Lesley Langdon and Kevin Bibby v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 20 and City of Brantford, 2025 CanLII 82445

Tribunals Ontario / Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario

Assessment Review Board / Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: August 12, 2025

FILE NO.: WR 188697

Assessed Person(s): Kevin Philip Bibby; Lesley Dianne Langdon

Appellant(s): Lesley Langdon; Kevin Bibby

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 20

Respondent(s): City of Brantford

Property Location(s): 10 Paris Road

Municipality(ies): City of Brantford

Roll Number(s): 2906-020-010-17000-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3529411 and 3535752

Taxation Year(s): 2024 and 2025

Hearing Event No.: 787967

Legislative Authority: Section 36 and 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel/Representative
Lesley Langdon and Kevin Bibby	Self-represented
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation	David Taylor
City of Brantford	No one appeared

HEARD: June 3, 2025 by video conference

ADJUDICATOR(S): Carly Stringer, Vice-Chair

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1Lesley Langdon and Kevin Bibby (the “Appellants”) believe the current value of 10 Paris Road (the “Subject Property”) reflected on the assessment roll for the 2024 and 2025 taxation years is too high, at $758,000 for 2024 and $620,000 for 2025. For that reason, the Appellants appealed the assessments to the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) pursuant to s. 40 of the Assessment Act R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”) (the 2024 and 2025 appeals together, the “Subject Appeals”).

2The Appellants argue that the current value should be $441,238 for both the 2024 and 2025 assessments.

3The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) is responding to the Subject Appeals. MPAC believes the correct current value for both assessments is $620,000.

4The City of Brantford is a statutory party but did not respond to the Subject Appeals.

Issues for the Hearing

5At issue in this proceeding is:

1. What is the correct current value of the Subject Property as of the statutory valuation day?
2. Should the correct current value be reduced for the purpose of equitable assessment and, if so, how much?

Result

6The Board finds that the correct current value of the Subject Property as of the statutory valuation day is $447,000.

7The Board finds that no adjustment is required for the purposes of equitable assessment and therefore the current value for the 2024 and 2025 taxation years is $447,000.

PRELIMINARY MATTERS

MPAC’s Documentary Evidence

Submissions of the Parties

8At the outset of the hearing on June 3, 2025, the Appellants argued that MPAC failed to comply with the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”) with respect to serving documents. Specifically, the Appellants stated that MPAC filed a valuation report, an equity analysis report, and several supporting documents (the “Documentary Evidence”) with the Board on May 13, 2025. The Appellants stated that MPAC had not previously provided them with these documents in accordance with the February 18, 2025 deadline prescribed in the Schedule of Events (“SOE”) assigned to the Subject Appeals.

9MPAC did not deny that it did not serve the Appellants with the Documentary Evidence until May 13, 2025. MPAC did not explain its failure to serve the Documentary Evidence by February 18, 2025. MPAC stated that all the information contained in the Documentary Evidence was summarized in its Statement of Response, and its Statement of Response was properly served on the Appellants. Accordingly, MPAC argued, the Appellants were aware of the information contained in the Documentary Evidence by the SOE deadline of February 18, 2025, even if the Appellants were not served with the Documentary Evidence until May 13, 2025.

Findings

10Rule 48 of the Board’s Rules states:

No New Documents

48. A document, including an expert report, may only be admitted into evidence at a hearing event if it has been served on all other parties and filed with the Board, in accordance with these Rules, unless the Board determines that there are exceptional circumstances.

11At the hearing, the Board found that MPAC did not serve the Documentary Evidence on the Appellants in accordance with the Rules, specifically the February 18, 2025 deadline in the SOE. The Board found that MPAC did not identify or provide evidence of any exceptional circumstances. Accordingly, the Board found that Rule 48 precluded admission of the Documentary Evidence.

BACKGROUND

Description of Subject Property

12The Subject Property is located at 10 Paris Road in the City of Brantford. Paris Road is a busy thoroughfare, with 4 lanes of traffic. The street has a mix of commercial and residential properties, with train tracks located across the street from the Subject Property.

13The Appellants bought the Subject Property for $460,000 in November 2016. At the time of purchase, it was improved with a single family detached residence of roughly 1,790 square feet (“sq. ft.”) in size built in 1942, with an accessory structure built in 2010. This accessory structure is attached to the residence by a breezeway, and consists of a garage, an office, and a small apartment with a finished basement and bathroom. According to the Appellants’ uncontested evidence, they paid $460,000 for the Subject Property due, in large part, to this accessory structure. They believed it could be income-generating for them, as a standalone dwelling that had been relatively recently built.

14According to the Appellants’ uncontested evidence, the accessory structure experienced significant flooding following their purchase of the Subject Property. The Appellants testified that they subsequently discovered mould, mud, rotted joists, and other water damage, suggesting to them that the accessory structure had previously experienced flooding. The Appellants concluded there had been a hidden defect; they would have to replace the foundation and essentially rebuild most of the accessory structure.

15The Appellants began undertaking major renovations to the Subject Property in 2018. The Appellants performed the work themselves and, according to them, “costs were cut at every corner to make it affordable”. Their uncontested evidence is that they added a second floor to the residence, increasing the square footage to roughly 4,400 sq. ft. Among other improvements, they renovated the kitchen and added a pantry; changed the exterior siding; and updated the flooring throughout. According to the Appellants’ uncontested testimony, and as evidenced in the photographs they provided to the Board, they opted to use inexpensive materials and fixtures. This is not a luxury home.

16As of the hearing date, the Appellants had not completed their renovations – the Appellants’ uncontested testimony, as evidenced in the photographs they provided to the Board, was that there is a significant amount of unfinished work, including uninstalled exterior siding; missing living room cabinetry; missing kitchen cabinet doors and trim; lack of closets; unfinished carport and upper balcony; stairs that need to be torn out and rebuilt; and a sand and gravel driveway. The Appellants’ uncontested testimony was that they had not performed renovations to the accessory structure, and it is currently uninhabitable.

Assessment and Procedural History

17MPAC issued a Property Assessment Notice on November 20, 2023, reflecting an assessed value of $758,000 for the 2024 taxation year (the “2024 assessment”).

18The Appellants filed a Request for Reconsideration with MPAC in relation to the 2024 assessment.

19MPAC proposed resolving the Request for Reconsideration for a revised current value of $620,000. The Appellants did not accept this resolution and appealed the 2024 assessment to the Board.

20MPAC subsequently issued a Property Assessment Notice on November 19, 2024, reflecting an assessed value of $620,000 for the 2025 taxation year (the “2025 assessment”). An appeal was deemed with the Board for the 2025 assessment pursuant to s. 40(46) of the Act.

21Both the 2024 and 2025 assessments from MPAC form the basis of the Subject Appeals.

22In addition, the Appellants applied to the City of Brantford for tax relief pursuant to the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25 for the 2023 and 2024 taxation years. Council granted tax relief to the Appellants based on an assessment value of $620,000 for the 2023 and 2024 taxation years.

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

Evidence and Submissions of the Parties

MPAC

23MPAC submits that the correct current value is $620,000.

24MPAC provided the following evidence in support of this position:

a. MPAC’s witness stated that the City of Brantford accepted a value of $620,000 for the purposes of granting tax relief to the Appellants;

b. MPAC’s witness testified that the sale price of the Subject Property prior to renovations was $460,000 as of November 2016, and the building permit for these renovations was issued in May 2018 at a value of $250,000; and

c. MPAC’s witness testified that the renovations contributed to the value of the Subject Property. MPAC’s witness testified that he chose modernized, renovated or “added onto” properties on major roads in the City of Brantford as comparable properties, including:

Address	Assessment Value	Sale Date	Time Adjusted Sale Amount	Assessment/Sale Ratio
196 St. George Street	$414,000	November 2017	$462,270	0.895
120 Paris Road	$449,000	October 2016	$447,370	1.003
22 Paris Road	$286,000	April 2017	$345,513	0.827
97 Toll Gate Road	$256,000	July 2015	$265,000	0.966
3 Queensway Drive	$307,000	August 2017	$299,374	1.025
103 Queensway Drive	$318,000	August 2017	$326,665	0.973

25MPAC’s witness testified that he sees no reason to lower the assessed value from $620,000 based on the sale of the Subject Property in 2016; the $250,000 value of the building permit; and the comparable properties having a median Assessment to Sale Ratio (“ASR”) of 0.96.

26Under cross-examination, MPAC’s witness testified that he arrived at the $620,000 current value after inspecting the Subject Property. He stated that he reduced the assessment for 2024 from $758,000 to $620,000 after seeing the Appellants’ renovations to the Subject Property were incomplete. He also testified that he did not include the accessory structure in his determination of value.

Appellants

27The Appellants provided many documents in support of their position, including extensive lists of properties sold and assessed throughout Brantford. The Board notes that the Appellants did not entirely distinguish their submissions on correct current value and equitable adjustment.

28To summarize, the Appellants submit that the Subject Property should be valued at $441,238 based on the following:

a. They purchased the Subject Property in 2016 for $460,000, however quickly lost the value of the accessory structure due to flooding. They estimate this loss at $132,862 (being 29% of the Subject Property bought for $460,000). They estimate the cost to rebuild at $120 per sq. ft. for 375 sq. ft. They estimate total damage at $181,612 for loss incurred and cost to rebuild the structure.

b. The Subject Property is located on a very busy mixed commercial and residential street with high street illumination and heavy train traffic that shakes the home. This negatively affects the value.

c. The residence, as renovated, is overbuilt for the neighbourhood, which should be accounted for in a reduced value.

d. Although there have been renovations to the residence, it is not in turn-key condition. A buyer would have to assume significant expense to complete the renovations, which is not factored into MPAC’s value.

29The Appellants disagree with MPAC’s position that the Subject Property should be valued at $620,000. While renovations can add value to a home, they concede, in this instance the renovation costs did not translate into a significant increase in assessed value. They argue that if MPAC added $250,000 onto the sale price of $460,000, that does not take into account location factors or the law of diminishing returns for additional square footage to the property. The Appellants argue that the location of the Subject Property will limit the price it will transact for on the market, regardless of the renovation investment they have made.

Findings on Issue 1

30The first issue for the Board to decide is the correct current value of the Subject Property as of January 1, 2016, which is the statutory valuation day for the 2024 and 2025 taxation years in accordance with s. 19(2)(5) of the Act and s. 48.6 of O. Reg. 282/98.

31Pursuant to s. 19(1) of the Act, the assessment of land shall be based on its current value. 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”.

32The Board does not accept MPAC’s position on current value. The Board finds that the evidence on which MPAC relies does not support a value of $620,000, as follows:

a. MPAC’s witness pointed to the $460,000 purchase price of the Subject Property in 2016 and the 2018 building permit value of $250,000 to justify an assessment of $620,000. The Board does not accept that this evidence supports a current value of $620,000 – MPAC did not time-adjust either amount to the statutory valuation day, and adding $460,000 and $250,000 equals $710,000, not $620.000. MPAC’s witness testified generally that the $620,000 also reflected the unfinished nature of the renovations and did not include the accessory structure. However, he did not provide evidence quantifying what value should be afforded to the unfinished renovations or the accessory structure in arriving at $620,000, or how he calculated those amounts.

b. With respect to the permit value of $250,000, the Board does not rely on the permit as evidence of an increase in value of $250,000 over the November 2016 sale price. At most, the permit value in this instance reflects the projected cost of improvements at the time the permit was issued. MPAC did not provide the Board with sufficient evidence that the cost of improvements translates to an equal increase in value, nor did MPAC provide the Board with evidence that the Appellants performed $250,000 worth of work to the Subject Property.

c. MPAC’s witness also pointed to the $620,000 value that was accepted by Brantford’s City Council as part of the Appellants’ tax relief application for 2023 and 2024. The Board does not rely on City Council’s acceptance of a $620,000 value as evidence of the current value of the Subject Property.

d. With respect to MPAC’s proposed comparable properties, MPAC stated that it only considered properties on major roads in the immediate vicinity of the Subject Property that were “modernized”. The Board has almost no information on which to determine whether MPAC’s properties are indeed comparable to the Subject Property other than MPAC’s testimony that the properties were modernized. The Documentary Evidence, which could have provided additional information to the Board, was not admitted into evidence. That said, none of MPAC’s proposed comparable properties, despite being modernized, had anywhere near a $620,000 value. The most expensive home on MPAC’s list, 196 St. George Street, sold in November 2017 for a time adjusted amount of $462,270. 120 Paris Road, which is on the same street as the Subject Property, sold for $447,370 in October 2016.

33The Board notes that the Appellants and MPAC agreed that 120 Paris Road is an appropriate comparable. It sold for a time adjusted sale price of $447,370 in October 2016 and, as MPAC argued, it reflects the value of a modernized property on a busy road, like the Subject Property. The value of 120 Paris Road is also in close range to the value proposed by the Appellants. For these reasons, the Board finds that 120 Paris Road is the best comparable property to the Subject Property and that the current value of the Subject Property as of January 1, 2016 is $447,000 (rounded).

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

Appellants

34As noted above, the Appellants did not significantly distinguish their submissions regarding current value and equity. That said, the Appellants argued overall that the assessment should be reduced from $620,000 to $441,238 to be equitable with similar properties. Specifically, the Appellants reference 100 Paris Road (assessment reflects a current value of $467,000) and 120 Paris Road (assessment reflects a current value of at $449,000). The Appellants state that these properties are similar to the Subject Property in terms of the property type being a home, lot size, location, square footage, and quality of construction.

35The Appellants also rely on the assessed values of six other properties that they say are similar to the Subject Property in terms of size, square footage, and location on main arterial roads. They argue that the value on the Subject Property’s assessment should be closer to these properties.

Property Address	Current Value Reflected on the Assessment
75 Brant Avenue	$421,000
66-70 Brant Avenue	$376,000
335 West Street	$399,000
4-6 West Street	$386,000
81 West Street	$394,000
743 Colborne	$440,000

MPAC

36MPAC submits that no equitable adjustment is required with reference to the Assessment to Sale Ratio of its proposed comparable properties. MPAC submits this demonstrates that similar properties in the vicinity of the Subject Property are being assessed equitably.

Findings on Issue 2

37Section 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”.

38The Board has found that the correct current value of the Subject Property is $447,000 rounded. The Board has had reference to the values at which similar lands in the vicinity are assessed, including the evidence provided by both the Appellants and MPAC, and finds that this $447,000 is equitable with the assessments of similar properties in the vicinity. Accordingly, the Board finds that no equitable adjustment is required.

CONCLUSION

39The Board finds that the correct current value of the Subject Property is $447,000 (rounded) and no adjustment is required for the purposes of equitable assessment.

ORDER

40The Board orders that the current values reflected on the 2024 and 2025 assessments be reduced to $447,000.