Osmondo Refrea Bocalbos v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 19, 2025 CanLII 121562

Tribunals Ontario

Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

November 17, 2025

FILE NO.:

WR 189244

Assessed Person(s):

Osmondo Refrea Bocalbos; Carmina Carpena Bocalbos

Appellant(s):

Osmondo Refrea Bocalbos

Respondent(s):

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 19

Respondent(s):

City of Hamilton

Property Location(s):

279 Moorland Crescent

Municipality(ies):

City of Hamilton

Roll Number(s):

2518-140-280-38493-0000

Appeal Number(s):

3530253 and 3535660

Taxation Year(s):

2024 and 2025

Hearing Event No.:

789467

Legislative Authority:

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

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel/Representative

Osmondo Refrea Bocalbos

Self-represented

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation

Tim Oberle

City of Hamilton

No one appeared

HEARD:

October 6, 2025 by video conference

ADJUDICATOR(S):

Rema El-Tawil, Member Nicole Gajraj, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1Osmondo Refrea Bocalbos (the “Appellant”) filed an appeal with the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) relating to the assessment of 279 Moorland Crescent (the “Subject Property”) in the City of Hamilton (the “City”).

2The Subject Property was assessed pursuant to s . 40 of the Assessment Act , R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”) for the 2024 and 2025 taxation years. It’s current value was assessed at $649,000. It is the Appellant’s position that these assessed values are too high, and the Board should reduce them to reflect a current value of $525,000 for each of these taxation years.

3The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) is responding to these appeals. MPAC states that the correct current value is $693,000. However, MPAC is request that the Board find that the current value is $649,000, which is the returned value.

4The City is also a party to this appeal. Although they were in attendance as an observer at the hearing, the City was not a party to the proceedings and did not otherwise make submissions.

5The hearing was heard on October 6, 2025 and an oral decision was rendered. On October 6, 2025, the Appellant requested written reasons.

Issues for the Hearing

6At issue in this proceeding is:

What is the current value of the Subject Property as of the statutory valuation day of January 1, 2016?
Is a reduction of current value required pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act?

Result

7For the reasons that follow, the Board has found that the correct value of the Subject Property is $679,152 and that no reduction of this value is required pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act.

8Therefore, the Board finds that the current value of the Subject Property for the taxation years 2024 and 2025 is $679,152.

ANALYSIS

Description of Subject Property

9The Subject Property is a single family detached residential dwelling with attached garage in the City of Hamilton. The Subject Property is two storeys, 5 bedroom, 4.5 bathroom with total building area of 3,008 square feet.

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

Applicable Law

10In 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.”

11Accordingly, the Board must first 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.

12In 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

MPAC

13MPAC 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.

Subject Property

Property #1

Property #2

Property #3

Property #4

Roll Number

251814028038493

251814028038484

251814028035553

251814028038547

Address

279 MOORLAND

265 MOORLAND

282 MOORLAND

274 MOORLAND

Neighbourhood

A01 - 101

Property Code & Desc.

(301) Single-Family Detached (Not On Water)

(313) Single-Family Detached On Water

Distance in km

0.0451

0.0473

0.0488

Valuation

Current Value Assessment

$649,000

$645,000

$601,000

$607,000

Sale

Sale Date

20220908

20160129

20160707

20160714

Sale Amount

$1,630,000

$665,000

$685,000

$737,500

Time Adjusted Sale Amount

$775,742

$661,010

$633,625

$682,182

Site

Effective Frontage (F)

49.21

41.99

Effective Depth (F)

86.29

86.24

86.19

Effective Site Area (Acres)

0.1

0.08

Actual Site Area (Acres)

0.1

0.08

Abuts Variable(s)

Proximity Variable(s)

On Site Variable(s)

(76) Official Plan Designated - Residential

Residential Structure

Year Built

2014

Effective Year Built

2014

Structure Variable

Quality of Construction

6.5

Full Storeys

2 Storeys

1 Storey

Baths

4.5

3.5

2.5

Air Conditioning

Subject Property

Property #1

Property #2

Property #3

Property #4

Building Total Area (SF)

3,008

3,014

2,844

2,866

Secondary Structure

Structure Description

(116) Attached Garage

Year Built

2014

Building Total Area (SF)

377

Quality of Construction

CVA/SF

$215.76

TAS/SF

$257.89

$219.31

$222.79

$238.03

Subject Property

Property #1

Property #2

Property #3

Property #4

MEDIAN RATE/SF $230.41

MEDIAN APPLIED to subject

$693,073.00

14MPAC testified as follows:

The proposed comparable properties are all built in 2014 and similar in character, size and quality. The properties are in direct vicinity of the Subject Property. Property 2 is the Subject Property which was sold in 2022 for $1,630,000. Property 3 is three doors from the Subject Property and Properties 4 and 5 are located across the street from the Subject Property.
Accounting for adjustment of time, the proposed comparable sales support a current value range of $659,684 to $775,733.
The median time-adjusted sales price of the proposed comparable sales is $693,073.00 which MPAC determined as the current value.
However, MPAC testified that it is only seeking a current value of $649,000 and submitted that they are not seeking an increase.

Appellant

15The Appellant submits that the Subject Property should be assessed at $525,000. In support of this position, the Appellant provided evidence regarding five proposed comparable properties in the following chart:

Comp

Address

Sale Date

2016 CVA

Sale Price

Lot Area

Floor Area

Price/sft

Built

Bedroom

Bathroom

Basement

Quality

Subject

279 Moorland Cres

649,000

4,236

3,008

2014

4+1

4.5

unfinished

Inferior finishing and functional depreciations due to the accessibility room on the main floor

455 Southcote Rd

September 18, 2015

692,000

664,400

4,569

3,014

220

2016

unfinished

Superior

265 Moorland Cres

December 8,2015

645,000

665,000

4,246

3,014

221

2014

unfinished

Superior

451 Southcote Rd

August 21, 2015

568,000

603,000

4,569

2,594

232

2016

unfinished

Superior

495 Southcote Rd

May 16, 2015

704,000

650,900

5,384

3,126

208

2015

unfinished

Superior

294 Moorland Cres

Apr 29, 2015

593,000

695,900

3,646

2,641

226

2015

unfinished

Superior

Median

221

16The Appellant described these five comparable properties, which the Appellant described as being superior with superior finishings.

17The Appellant included MPAC’s Property 2, 265 Moorland Crescent and submits that it is most comparable to the Subject Property.

18The Appellant submits as follows:

Although the Appellant has stated that property 2 is most comparable, he also submits that none of MPAC’s proposed properties are comparable to the Subject Property, as they are superior. That the comparable properties have better upgrades yet remain assessed at the same or lower values than the Subject Property.
Based on his review of property sale listings, the Appellant asserts that MPAC’s Property 2 has superior upgrades; MPAC’s Property 3 is updated and has a finished basement; and MPAC’s Property 4 is upgraded because it has better kitchen countertops, has wood flooring and stairs, and has a gas fireplace.

19The Appellant further submits that the Subject Property, when purchased from the original owner, had an accessibility room and an accessibility bathroom on the main floor along with an accessibility lift in the garage. The Appellant submits that this modification resulted in insufficient space that is unusable, resulting in functional obsolescence. The Appellant submitted that, for the Appellant “to cure” the accessibility features and this obsolescence claimed, as well as returning the Subject Property to its original layout to have a formal dining room, he would have to demolish the accessibility bedroom and bathroom at a cost of $27,000.

20The Appellant’s position is that MPAC’s comparable Property 2 is the best comparable to the Subject Property. The Appellant submits that taking the non time adjusted sale value of MPAC’s Property 2 of $665,000 and adjusting it for the upgrades claimed by subtracting $80,000 and adjusting for functional obsolescence that would yield a current value of $558,000 prior to the application of the Appellant’s Assessment to Sales Ratio (“ASR”).

Findings on Issue 1

21For the following reasons, the Board does not accept the Appellant’s proposed current value of $525,000, nor does it rely on the Appellant’s proposed comparable properties to determine current value of the Subject Property:

The Appellant asks the Board to rely on the sale price value of these properties. The Board does not accept this approach. The Board requires market-tested sales evidence to determine current value that has been time adjusted to the valuation day of January 1, 2016. Accordingly, the Board does not rely on the Appellant’s proposed comparables.

22The sale of the Subject Property in 2022, is far removed from the valuation day. Although time-adjusted, the Board has concerns that the market in 2022 may not reflect the market as of the January 1, 2016 valuation day. For this reason, the Board does not accept that the sale of the Subject Property in 2022 can be considered to be comparable for purposes of determining the Subject Property’s current value as of January 1, 2016.

23Proposed Sales 2, 3, and 4 are all two-storey residential dwellings in the immediate vicinity of 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 quality of construction and built in the same year as the Subject Property. The structures are of the same or comparable size as the Subject Property. The structures are all inferior in the number of bathrooms to the Subject Property. In fact, Sales 3 and 4 are slightly smaller total area than the Subject Property, and Sale 2 is larger than the subject areas by 6 square feet. The Board finds that these sales are the best evidence of current value of the Subject Property before the Board.

24The Board finds that MPAC’s proposed comparable Property 2, 3 and 4 are most comparable to the Subject Property. Calculating the average time-adjusted sale prices of MPAC’s proposed Sales 2, 3 and 4, the Board has found that the median rate per square foot to be $222.79 which after multiplying it by the Subject Property’s total area of 3,008 square feet, yields a current value of $670,152.32.

25Based on the best evidence before the Board, the Board finds that the current value of the Subject Property is $670,152.

Issue 2 - Is a reduction of current value required pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act?

26 Section 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

27The Appellant provided 20 properties which he testified were 1 kilometre from the Subject Property in the immediate neighbourhood. However, the Appellant did not use time adjusted factors for the sale prices of these properties. He stated their sales prices are in the shoulder years and the “properties are not the same type”. The Appellant further stated that the sale prices of the properties was based on MLS public listings. The Appellant testified that the properties reflected an ASR of 0.94.

28The Appellant testified that he originally submitted a 10% reduction of current value in his ASR study to cure functional obsolescence in the Subject Property. The Appellant described the obsolescence as a renovation that he would have to complete in the Subject Property because there was a wheelchair accessible bathroom and a chair lift in the garage. The Appellant submitted pictures of what he described as functional obsolescence. The Appellant concluded and submitted that he adjusted it to be an additional 20% reduction as opposed to the 10% reduction submitted. The Appellant based this reduction percentage and asserted that he relied on his own contractor experience.

29The Appellant submitted that MPAC’s ASR is not reliable and cited the following decisions, without providing further explanation in his final submission in support of his argument on equity: Milosek v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 03, 2018 CanLII 102247 (ON ARB); Patrick v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 02, 2019 CanLII 7194 (ON ARB); Bernier v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 2, 2018 CanLII 107728 (ON ARB).

MPAC

30MPAC provided an equity analysis report reflecting an ASR analysis. According to MPAC, 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.

31MPAC 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 2 kilometres of the Subject Property. In addition, MPAC considered physical attributes such as building size, age of structures, and quality of construction that are similar to the Subject Property. MPAC testified that the analysis reveals an ASR of 0.98, which means that similar properties in the vicinity have been assessed at or near their current values and, therefore, an equity adjustment is not required.

Findings on Issue 2

32The Board does not accept the Appellant’s proposed equitable current value of $525,000 nor does it rely on the Appellant’s proposed properties to determine whether an equitable adjustment should be applied, for the following reasons:

The Appellant did not provide any details with respect to the properties that were obtained for his ASR study.
Although the Appellant submitted that the properties relied on were sold in 2015 and 2016, the Appellant has not provided properties with evidence of market-tested sales transactions that were time adjusted to the valuation day, such that the Board cannot determine an ASR using these properties.
The Appellant did not provide sufficient and verifiable evidence with respect to the reduction calculated by the Appellant for what he described was needed to cure the functional obsolescence.

33The Board prefers and relies on MPAC’s ASR analysis that demonstrates an ASR of 0.98. 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 which demonstrates that there is no trend of underassessment of similar lands in the vicinity.

34The Board accepts that an ASR of 0.98 indicates that similar properties in the vicinity have been assessed at or near their current values and therefore, an equitable adjustment is not required.

35The 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.

36The Board finds that the current value is $670,152.

CONCLUSION

37The Board has found that the correct value of the Subject Property is $670,152 and that no reduction of this value is required pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act.

38Therefore, the Board finds that the current value of the Subject Property for the taxation years 2024 and 2025 is $670,152.

ORDER

39The current value of the Subject Property for the taxation years 2024 and 2025 is $670,152.

"Rema El-Tawil"

REMA EL-TAWIL

MEMBER

"Nicole Gajraj"

NICOLE GAJRAJ

MEMBER

Assessment Review Board

Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb