
| Subject Property | Property #1 | Property #2 | Property #3 | Property #4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Address | 1656 DAYLAN AVE | 1658 DAYLAN AVE | 452 KINGSTON MILLS RD | 77 ARAGON RD | 2320 HIGHWAY 15 |
| Property Code & Desc. | (313) Single Family Detached On Water | (313) Single Family Detached On Water | (313) Single Family Detached On Water | (313) Single Family Detached On Water | (313) Single Family Detached On Water |
| Distance in km | 0.0279 | 0.9914 | 2.5882 | 3.2884 | |
| Valuation | |||||
| Current Value Assessment | $369,000 | $361,000 | $651,000 | $458,000 | $400,000 |
| Sale | |||||
| Sale Date | 20150903 | 20160301 | 20161125 | 20150112 | |
| Sale Amount | $403,500 | $410,000 | $386,000 | $300,000 | |
| Time Adjusted Sale Amount | $409,380 | $405,836 | $370,053 | $314,859 | |
| Time Adjusted Sale Ratio | 0.8818 | 1.6041 | 1.2377 | 1.2704 | |
| Site | |||||
| Effective Frontage (F) | 122.37 | 64.5 | 123 | 126.39 | 152 |
| Actual Frontage | 132 | 64.5 | 123 | 141.4 | 195 |
| Effective Depth (F) | 67.64 | 175.59 | 421.4 | 485.95 | 209.2 |
| Actual Depth | 225 | 421.4 | 163.1 | ||
| Effective Site Area (Acres) | 0.19 | 0.26 | 1.19 | 1.41 | 0.73 |
| Actual Site Area (Acres) | 0.19 | 0.26 | 1.19 | 1.41 | 0.73 |
| 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 |
| Year Built | 1963 | 1967 | 1969 | 1970 | 1960 |
| Effective Year Built | 1963 | 1967 | 1969 | 1970 | 1960 |
| Quality of Construction | 6.5 | 6.5 | 6.5 | 6 | 6 |
| Building Total Area (SF) | 1,278 | 2,196 | 1,365 | 1,085 | 1,515 |
| Secondary Structure(s) Structure Description | (105) Boathouse | (116) Attached Garage | (116) Attached Garage | (101) Detached Garage | |
| Year Built | 1963 | 1969 | 1970 | 1988 | |
| Building Total Area (SF) | 334 | 449 | 720 | 562 | |
| Quality of Construction | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
19MPAC testified as follows:
20Sale 1, 1658 Daylan Avenue, is located directly beside the Subject Property. It sold in 2015 after the contamination issues. Sale 1 shares a property line with the Subject Property and has a very comparable location, lot size and structure details. The time adjusted sale price of Sale 1 is $409,380; therefore, the Subject Property could have a similar value as the time adjusted sale price of Sale 1.
21Sale 2, 452 Kingston Mills Road, is located 0.99 kilometre (“km”) east of the Subject Property on the same lake. Sale 2 has similar location, land details and characteristics as the Subject Property. At the time of Sale 2, the structure’s size, age and quality were similar to the Subject Property. The time adjusted sale price of Sale 2 is $405,836; therefore, the Subject Property could have a similar value as the time adjusted sale price of Sale 2.
22Sale 3, 77 Aragon Road, is located 2.5 km north of the Subject Property on the same lake. Sale 3 has a larger lot size but similar frontage along the water as the Subject Property. The structure for Sale 3 is similar vintage in terms of year built, has lower quality and has less total building area compared to the Subject Property, and it has an additional structure on site. The time adjusted sale price of Sale 3 is $386,000; therefore, the Subject Property could have a similar value as the time adjusted value of Sale 3.
23Sale 4, 2320 Highway 15, is located 3.2 km northeast of the Subject Property on the same lake. Sale 4 has a larger lot size and more frontage, but the waterfront quality is inferior. The structure on Sale 4 is also of inferior quality. Hence, Sale 4 is an inferior property compared to the Subject Property. The time adjusted sale price of Sale 4 is $300,000; therefore, the Subject Property could have a higher value than the time adjusted sale price of Sale 4.
24Based on the sale prices of the four comparable properties, MPAC estimated the current value of the Subject Property to be $355,000. MPAC calculated this amount by taking the median sale price of $394,750 and determined the rate per square foot and rate per front foot. The value based on rate per square foot is $318,468 and the rate per front foot is $390,811. MPAC took the middle point of the two suggested values of $354,639 or $355,000 (rounded) as the current value of the Subject Property.
MPAC – Vacant Property
25MPAC produced a valuation report that compared the Vacant Property with seven other properties in the same vicinity that it deemed were sufficiently similar to the Vacant Property to be used to determine its current value. The details of these proposed comparable property sales can be seen in Table 2 below:
Table 2
| Vacant Property | Property #1 | Property #2 | Property #3 | Property #4 | Property #5 | Property #6 | Property #7 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Address | DAYLAN AVE | 440 KINGSTON MILLS RD | SANDSTONE CRT | 66 SANDSTONE CRT | 40 SANDSTONE CRT | 32 SANDSTONE CRT | 12 SANDSTONE CRT | 4726 NORTH SHORE RD |
| Distance in km | 1.101 | 9.2995 | 9.5246 | 9.6122 | 9.6977 | 9.7886 | 14.8243 | |
| Valuation | ||||||||
| Current Value Assessment | $158,000 | $627,000 | $761,000 | $846,000 | $745,000 | $788,000 | $1,070,000 | $566,000 |
| Current Value Assessment (vacant land assessment) | $280,000 | $276,000 | $279,000 | $272,000 | $273,000 | $277,000 | $132,000 | |
| Sale | ||||||||
| Sale Date | 20161024 | 20150901 | 20160212 | 20150930 | 20161114 | 20151130 | 20151207 | |
| Sale Amount | $194,690 | $300,000 | $290,000 | $298,000 | $287,500 | $300,000 | $165,000 | |
| Time Adjusted Sale Amount | $189,822 | $302,700 | $288,840 | $300,682 | $279,737 | $301,200 | $165,165 | |
| Time Adjusted Sale Ratio | 1.48 | 0.91 | 0.97 | 0.90 | 0.98 | 0.92 | 0.80 | |
| Time Adjusted Sale per front foot | 1619.503455 | 1205.735909 | 1090.785498 | 1205.911607 | 1121.72989 | 1207.795332 | 581.5669014 | |
| Time Adjusted Sale per acre | 120140.5063 | 93425.92593 | 115075.6972 | 120755.8233 | 99906.07143 | 79472.29551 | 137637.5 | |
| Site | ||||||||
| Effective Frontage (F) | 66 | 117.21 | 251.05 | 264.8 | 249.34 | 249.38 | 249.38 | 284 |
| Actual Frontage | 66 | 120.0787402 | 291.2073491 | 322.7362205 | 300.492126 | 343.1430446 | 296.5551181 | 284 |
| Effective Depth (F) | 132 | 587.19 | 562.4 | 413.22 | 434.91 | 489.27 | 661.61 | 184.06 |
| Actual Depth | 434.91 | 184.06 | ||||||
| Effective Site Area (Acres) | 0.2 | 1.58 | 3.24 | 2.51 | 2.49 | 2.8 | 3.79 | 1.2 |
| Actual Site Area (Acres) | 0.2 | 1.58 | 3.24 | 2.51 | 2.49 | 2.8 | 3.79 | 1.2 |
| Secondary Structure(s) Structure Description | (102) Shed | |||||||
| Year Built | 1935 | |||||||
| Building Total Area (SF) | 539 | |||||||
| Quality of Construction | 1 |
26MPAC testified that the seven properties are located in the same vicinity of the Vacant Property, in a similar rural location outside of the City boundaries. They have similar land characteristics, function and utility as the Vacant Property.
27MPAC testified as follows:
28Sale 1 is located on the same lake as the Vacant Property and is closest to the Vacant Property. It is most comparable to the Vacant Property.
29Sales 2 to 6 are located on a smaller lake further north of the Vacant Property with larger lot sizes and more frontage along the water and are considered superior properties to the Vacant Property.
30Sale 7 has a cliff topography and difficulty accessing the waterfront so is considered inferior to the Vacant Property.
31The Vacant Property, having a current value of $200,000 would be in line with comparable Sale 1 on the same lake, above comparable Sale 7 and below comparable Sales 2 to 6. MPAC established a probable range of current value for the Vacant Property by bracketing it between properties that are inferior and superior to it. The determined current value of $200,000 being higher than the returned assessment of $158,000, MPAC is not seeking an increase in the assessment, therefore, MPAC is requesting the Board to confirm the returned assessment of $158,000.
Appellant Evidence – Subject Property and Vacant Property Combined
32The Appellant provided a combined retrospective value estimate for the Subject Property and the Vacant Property (“Combined Property”). The Appellant did not provide the time adjusted sales price as of the valuation day for the Combined Property. The Appellant used the direct comparison approach and presented four proposed comparable property sales.
33The Appellant testified that the retrospective value estimate for both the Subject Property and the Vacant Property combined is $375,000. The appraisal report presented by the Appellant was a hypothetical value based on the assumption that there was no oil spill contamination. The details of the four proposed comparable property sales are provided in Table 3 below:
Table 3
| Subject | Sale 1 | Sale 2 | Sale 3 | Sale 4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of Sale | May 10, 2016 | November 4, 2015 | September 3, 2015 | January 12, 2015 | |
| Address | 1656 Daylan Avenue, Kingston, Ontario | 1492 Jarvis Road, Kingston, Ontario | 4097 Cardinal Lane, Inverary, Ontario | 1658 Daylan Avenue, Kingston, Ontario | 2320 Highway 15, Kingston, Ontario |
| Lot Area | 0.39 Acres± (16,988 Sq. Ft.) | 3.12 Acres (135,907 | 0.66 Acres (28,749.6 | 0.26 Acres (11,325.60 | 0.73 Acres (31,798.8 Sq. Ft.) |
| Area of Improvements | 1,230 Sq. Ft. | 1,467 Sq. Ft.± | 1,109 Sq. Ft.± | 2,196 Sq. Ft.± | 1,515 Sq. Ft.± |
| Sale Price | $620,000 | $269,000 | $403,500 | $300,000 | |
| Sale Price per Sq. Ft. | $422.63 | $242.56 | $183.74 | $198.02 |
34The Appellant testified as follows:
35Sale 1 is in a slightly inferior location, has an inferior lot configuration. It has a newer and larger building that is in a superior condition, with the same quality of building. It has a detached garage but no boathouse. This property is superior to the Combined Property.
36Sale 2 is in a similar location and has a similar lot configuration. The building is of similar original quality and is in a similar condition. It does not have a boathouse. The Combined Property would have a higher value.
37Sale 3 is most similar as it is located next to the Combined Property. The lot is smaller, and the lot configuration is inferior. The building is larger and of similar quality. There is no boathouse. Overall, the Combined Property would have a lower value.
38Sale 4 is in an inferior location with a larger superior lot configuration. The building is slightly larger, of similar quality and is in similar condition. There is a detached garage but no boathouse. Overall, the Combined Property would have a higher value.
39In the Appellant’s submission, the hypothetical value of the Combined Property would be higher than Sale 4 but lower than Sale 3 and suggests that a value of $375,000 is well supported, assuming it’s a clean site that has not been affected by contamination.
Findings on Issue 1 – Current Value
40The legislative mandate of the Board is to determine the correct current value of the Subject Property and the Vacant Property.
41The Board finds that the best comparable property to the Subject Property is MPAC’s comparable property Sale 1 (1658 Daylan Avenue). This comparable property sale is the best indicator of the current value of the Subject Property. MPAC’s proposed comparable Sales 2 to 4 have larger lot sizes and are farther from the Subject Property. The Appellant’s proposed comparable property Sales 1, 2 and 4 have larger lot sizes compared to the Subject Property. However, MPAC’s comparable property Sale 1, which was also presented by the Appellant is adjacent to the Subject Property. It shares a property line with the Subject Property. It was built in 1967, which is close in age with the Subject Property. Although the structure is larger than the Subject Property, they both have the same quality of construction of 6.5. The lot size is slightly larger at 0.26 acres. The Board notes that the Appellant testified that this property is not contaminated as it does not have any monitoring wells on it. The contamination issue will be addressed later in this Decision.
42Comparable property Sale 1 (1658 Daylan Avenue) sold in 2015 at a Time Adjusted Sale Price (“TASP”) of $409,380. It’s TASP per square foot is $186.42. Multiplying this rate with the total building area of the Subject Property at 1,278 sq. ft. provides a value of $238,245.
43The Board finds that the correct current value of the Subject Property is $238,000(rounded).
44The Board finds that the best comparable property to the Vacant Property is MPAC’s comparable property Sale 1 (440 Kingston Mills Road). MPAC’s proposed comparable property Sales 2-7 are farther from the Vacant Property between 9.3 km to 14.8 km. This property is located on the same lake as the Subject Property and is just 1.1 km away. It provides the best indicator of the current value of the Vacant Property. This property sold at a TASP of $189,822. It’s TASP per front foot is $1,619.50. Multiplying this rate with the effective frontage of 66 ft. for the Vacant Property gives a value of $106,887.
45The Board finds that the current value of the Vacant Property is $107,000(rounded).
Issue 2- Should there be a reduction in the correct current value of the Subject Property and the Vacant Property due to the contamination on both properties?
MPAC Evidence on Contamination
46MPAC testified that during the request for reconsideration process it had requested for information from the Appellant regarding the contamination issue on the Subject Property and the Vacant Property and none was provided. However, during the appeal process, the necessary documents were later provided by the Appellant which were further reviewed by MPAC’s contamination team. The documents revealed that the costs incurred by the Appellant in remediating the contamination in 2023 was $26,000 and in 2024 was $20,000. Therefore, MPAC determined that overall, through a 10-year period the cost incurred for remediating the contamination was $25,000 per year. MPAC testified that it was willing to apply a downward adjustment of $25,000 per year, to the Subject Property and the Vacant Property for the taxation years under appeal.
47MPAC submitted that Comparable Sale 1 which is located directly beside the Subject Property and sold in 2015 after the contamination issue is the best indication of the market value for a comparable property close to the valuation day.
48MPAC submitted that there are no comparable property sales of contaminated properties to compare with the Subject Property and the Vacant Property.
Appellant’s Evidence on Contamination
49The Appellant presented 5011 Bath Road, Amherstview, as a comparable property of a contamination site. The Appellant testified that the property at 5011 Bath Road is similar to the Combined Property, in that both are residential lots that have been adversely impacted by contamination due to an oil spill. The Appellant added that in 2010, the improvements on 5011 Bath Road was demolished and the site was listed for sale as a vacant lot and it was purchased by a willing buyer with full knowledge of the oil spill contamination. It sold on May 15, 2014, as a contamination site, for $14,000, or 36.84% of the estimated market value of $38,000 if the site was clean.
50The Appellant provided sales of four vacant properties (Sales 5 to 8) to determine the estimated market value of 5011 Bath Road. The details of these proposed comparable property sales are provided in Table 4 below:
Table 4
| Direct Comparable | Sale 5 | Sale 6 | Sale 7 | Sale 8 | 5011 Bath Road |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of Sale | May 22, 2014 | April 30, 2014 | September 19, 2014 | October 2, 2012 | |
| Address | County Road 9, Napanee, Ontario | Shane Street, Odessa, Ontario | 1670 Sharpe Road, Odessa, Ontario | 38 Howe Island Ferry Road, Kingston, Ontario | 5011 Bath Road, Amherstview, Ontario |
| Lot Dimensions | 183.73 Ft. x Irregular | 460.35 Ft. x Irregular | 73.10 Ft. x Irregular | 438.00 Ft. x Irregular | 206 Ft. x Irregular |
| Lot Area | 1.38 Acres± | 4.18 Acres± | 0.54 Acres | 3.12 Acres | 0.61 Acres |
| Zoning | RU - Rural | R1 – Residential Type 1 | R1 – Residential Type 1 | RUR – Rural Residential | SR – Shoreline Residential Zone |
| Sale Price | $37,900 | $64,900 | $33,500 | $90,000 | |
| Sale Price per Front Foot | $206.28 | $140.98 | 458.28 | $205.48 | |
| Sale Price per Acre | $27,464 | $15,519 | $62,037 | $28,846 |
51The Appellant testified that Sales 5 and 6 required upward adjustments, Sale 7 and 8 did not require any adjustments. The appellant used Sale 7 values to determine the hypothetical retrospective per acre value of $38,000 (62,500 x.61 acres) for 5011 Bath Road.
52The Appellant applied the percentage 36.84%, which represents the estimated market value of what 5011 Bath Road sold, to their retrospective market value estimate of the Combined Property to get the value of $138,000 ($375,000x0.3684) to reflect the impact of the contamination on the Combined Property.
Findings on Issue 2 – Reduction to Current Value due to Contamination
53In D. Murray Ventures Inc v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 23, 2016 CanLII 31809 (ON ARB) at para. 43 the Board determined that:
…contamination is a condition of the property for sale. The Board finds that it is reasonable to consider all conditions of a property when determining current value and further finds that in the case of the subject properties, it is reasonable that contamination would impact a negotiated sale price.
54Therefore, this panel finds that it is reasonable to consider all conditions of a property when determining current value and further finds that in these appeals, based on the evidence presented by the parties, it is reasonable to conclude that contamination would impact a negotiated sale price, as was presented into evidence by the Appellant with the sale of 5011 Bath Road. This property was originally listed for sale in 2012 for $82,500, until the price was reduced and it eventually sold in 2014 for $14,000.
55The parties agree that there is contamination on both properties.
56The only evidence before the Board on how a contaminated property will transact in the market is the Appellant’s evidence regarding the sale of 5011 Bath Road. This property has 206 ft. of frontage with a site area of 0.61 acres. Although it sold in May 2014, outside the shoulder years of the January 1, 2016 valuation day, the Board determines that this is the best and only evidence before the Board to use to determine a reduction to the current value of the Subject Property and the Vacant Property. Therefore, the Board accepts the Appellant’s evidence that the value of a contaminated site is 36.84% of the estimated market value.
57To determine the impact of the oil spill contamination on the current value, the Board is applying the 0.3684 percentage to the current value of the Subject Property of $238,000 (without the contamination) for a current value of $87,679.
58The Board finds that the correct current value of the Subject Property is $88,000 (rounded).
59To account for the oil spill contamination, the Board is applying the 0.3684 percentage to the current value of the Vacant Property of $107,000 (without the contamination) for a current value of $39,418.
60The Board finds that the correct current value of the Vacant Property is $39,000 (rounded).
Issue 3: Whether an equity reduction in the current value should be made to achieve equitable assessment when reference is made to the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity?
61Section 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.”
62The Appellant did not raise any issue regarding the equitable assessment of the Subject Property and the Vacant Property. MPAC also did not present any evidence in this regard.
63The Board finds that it has no evidence before it to further reduce the assessment of the subject properties below the current value determined.
CONCLUSION
Subject Property
64The Board finds that the correct current value of the Subject Property for the taxation years 2023, 2024 and 2025 is $88,000 with no reduction for equity pursuant to s. 44(3) of the Act.
Vacant Property
65The Board finds that the correct current value of the Vacant Property for the taxation years 2023, 2024 and 2025 is $39,000, with no reduction for equity pursuant to s. 44(3) of the Act.
ORDER
66The Board orders as follows:
Appeal No’s. 3522587, 3529014 and 3534552
a. for the 2023, 2024 and 2025 taxation years, the assessment of the Subject Property is reduced from $369,000 to $88,000; confirmed in the residential property class.
Appeal No’s. 3522588, 3527804, 3534573
b. for the 2023, 2024 and 2025 taxation years, the assessment of the Vacant Property is reduced from $158,000 to $39,000; confirmed in the vacant residential land property class.
"Gulzar Ladhani"
GULZAR LADHANI MEMBER
"Subuola Awoleri"
SUBUOLA AWOLERI MEMBER
Assessment Review Board Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb