Tribunals Ontario / Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario Assessment Review Board / Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: May 09, 2025 FILE NO.: WR 188095
Assessed Person(s): Sophia Patrzalek; Tomasz Patrzalek Appellant(s): Sophia Patrzalek; Tomasz Patrzalek Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 15 Respondent(s): City of Mississauga Property Location(s): 1534 Knareswood Drive Municipality(ies): City of Mississauga Roll Number(s): 2105-020-027-01200-0000 Appeal Number(s): 3528485 and 3535281 Taxation Year(s): 2024 and 2025 Hearing Event No.: 786506 Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel/Representative |
|---|---|
| Sophia Patrzalek and Tomasz Patrzalek | Tracey Coleman |
| Municipal Property Assessment Corporation | Nakita Ramjeawan |
| City of Mississauga | No one appeared |
HEARD: March 11, 2025 by telephone conference call
ADJUDICATOR(S): Anita Lovrich, Member
DECISION
OVERVIEW
1Tomasz Patrzalek is the owner of the property located at 1534 Knareswood Drive (“the Subject Property”). Sophia Patrzalek and Tomasz Patrzalek (“the Appellants”) filed an appeal pursuant to s.40 of the Assessment Act, S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”) for the 2024 taxation year. Pursuant to s. 40(26) of the Act, the Appellants are deemed to have brought the same appeal in respect of the 2025 taxation year. The ground of this appeal is that the current value of the Subject Property, which was determined by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) in its general reassessment of the current value of the Subject Property (“General Reassessment Value”), is too high, and, therefore, is incorrect.
2The Appellants say the assessment is too high and ask the Board to reduce the value to $1,479,000. The Appellants also claim that the correct current value should be further reduced, pursuant to s.44(3)(b), to make it equitable with the assessment of similar properties in the vicinity.
3MPAC is responding to these appeals. MPAC asks the Board to change the assessment to $2,445,000.
Issues for the Hearing
4At issue in this proceeding is:
What is the current value of the Subject Property as of the statutory valuation date of January 1, 2016; a. Application of Time Adjustment Factors b. Comparable Properties
Is the current value equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity?
Result
5For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that the current value of the Subject Property is $1,697,035, and that an equitable reduction is not required such that the equitable current value is $1,697,000 (rounded).
ANALYSIS
Description of Subject Property
6The Subject Property is a one-storey residential dwelling with attached garage and in-ground pool. It has a total building area of 2,677 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
7In 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.”
8Accordingly, 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 taxation year(s) under appeal is January 1, 2016.
9In 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.
Issue 1a Application of Time Adjustment Factors
MPAC
10MPAC presented a Sales Ratio Trend Analysis plotting sale to assessment ratios (SAR) by sale month and determining the rate of change over the sales period based on 377 sales of vacant and/or improved land from the Subject Property’s neighbourhood and adjacent areas from September 3, 2013 to December 29, 2016. MPAC’s expert witness testified that he reviewed the median for each month in the study but did not review each of the 377 sales in the study individually to check that each assessed value is the assessed value as of the time of the sale it corresponds to. MPAC stated that the median value for each month is used so that outliers such as the ones pointed out by the Appellant below would not skew the results of the analysis.
Appellant
11The Appellant did not file and serve its own time adjustment factor analysis in accordance with the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure and the Board did not allow its late proposed evidence at the hearing. The Appellant’s expert witness testified that his opinion of current value, namely $1,479,000, was determined by applying MPAC’s time adjustment factors.
12The Appellant pointed to a number of sales with corresponding assessed values included in MPAC’s study where a single property was listed multiple times in the analysis with the same assessed value but different sales values. It submits that the assessed values in these instances reflect later improvements to the homes or new homes and an increased assessed value that corresponds to later higher sales values, but not to lower earlier sales values of those properties.
Findings on Issue 1a
13The Board does not accept that including a number of sales which do not correspond to the assessed value as of the time of sale could not change the median, as they could shift the order of the data points which could affect the median value. However, the number of instances of this kind of discrepancy that the Appellant pointed out make up a small percentage of the large data set used by MPAC and are not of such a size that they would make MPAC’s time adjustment analysis unreliable.
14The Board finds that MPAC’s Sales Ratio Trend Analysis is the best evidence regarding time adjustment factors before the Board and relies on it.
Issue 1b Comparable Properties
Evidence on Current Value
MPAC
15The Subject Property sold in September 2013 for $1,410,000. MPAC submits that, as such, it can be inferred that the current value of the Subject Property as of the valuation day would be greater than $1,410,000.
16MPAC provided evidence regarding the sale of three properties. 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
| Feature | Subject Property | Subject Sale | Property #1 | Property #2 | Property #3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Address | 1534 Knareswood Drive | 1534 Knareswood* Drive | 1520 Stavebank Road | 1391 Glenburnie Road | 1373 Aldo Drive |
| Property Code and Description | (301) Single-Family Detached (Not on Water) | (301) Single-Family Detached (Not on Water) | (301) Single-Family Detached (Not on Water) | (301) Single-Family Detached (Not on Water) | (301) Single-Family Detached (Not on Water) |
| Distance in KM | 0.5374 | 1.5235 | 2.1194 | ||
| Sale | |||||
| Sale Date | 2013/09/12 | 2016/08/10 | 2016/08/31 | 2016/11/02 | |
| Sale Amount | $1,410,000 | $2,075,000 | $1,777,000 | $1,775,000 | |
| Time Adjusted Sale Amount | $1,720,200 | $1,981,625 | $1,697,035 | $1,664,950 | |
| Site | |||||
| Effective Site Area (Acres) | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.44 | 0.54 | 0.42 |
| Effective Site Area (SF) | 21,780 | 21,780 | 19,166 | 23,522 | 18,295 |
| Residential Structure | |||||
| Year Built | 1963 | 1963 | 1958 | 1947 | 1952 |
| Effective Year Built | 1990 | 1990 | 1985 | 1979 | 1999 |
| Quality of Construction | 7 | 7 | 7.5 | 6.5 | 7 |
| Full Storeys | 1-Storey | 1-Storey | 1-Storey | 1-Storey | |
| Building Total Area (SF) | 2,677 | 2,677 | 2,088 | 1,858 | 2,008 |
| Modifications | C, (Year) 2006 | C, (Year) 2006 | B, (Year) 2013 | B, (Year) 2012 | D, (Year) 2008 |
| Secondary Structures | |||||
| Structure Description | (108) Outdoor Pool | (116) Attached Garage | (108) Outdoor Pool | (116) Attached Garage | (108) Outdoor Pool |
| Year Built | 1988 | 1963 | 1980 | 1947 | 1975 |
| Building Total Area (SF) | 512 | 720 | 800 | 480 | 648 |
| Structure Description | (116) Attached Garage | (108) Outdoor Pool | (116) Attached Garage | (116) Attached Garage | |
| Year Built | 1963 | 1988 | 1958 | 1952 | |
| Building Total Area (SF) | 720 | 512 | 480 | 579 |
17MPAC submits that Property #1, 1520 Stavebank Road, sold in August 2016 for $2,075,000. Its time adjusted sale price is $1,981,625. Its time adjusted sale price as a rate per square foot of livable area is $949.05. Property #3, 1391 Glenburnie Road, sold in August 2016 for $1,777,000. Its time adjusted sale price is $1,697,035. Its time adjusted sale price as a rate per square foot of livable area is $913.37. Property #3, 1373 Aldo Drive, sold in November 2016 for $1,775,000. Its time adjusted sale price is $1,664,950. Its time adjusted sale price as a rate per square foot of livable area is $829.16.
18MPAC submits that all three of its proposed sales are similar to the Subject Property, so because there is no conclusively superior and inferior sale to the Subject Property, a qualitative analysis by bracketing the Subject Property by an inferior and superior property is not appropriate. Instead, MPAC submits that the median time adjusted sale price per square foot is most appropriate.
19MPAC determined that the median time adjusted sale price per square foot of the three proposed sales is $913.37. By applying this rate to the Subject Property’s building area (2,677 square feet), MPAC testified that the current value of the Subject Property is $2,445,091.
Appellant
20In the Appellants’ expert report, his opinion of current value was $1,181,400. However, at the hearing, the Appellant’s expert witness made a correction to state that it is $1,479,000.
21The Appellant provided evidence regarding the sale of two properties that are in the same neighbourhood as the Subject Property, that sold in 2013 but focused his analysis on 461 Temagami Crescent, which is a property located very near to the Subject Property that sold in 2013.
Proposed Comparable Properties and Sales Information
| Feature | Subject Property | 461 Temagami Crescent | 1360 Nocturne Court |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base Year CVA | 1,611,000 | 1,752,000 | 1,611,000 |
| Year Built | 1963 | 1959 | 1961 |
| Number Storeys | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Square Footage | 2,676 | 2,026 | 1,973 |
| CVA/sq. ft. | $602.02 | $864.76 | $816.52 |
| MPAC Quality Class | 7 | 7.5 | 7.5 |
| Sale Date | 2013-09-12 | 2013-06-07 | 2013-11-28 |
| Sale Price | $1,410,000 | $1,660,000 | $1,540,000 |
| Renovated | No | Yes | Yes |
| Sale Price/sq. ft. | 526.91 | 819.35 | 780.54 |
| Value Adjustment to Subject | 64% | 72% | |
| CVA/sq. ft. | $602.02 | $864.76 | $816.52 |
| Market Adjusted to Subject CVA/Square Foot | $553.44 | $587.89 |
22The Appellant’s expert testified that using the adjusted CVA per square foot of 461 Temagami Crescent ($553.44) and multiplying it by the square footage of the Subject Property (2,676 square feet) amounts to $1,479,000 (the Board notes it amounts to $1,481,005.44) which is the Appellant’s corrected opinion of current value.
23The Appellant’s expert witness explained its 64% “market adjustment” to the CVA per square foot by noting that 461 Temagami Crescent’s 2013 price per square foot is $819.35 per square foot whereas the Subject Property’s 2013 price per square foot is $526.91 per square foot which means that the Subject Property’s sale price per square foot is 64% less than that of 461 Temagami Crescent’s price per square foot. As a result, he applied a 64% adjustment to 461 Temagami Crescent’s CVA per square foot to reduce it from $864.76 per square foot to $533.44 per square foot.
24In his testimony, the Appellant’s expert witness stated that the sale price of 461 Temagami Crescent, demonstrates that it is a superior property to the Subject Property.
25The Appellant’s expert witness stated that MPAC’s proposed comparable of 1391 Glenburnie Road and 1520 Stavebank Road were superior properties and more renovated than the Subject Property and therefore not comparable. He stated that properties east of the Credit River should not be utilized as comparables as they are in a superior location to the Subject Property but did not adduce market evidence to show this is the case.
Findings on Issue 1b
26The Board does not rely on the Appellant’s proposed comparable properties to determine the current value of the Subject Property as the Appellant’s proposed comparable sales are too far removed from the valuation day to be reliable indicators of value as of January 1, 2016 as the sales occurred in 2013.
27The Board finds that MPAC’s three proposed comparable properties are sufficiently comparable to the Subject Property for the purpose of determining current value using the Direct Comparison Approach valuation methodology. They are all within 2.1 kilometres from the Subject Property. All properties had undergone renovations. All are single-storey residential dwellings. 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 or very comparable quality of construction.
28The Board finds that the current value of the Subject Property is best determined based on the median adjusted sale price of MPAC’s three comparable properties. The Board finds that, based on the best evidence before the Board, the current value of the Subject Property is $1,697,035.
Issue 2 - Is the current value equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity and, if not, should an equitable reduction be made?
29Section 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
30The Appellant did not differentiate in their evidence regarding current value and equitable adjustment. For this reason, the Appellant’s evidence and submissions with respect to equitable adjustment is consistent with paragraphs 20 to 25, above.
MPAC
31MPAC provided an equity analysis report reflecting an Assessment to Sales Ratio (“ASR”) analysis. 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.
32MPAC 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 1 kilometre of the Subject Property. MPAC’s analysis reflected a median ASR of 0.98.
33MPAC also conducted a refined ASR study only considering one-storey structures located within 1 kilometre which included 10 sales, which amounted to an ASR of 0.99.
34MPAC conducted a final ASR study considering only one storey structures, within one kilometre of the Subject Property with a quality class of 7, which included two sales and reflected an ASR of 0.97.
35MPAC testified that the analyses reveal an ASR of between 0.97 and 0.99, which means that similar properties in the vicinity have been assessed at or near their current values and an equity adjustment is not required.
Findings on Issue 2
36The Board does not accept the Appellants’ proposed equitable current value of $1,479,000 nor does it rely on the Appellants’ proposed comparable properties to determine whether an equitable adjustment should be applied. The Appellant’s method of comparing the Subject Property’s sale price from 2013 with the 2013 sale price of another property (deemed superior by the Appellant) and then determining an adjustment to the CVA per square foot on the basis of the difference in price per square foot between the Subject Property and the other home only considers a single comparator and does not allow the Board to determine if the Subject Property’s current value is equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity.
37The Board accepts and relies on MPAC’s ASR analysis using 30 properties 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.
38The Board finds that, when reference is made to the assessments of the most similar properties in the vicinity of the Subject Property, no equitable adjustment to reduce the current value determined is required.
39The Board finds that the equitable current value is $1,697,035.
CONCLUSION
40The Board finds that the correct current value is $1,697,035, and that an equitable reduction is not required, such that the equitable current value is $1,697,000 (rounded).
ORDER
41The Board orders that the current value for the 2024 and 2025 taxation years is $1,697,000 (rounded) in the residential property class.
"Anita Lovrich"
ANITA LOVRICH MEMBER Assessment Review Board Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb