Tribunals Ontario

Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

January 16, 2025

FILE NO.:

WR 187295

Assessed Person(s):

Marilyn Flak

Appellant(s):

Marilyn Flak

Respondent(s):

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 07

Respondent(s):

Township of Dysart Et Al

Property Location(s):

1124 Leon’s Lane

Municipality(ies):

Township of Dysart Et Al

Roll Number(s):

4624-041-000-50300-0000

Appeal Number(s):

3527782

Taxation Year(s):

2024

Hearing Event No.:

785809

Legislative Authority:

Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel/Representative

Marilyn Flak

Self-represented

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation

Chris Ostrom

Township of Dysart Et Al

No one appeared

HEARD:

January 13, 2025 by video conference

ADJUDICATOR(S):

Carly Stringer, Vice-Chair

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1Marilyn Flak (the “Appellant”) believes the current value of 1124 Leon’s Lane (the “Subject Property”) returned on the assessment roll for the 2024 taxation year is too high. That value is $352,000. For that reason, the Appellant appealed the assessment pursuant to s. 40 of the Assessment Act (the “Act”).

2The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) is responding to the Appellant’s appeal. MPAC believes the $352,000 value on the assessment roll reflects the correct current value.

3The Township of Dysart Et Al is a statutory party, but did not respond to the Appellant’s appeal.

Issues for the Hearing

4At issue in this proceeding is:

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

2. Should the correct current value be reduced for the purpose of equitable assessment and, if so, how much?

Result

5The Board finds that the correct current value of the Subject Property for the 2024 taxation year is $323,000.

6The Board finds there is insufficient evidence to support a reduction in this value for the purposes of equitable assessment.

ANALYSIS

Description of Subject Property

7The Subject Property is located on Redstone Lake in the County of Haliburton. It is improved by a one-storey single family detached dwelling built in 1967. No significant updates have been made to the cottage since that time. The cottage is covered in asbestos cladding and MPAC classifies its quality of construction as a 4. It has no central heating, no running water, and no sanitary service such as septic. The property is very uneven and steep. It is accessed by a private road that is in a significant state of disrepair.

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

Evidence and Submissions of the Parties

MPAC

8MPAC submits that the correct current value is $352,000.

9In support of this position, MPAC provided evidence regarding the sale of six properties that it says are comparable to the Subject Property. MPAC performed a time adjustment to reflect what these properties would have sold for on January 1, 2016.

MPAC’s Proposed Comparable Properties and Sales Information

Property Address

18981 KAWAGAMANORTH SHORE

1428 PARSONS RD

6034 HALIBURTON LAKE RD

5755 KENNISIS LAKE RD

1283 DUNN RD

4969 KENNISIS LAKE RD

Sale Date

July 2016

June 2015

June 2016

August 2016

June 2016

November 2015

Time Adjusted Sale Amount

$323,662

$359,487

$343,080

$351,656

$352,610

$410,265

Effective Site Area (Acres)

1.16

0.5

0.3

0.52

0.55

0.83

Effective Frontage (Feet)

152

100

130

100

95

110

Effective Year Built

1965

1976

1954

1966

1960

1960

Quality of Construction

4

5.5

4.5

5

5

4.5

Full Storeys

1

1

1

1

1

1

Building Total Area (Sq. Ft.)

389

867

964

748

731

742

Secondary Structures

Two Cabins

Boathouse

Heating

No central heat

Electric

No central heat

No central heat

Electric

No central heat

Sanitary

None

Septic

Septic

Septic

Septic

Septic

Road Access

Summer or Seasonal Access Only

Year-Round Access

Year-Round Access

Year-Round Access

Year-Round Access

Year-Round Access

10MPAC’s evidence is that, based on the sale prices of the most similar properties, the current value of the Subject Property is $352,000.

Appellant

11The Appellant submits that the value of the Subject Property should be reduced to take into account:

a. the significant state of disrepair of the private access road;

b. the topography, particularly the steep hill required to access the cottage;

c. the “unusable” water frontage, which is rocky and uneven with limited space to access the water;

d. the asbestos cladding that would need to be removed at great cost prior to any improvements to the cottage; and

e. the lack of water and sanitary systems.

12The Appellant stated that she would like to see a current value around $300,000.

Findings on Issue 1

13The Appellant did not dispute the comparability of MPAC’s property sales evidence, nor did the Appellant provide the Board with sales evidence in support of the proposed current value of $300,000. Moreover, the Appellant did not provide the Board with evidence to substantiate the alleged impact, if any, of the road; the topography; the rocky water frontage; the asbestos cladding; and the lack of water and sanitary systems, on market value.

14The Board accepts and relies on MPAC’s sales evidence, finding that MPAC’s property sales are sufficiently comparable to the Subject Property and are therefore the best evidence of current value before the Board in this proceeding.

15That said, the Board does not accept MPAC’s position that its sales evidence supports a current value of $352,000. The Board finds that the sales evidence supports a range of current value from $323,662 to $410,265. The Board finds that the specific circumstances of the Subject Property, including its uniquely steep topography; rocky frontage; asbestos cladding; no heat; no sanitary system; no running water; and the poor condition of the access road, support a current value in the very low end of that range.

16Accordingly, the Board finds that the correct current value is $323,000, which is consistent with the very low end of the property sale values provided by MPAC.

Issue 2 - Should the correct current value be reduced for the purpose of equitable assessment and, if so, how much?

Evidence and Submissions of the Parties

Appellant

17The Appellant did not make submissions, or present evidence, in relation to, equitable adjustment.

MPAC

18MPAC submits that the Appellant did not raise equity as an issue and, in any event, the current value is equitable with the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity.

Findings on Issue 2

19The Board finds there is insufficient evidence supporting an equitable adjustment and, for this reason, declines to make one.

CONCLUSION

20The Board finds that the correct current value of the Subject Property is $323,000. The Board finds there is insufficient evidence supporting an equitable adjustment.

ORDER

21The Board orders that the current value be reduced to $323,000.