Tribunals Ontario

Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

June 09, 2025

FILE NO.:

WR 188142

Assessed Person(s):

Cheryl Anne Furlong

Appellant(s):

Cheryl Furlong

Respondent(s):

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 05

Respondent(s):

Township of Central Frontenac

Property Location(s):

1196 Sparks Lane

Municipality(ies):

Township of Central Frontenac

Roll Number(s):

1039-040-030-11000-0000

Appeal Number(s):

3527806, 3527805, 3527807 and 3534570

Taxation Year(s):

2023, 2024 and 2025

Hearing Event No.:

786664

Legislative Authority:

Sections 34 and 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel/Representative

Cheryl Furlong

Self-represented

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation

Kalin Doucet

Township Central Frontenac

No one appeared

HEARD:

March 18, 2025 by video conference

ADJUDICATOR(S):

Anita Lovrich, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1Cheryl Furlong (the “Appellant”) is the owner of the property located at 1196 Sparks Lane (the “Subject Property”) and has filed an appeal pursuant to s. 40 and s. 34 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”) for the 2023 taxation year. The basis of these appeals 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, is too high, and, therefore, is incorrect.

2The Appellant has brought appeals before the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) relating to the returned current value of $295,000 for the annual assessment for the 2023 taxation year, and to a s. 34 supplementary assessment effective June 1, 2023 related to the erection of a garage and loft assessed at $75,000. Pursuant to s. 40(26) of the Act, the Appellant is deemed to have brought the same appeal in respect of the 2024 and 2025 taxation years.

3The Appellant asks the Board to reduce the assessments to between $270,000 and $280,000 as reflected on the annual assessment for the 2023 taxation year and $325,000 as reflected on the annual assessments for the 2024 and 2025 taxation years.

4MPAC asks the Board to confirm its returned assessed values. MPAC confirms that its assessment for the s. 34 assessment is based on the improvements referenced in a building permit for a garage with storage loft, and, therefore, MPAC states that it has the authority to issue its assessment pursuant to s. 34(1)(a) of the Act.

5Consequently, the Board has identified that the valuation day of the increase in value related to the s. 34 assessment is an issue in this appeal proceeding.

6The Township of Central Frontenac (the “Municipality”) is a party to this appeal proceeding but did not make submissions or otherwise participate in the proceeding.

Issues for the Hearing

7At issue in this proceeding is:

What is the valuation day to determine the increase in value for the s. 34 supplementary assessment?
What is the current value of the Subject Property?
What is the correct effective date of the s. 34 supplementary assessment?
Is a reduction of current value required pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act?

Result

8For the reasons that follow, the Board finds:

The valuation day for determining the increase in current value as a result of the improvements with respect to the s. 34 supplementary assessment is the date the improvements commenced to be used, which is September 15, 2023.
The current value of the Subject Property as reflected on the annual assessment for the 2023 taxation year is increased to $322,000 (rounded).
The s. 34 supplementary assessment increase in value is confirmed at $75,000.
The effective date of the s. 34 supplementary assessment is changed from June 1, 2023 to September 15, 2023.
The current value as reflected on the annual assessments for the 2024 and 2025 taxation years is increased to $397,000 (rounded).
A reduction of current value pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) is not required.

ANALYSIS

Description of Subject Property

9The Subject Property is a one storey residential dwelling on water. It has a total building area of 1,210 square feet.

Issue 1: What is the Valuation Day to determine the Increase in Value for the s. 34 Supplementary Assessment?

Applicable Law

10 Section 34 of the Act provides for supplementary assessments in certain circumstances:

Supplementary assessments to be added to tax roll

34 (1) If, after notices of assessment have been given under section 31 and before the last day of the taxation year for which taxes are levied on the assessment referred to in the notices,

(a) an increase in value occurs which results from the erection, alteration, enlargement or improvement of any building, structure, machinery, equipment or fixture or any portion thereof that commences to be used for any purpose;…

the assessor may make the further assessment that may be necessary to reflect the change, and upon receiving notice of the further assessment, the clerk of the municipality or, in the case of land in non-municipal territory, the Minister shall enter a supplementary assessment on the tax roll and the amount of taxes to be levied thereon shall be the amount of taxes that would have been levied for the portion of the taxation year left remaining after the change occurred if the assessment had been made in the usual way. (emphasis added)

11The Board found in General Motors of Canada Company v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 23, 2024 CanLII 55068 (ON ARB) (“General Motors”), paragraphs 42 to 64, that the valuation day for determining the increase in current value due to the improvements related to a s. 34 supplementary assessment is the date the improvements commenced to be used:

58Regarding s. 34(1) (a), the Board observes that it does not expressly state the valuation day for determining the increase in value. However, there are two dates implicitly referenced in this section. The first is the date that the construction of the Improvement is completed (“Construction Completion Date”), and the second is the date that the Improvement commences to be used (“Use Date”). Therefore, the question is: Which of these dates is the valuation day for determining the increase in value?

59In addressing this question, the Board notes that s. 34(1)(a) states that if an increase in value occurs, resulting from an Improvement “which commences to be used”, the assessor may make a further assessment. Therefore, it is clear that Legal Liability to Taxation cannot arise until the Use Date, because, as stated in this section, the assessor cannot make the further assessment until the Use Date. This clearly indicates that the valuation day for determining the increase in value is the Use Date.

60In further support of this conclusion, the Board observes that, practically speaking, the increase in value results from the construction of the Improvement once the construction is completed. Had the Legislature intended that the valuation day should be the Construction Completion Date, it would have been unnecessary to include the additional condition that the Improvement must commence to be used before the assessment can be made.

61The Board has also considered whether the purpose of including the condition that the Improvement be used, might be related to property classification, which is based on a property’s use. However, s. 34 separately addresses a change in classification (see s. 34(2)(2.1) and (3).

62Regarding the question whether the s. 34 valuation day should be the general reassessment valuation day, the Board reiterates that, as s. 34 provides for a supplementary assessment, it is not the general reassessment. Consequently, the general reassessment valuation day does not apply. Accordingly, there is no basis to suggest that the s. 34 increase in value determined as of the Use Date, should then be “time adjusted” to what this value would have been on the general reassessment valuation day.

MPAC

12MPAC submits that the valuation day for determining the increase in value resulting from an improvement pursuant to s. 34 is January 1, 2016.

Appellant

13The Appellant stated that the valuation day for the increase in value resulting from an improvement pursuant to s. 34 is September 15, 2023 which is the day that the improvement commenced to be used.

Findings on Issue 1

14Section 34 allows an assessor to make a supplementary or “further assessment” that is supplementary to the general reassessment and which dd not exist as of the time of the general reassessment. It allows for such an assessment where, after notices of assessment have been given under section 31, an “increase in value occurs which results from the erection, alteration, enlargement or improvement of any building, structure, machinery, equipment or fixture or any portion thereof that commences to be used for any purpose.” This provision contemplates a change to a property which increases its value. Therefore, it is the increase in value resulting from this change to the property, which must be determined. To use the date of the general reassessment as the valuation day would be to consider the state or description of a property as it exists on one day (subsequent to the change that occurred) while valuing it as of another day (which is the general reassessment day). The Board does not accept this approach.

15The Board adopts and relies on General Motors and finds that the valuation day for determining the increase in current value due to the improvements related to a s. 34 supplementary assessment is the date the improvements commenced to be used. The Board finds that, although the valuation of the land and the improvement of the home on the land (not taking into account the improvement of the detached garage) is the general reassessment day of January 1, 2016, the valuation day for appraising the increase in value resulting from erection of the detached garage is the date that improvement commenced to be used, pursuant to s. 34 of the Act.

Issue 2 – What is the Current Value of the Subject Property?

Applicable Law

16In 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.”

17Accordingly, the Board must first determine what the Subject Property would have sold for in an arm’s length transaction on the statutory valuation day. As stated above, however, the valuation day for the increase in value resulting from an improvement pursuant to s. 34 is September 15, 2023 which is the day that the improvement commenced to be used.

18The best evidence of current value would be the sale of the Subject Property on or close to the applicable valuation day. 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

Section 34 Supplementary Assessment

MPAC

19MPAC testified that in 2023 the permit value for erecting the 2,250 square foot detached garage with storage loft above was $100,000. MPAC assessed the garage by issuing a s. 34 supplementary assessment with an assessed value of $75,000 on the basis of the square footage on the first and second floors and a consideration of its finishes.

Appellant

20The Appellant testified that she does not know what the cost of the detached garage was as her spouse was involved in the renovation, and she has no knowledge of how much it cost or how it should be valued.

Annual Assessments

21The Act requires MPAC to conduct a general reassessment, once in an assessment cycle, to update the current value of all properties in the province and section 19.2(1) prescribes a single valuation day for determining this value which will apply to several taxation years. The valuation day specified for 2023 annual assessments is January 1, 2016. Therefore, the determination of current value for the 2023 annual assessment, which does not include the valuation of the garage improvement, has a valuation day of January 1, 2016.

MPAC

22MPAC 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.

MPAC’s Proposed Comparable Properties and Sales Information

Subject Property

Property #1

Property #2

Property #3

Property #4

Property #5

Roll Number

103904003011000

103904003012240

103904003006805

103904002002100

103904002023801

103906002007201

Address

1196A SPARKS LANE

1535 DWYER LANE

1072 BERNARD LANE

10139A ROAD 38

1061 WALLER LANE

1057 ISLAND VIEW LANE

Neighbourhood

N14 - 434

N05 - 434

Y06 - 449

Property Code & Desc.

(313) Single Family Detached On Water

(391)Seasonal/Recreational Dwelling - First Tier On Water

(313) Single Family Detached On Water

Distance in km

0.9122

1.6701

12.3165

15.2151

15.595

Subject Property

Property #1

Property #2

Property #3

Property #4

Property #5

Valuation

Current Value Assessment

$361,000

$370,000

$333,000

$284,000

$281,000

$383,000

Sale

Sale Date

20160615

20150911

20150827

20160808

20150731

Sale Amount

$330,000

$355,000

$285,000

$385,000

$342,000

Time Adjusted Sale Amount

$319,770

$362,455

$292,695

$368,830

$353,286

Time Adjusted Sale Ratio

1.1571

0.9187

0.9703

0.7619

1.0841

Time Adjusted Sale per sqft

suggested: $314,805

178.5427136

299.3022296

260.1733333

461.0375

246.3640167

Time Adjusted Sale per front foot

suggested: $539,416

1938

2132.088235

2341.56

2543.655172

1962.7

Site

Effective Frontage (F)

253

165

170

125

145

180

Actual Frontage

306

165

170

329

380

180

Effective Depth (F)

156.68

555

451

125

207.3

234.7

Actual Depth

555

451

125

79.1

234.7

Effective Site Area (Acres)

0.91

2.1

1.76

0.94

0.69

0.97

Actual Site Area (Acres)

0.91

1.86

1.76

3.02

0.69

0.97

Effective Lot Size Unit of Measure

Lot Size Unit of Measurement

Access

Private Road Access

Year Round Road Access

Private Road Access

On Site Variable(s)

(O) Gravel Road , (G) Topography - Slight Slope

(F) Topography - Level

(O) Gravel Road , (G) Topography - Slight Slope

Waterfront Variable(s)

(G) Shoreline - Shallow , (D) Shoreline - Rocky , (A) Waterfront - Lake , (N) Exposure - East

(G) Shoreline - Shallow , (A) Waterfront - Lake , (D) Shoreline - Rocky , (L) Exposure - North

(A) Waterfront - Lake , (G) Shoreline - Shallow

(D) Shoreline - Rocky , (A) Waterfront - Lake , (O) Exposure - West

(D) Shoreline - Rocky , (L) Exposure - North , (A) Waterfront - Lake , (G) Shoreline - Shallow

(M) Exposure - South , (A) Waterfront - Lake

Water Service Code

Lake Or River

Private Well

Sanitary

Holding Tank

Septic Bed

Subject Property

Property #1

Property #2

Property #3

Property #4

Property #5

Variance

Irregular

Average

Irregular

Hydro Code

Hydro Available

Residential Structure

Structure Code & Desc.

(301) Single Family Detached

Year Built

1959

1990

1987

1957

1981

1974

Effective Year Built

1980

1990

1987

1957

1994

1989

Subject Property

Property #1

Property #2

Property #3

Property #4

Property #5

Structure Condition Code

Average

Quality of Construction

5.5

Full Storeys

1 Storey

1 3/4 Storeys

Split level

No Split

Bedrooms

Baths

1.5

Fire Places

Air Conditioning

Heating Type

Electric (Baseboard, Wall Insert)

Forced Air

Electric (Baseboard, Wall Insert)

Forced Air

Other

Forced Air

Driveway

Separate Or Private Driveway

Unspecified/Not Applicable

Separate Or Private Driveway

Building Total Area (SF)

1,210

1,791

1,211

1,125

800

1,434

First Floor Area (SF)

1210

1791

1211

1125

800

839

Second Floor Area (SF)

595

Basement Type

Recreation Room -Average Quality

Basement Area (SF)

1,211

482

312

Finished Basement Area (SF)

260

Basement Height

Modifications

A, (Year) 2015 | N, (Year) 2018, (Area) 324.0

C, (Year) 2015

D, (Year) 2000 | N, (Year)2013, (Area) 84

Secondary Structure(s)

Structure Description

(128) Boat Port

(104) Workshop

(116) Attached Garage

(117) Carport

(118) Cabin

(119) Detached Gar With Res Above

Year Built

2015

1998

1987

1980

2015

1985

Building Total Area (SF)

384

1168

480

360

155

1152

Quality of Construction

Structure Description

(101) Detached Garage

(102) Shed

(101) Detached Garage

Year Built

2023

2015

1971

Building Total Area (SF)

2250

208

1245

Quality of Construction

Structure Description

(102) Shed

Year Built

2015

Building Total Area (SF)

719

Quality of Construction

23MPAC testified that:

a. Proposed comparable Property 1 (located on the same lake as the Subject Property) is comparable to the Subject Property as it has similar land details, a similar primary structure that is inferior in terms of quality, and also has a large secondary structure onsite which is similar to a shed and is superior to the Subject Property’s newly constructed large, detached garage.

b. Proposed comparable Property 2 (located on the same lake as the Subject Property) is comparable to the Subject Property as it has similar land details, a similar primary structure, and also has a large secondary structure onsite. The structure does have a full basement with a small finished area, but overall the quality of the structure is comparable to the Subject Property. The structures have very similar sized first floor areas.

c. Proposed comparable Property 3 (located on a similar nearby lake) has similar land details, and very similar structure details. The structure of comparable sale 3 is very similar in terms of age, size, and quality of construction; there is also a large secondary structure on site. Based on the more recent improvements made to the Subject Property, MPAC determined that this proposed comparable is inferior to the Subject Property.

d. Proposed comparable Property 4 (located on a similar nearby lake) is inferior to the Subject Property due to it having smaller land details (lot size and frontage), and smaller structure details with no major secondary structures, only a small 155 square foot cabin.

e. Proposed comparable Property 5 (located on a similar nearby lake) is inferior to the Subject Property. Although it has similar land details (lot size and frontage), and similar structure details, comparable 6 also has a larger 2 storey detached garage similar to the Subject Property. Based on the recent improvements made to the Subject Property, MPAC determined the comparable is inferior to the Subject Property.

24MPAC testified that the adjusted sale price per square foot of the 5 comparable sales, results in a median value of $260.17 per square feet, amounting to $314,805. It then reviewed the adjusted sale price per front foot of the 5 comparable sales which resulted in a median value of $2,132.08 per front foot, amounting to $539,416. MPAC then took the midway point between the two suggested values, which is $427,110.

25MPAC testified that its position on current value is based on the value of $427,110 and applying a downward adjustment to account for the Subject Property’s lack of certain site services (such as lack of septic and well) which the comparators have, as well as the Subject Property’s lack of forced air heating system, which some of MPAC’s comparators also have.

26Adjusting the property downward by $10,000 for the lack of each of these characteristics (namely, private well, septic, forced air heat system) amounts to a current value of $397,000. MPAC’s opinion of the correct current value of the Subject Property is as follows:

2024 taxation year: $397,000
2023 supplementary assessment: $75,000
2023 taxation year: $322,000

Appellant

27The Appellant testified that the Subject Property is a cottage rather than a year-round residence. She testified that it is not winterized, has no foundation and has no insulation in the floor. She testified that it has no year-round heating system and one electric baseboard and a wood stove. The Appellant stated that the Subject Property has no well or septic, but only a holding tank. She testified that it is one kilometre from a main road, which is much farther than some of the comparable properties presented by MPAC.

28The Appellant testified that the current value of the Subject Property is no more than $325,000 (with the supplementary assessment added) and between $270,000 and $280,000 before the supplementary assessment was added. In support of her position, the Appellant relied on MPAC’s proposed comparable Property 2, 1072 Bernard Lane which she stated is a superior property to the Subject Property and is assessed at $333,000 so the Subject Property should be assessed lower than this proposed comparable.

29The Appellant testified that many of MPAC’s proposed comparable properties were year-round winterized residences, unlike the Subject Property and that many are close to main roads and have private wells and septic, unlike the Subject Property.

Findings on Issue 2

Section 34 Supplementary Assessment

30The best and only evidence before the Board with respect to the increase in value resulting from the erection of the detached garage is MPAC’s evidence. As a result, the Board finds that the value of the improvement for the supplementary assessment is $75,000.

Annual Assessments

31The Board does not accept the Appellant’s proposed current value. The Appellant relies on the assessed value of 1072 Bernard Lane which she deems superior to the Subject Property. She argues that that the assessed value of the Subject Property should be less, because it is inferior to 1072 Bernard Lane. The Board does not accept this approach. Determining current value requires market-tested sales evidence to determine current value, not assessment values.

32The Board accepts and relies on some of MPAC’s evidence regarding comparable properties as MPAC presented market-tested sales of residential dwellings on water within 16 kilometres of the Subject Property. All sales occurred within sufficient proximity to the January 1, 2016 valuation day, and the sale prices were appropriately adjusted for time.

33The Board notes that MPAC’s proposed comparable sales Properties 1, 2, and 4 all have superior quality of construction to the Subject Property’s. As a result, the Board does not rely on these sales. The Board notes that MPAC’s proposed comparable sales Properties 3 and 5 both have the same quality class and similar total building area to the Subject Property. These features make them the most comparable properties to the Subject Property and the best evidence of current value before the Board.

34The median time adjusted sale price of MPAC’s proposed comparable sale Property 3 (time-adjusted sale price of $292,695) and proposed comparable sale Property 5 (time-adjusted sale price of $353,286) is $322,990.

35The Board therefore finds that the current value of the Subject Property is $322,990 for the annual assessment for the 2023 taxation year.

36Consequently, the Board finds that the current value as reflected on the annual assessments for the 2024 and 2025 taxation years is $397,990 ($75,000 added to $322,990).

Issue 3: What is the Correct Effective Date of the Supplementary Assessment?

MPAC

37MPAC testified that it estimated the effective date of the supplementary assessment and stated that it does not contest the Appellant’s testimony as to the effective date.

Appellant

38The Appellant testified that she did not use the detached garage until September 15, 2023.

Findings on Issue 3

39The Board accepts the uncontested evidence that the correct effective date for the s. 34 supplementary assessment is September 15, 2023. As the Board has found under Issue 1, this is also the valuation day for determining the increase in the Subject Property’s value.

Issue 4 - Is a reduction of Current Value required pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act?

Applicable Law

40 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

41The Appellant did not provide separate evidence on this issue. The Appellant relies on her evidence respecting the current value of the Subject Property.

MPAC

42MPAC 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.

43MPAC relies on the sales of 28 single-family detached residential properties (on water) that sold between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2016 within 14 kilometres of the Subject Property. MPAC testified that the analysis reveals an ASR of 0.97, 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 4

44The Board does not accept the Appellant’s proposed equitable reduction to current value of $325,000 nor does it rely on the Appellant’s proposed comparable property to determine whether an equitable adjustment should be applied, as the Appellant relies on the assessed value of a single property, which she deems superior to the Subject Property, to state that the assessed value of the Subject Property should be less than that proposed property. This method 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.

45The Board accepts and relies on MPAC’s ASR analysis that demonstrates an ASR of 0.97. The analysis is uncontested by the Appellant, and the Board finds that the ASR is a tool routinely relied on to ascertain whether a property requires an equitable adjustment.

46The Board accepts and relies on MPAC’s ASR analysis using 28 properties that demonstrates an ASR of 0.97. The Board finds that the ASR is a tool routinely relied on to ascertain whether a property requires an equitable adjustment.

47The 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 Subject Property’s current value is required.

CONCLUSION

48The Board finds that:

The valuation day for determining the increase in current value as a result of the improvements with respect to the s. 34 supplementary assessment is the date the improvements commenced to be used, which is September 15, 2023.
The current value of the Subject Property as reflected on the annual assessment for the 2023 taxation year is increased to $322,000 (rounded).
The s. 34 supplementary assessment increase in value is confirmed at $75,000.
The effective date of the s. 34 supplementary assessment is changed from June 1, 2023 to September 15, 2023.
The current value as reflected on the annual assessments for the 2024 and 2025 taxation years is increased to $397,000 (rounded).
A reduction of current value pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) is not required.

ORDER

49The Board orders that:

The current value as reflected on the annual assessment for the 2023 taxation year is increased to $322,000 (rounded).
The s. 34 supplementary assessment value is confirmed at $75,000.
The s. 34 supplementary assessment effective date is changed from June 1, 2023 to September 15, 2023.
The current value as reflected on the annual assessments for the 2024 and 2025 taxation years is increased to $397,000 (rounded).

"Anita Lovrich"

ANITA LOVRICH

MEMBER

Assessment Review Board

Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb

Cheryl Furlong v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 05, 2025 CanLII 58138

Case Summary

Issues for the Hearing

Issue 1: What is the Valuation Day to determine the Increase in Value for the s. 34 Supplementary Assessment?

Issue 2 – What is the Current Value of the Subject Property?

Issue 4 - Is a reduction of Current Value required pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act?