minicounsel

Tribunals Ontario

Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

August 19, 2025

FILE NO.:

WR 188592

Assessed Person(s):

Richard Jobin; Chantal Huneault

Appellant(s):

Richard Jobin; Chantal Huneault

Respondent(s):

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 03

Respondent(s):

City of Ottawa

Property Location(s):

1980 Beckett’s Creek Road

Municipality(ies):

City of Ottawa

Roll Number(s):

0614-500-501-40408-0000

Appeal Number(s):

3528550 and 3534444

Taxation Year(s):

2024 and 2025

Hearing Event No.:

786275

Legislative Authority:

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

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel/Representative

Richard Jobin, Chantal Huneault

Self-represented

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation

Caroline Sauvé

City of Ottawa

No one appeared

HEARD:

March 13, 2025 by video conference

ADJUDICATOR(S):

Pierre R. Lavigne, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1This is an appeal of the 2024 property assessment of Richard Jobin and Chantal Huneault’s, (the “Appellants’) residential property at 1980 Beckett’s Creek Road (the “Subject Property”) in the City of Ottawa (the “City”).

Background

2The Subject Property was purchased as a vacant lot in 2018 for $380,000. When the Appellants applied for a building permit in 2020, they discovered flood zone use and building restrictions, made by the Conservation Authority after their lot purchase but before the building permit application. These restrictions limited the siting of their new residence and severely limited their use of the balance of the lot.

3The Appellants say that the assessment of $833,000 is incorrect because it is excessive. They claim that the assessment should be reduced by 25% to a correct current value of $662,250. The respondent, the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”), maintains that the assessment of the Subject Property is based on a current value of $833,000 which is correct.

4This appeal is brought before the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) pursuant to s. 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (“the Act”). Pursuant to s. 40(26) of the Act, the Appellant is deemed to have brought the same appeal in respect of the 2025 taxation year. The 2024 assessment of $833,000 was made pursuant to s. 36 of the Act.

Issues for the Hearing

5At issue in this proceeding is:

A determination of the 2016 current value of the Subject Property.

a. Applicable legislative provisions

b. Comparable Properties

c. Adjustments to sale prices of Comparable Properties

d. Current value.

Whether an equity reduction in the current value should be made pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act?

Result

6The correct 2016 current value of the Subject Property is $767,000.

7There is no reduction to the correct current value required by s. 44(3)(b) of the Act.

ANALYSIS

Description of Subject Property

8The Subject Property is a 4,024 sq. ft. two-story residence, newly constructed in 2021, on a 3.95-acre lot.

Issue 1 – What is the 2016 retrospective current value of the Subject Property.

Applicable Legislative Provisions

9 Section 19(1) of the Act provides that 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.”

10 Section 48.6 of Ontario Regulation 282/98 requires that the valuation day for the 2024 and 2025 taxation years be January 1, 2016.

11Pursuant to s. 40(17) of the Act, the onus is on MPAC to prove the correct current value of the Subject Property.

12Pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act the Board is required to reduce the assessment if it finds that the Subject Property is inequitably assessed in reference to similar properties in the vicinity.

Retrospective Valuation

13When determining the current value of the Subject Property’s assessment for the 2024 and 2025 taxation years, it is important to keep in mind that the Board is required to determine what the Subject Property, as constructed in 2021, would have sold for in 2016, if it had been in existence in 2016. This is because the Act requires that all properties be valued as of January 1, 2016, regardless of when they were constructed.

14The correct current value will be deriving from the adjusted sales prices of similar properties that sold on or near January 1, 2016.

Comparable Properties

MPAC’s Evidence

15MPAC submitted that the following three residential sales could be considered as comparable to the Subject Property. These sales were in the Subject Property’s market area but not in flood plain mapped area, as no sales in that area could be found that had transacted at or near the valuation day.

Property and Sales Information

Subject Property

Property 1

Property 2

Property 3

Roll Number

061450050140408

061450050140106

061450050138330

061450050139807

Address

1980 BECKETT’S CREEK RD

1809 EMMETT RD

1827 BECKETT’S CREEK RD

1844 EMMETT RD

Neighbourhood

Ai1 - 300

Property Code & Desc.

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

Distance in km

0.8645

0.6125

0.8084

Valuation

Current Value Assessment

$833,000

$785,000

$668,000

$680,000

Sale

Sale Date

2017-09-08

2016-05-02

2014-07-31

Sale Amount

$763,500

$652,000

$725,000

Time Adjusted Sale Amount

$694,021 1.13

$640,264 1.04

$784,450 0.87

Site

Actual Site Area (Acres)

3.95

9.92

5.05

5.09

Residential Structure

Structure Code & Desc.

(301) Single Family Detached

Year Built

2021

2008

1990

2004

Effective Year Built

2021

2008

1990

2004

Structure Condition Code

Average

Quality of Construction

7.5

Full Storeys

2 Storeys

Split Level

No Split

Bedrooms

Baths

3.5

2.5

3.5

Fireplaces

Air Conditioning

Property and Sales Information

Subject Property

Property 1

Property 2

Property 3

Roll Number

061450050140408

061450050140106

061450050138330

061450050139807

Address

1980 BECKETT’S CREEK RD

1809 EMMETT RD

1827 BECKETT’S CREEKS RD

1844 EMMETT RD

Heating Type

Forced Air

Building Total Area (SF)

4,024

3,539

3,089

2,360

First Floor Area (SF)

2007

2351

1656

1565

Second Floor Area (SF)

2017

1188

1433

795

Basement Type

Basement Area (SF)

2,007

2,351

1,656

1,549

Finished Basement Area (SF)

Basement Height

Modifications

Secondary Structure(s)

Structure Description

(116) Attached Garage

(101) Detached Garage

(108) Outdoor Pool

Year Build

2021

2008

1999

2004

Building Total Area (SF)

572

777

1689

512

Quality of Construction

Structure Description

(102) Shed

(116) Attached Garage

Year Built

2008

1993

2004

Building Total Area (SF)

1269

128

875

Quality of Construction

Structure Description

(108) Outdoor Pool

(102) Shed

Year Build

1994

2007

Building Total Area (SF)

656

321

Quality of Construction

Structure Description

(116) Attached Garage

Year Built

1990

Building Total Area (SF)

480

Quality of Construction

16MPAC’s witness time adjusted the sales prices to the price they would likely have sold for had the sales occurred on January 1, 2016. The Appellants did not contest the time adjustments. No other adjustments were made by MPAC to the sale prices.

17In MPAC’s witness’ opinion Property 3 was not comparable to the Subject Property. It’s difference in gross floor area was too large for this property to be considered competitive with the Subject Property. Property 3 was not used by MPAC’s witness to derive its value opinion.

18MPAC relied on the time adjusted sale price of each comparable property, divided by its gross living area, to arrive at a price per square ft (“sf”) of gross living area of each comparable Property. This was $196.10 per sf for Property 1 and $207.27 per sf for Property 2. The average of these two calculations was $201.69 per sf which she then applied to the gross living area of the Subject Property of 4,024 sf to produce an indication of value of $811,600.

19MPAC’s witness was also of the view that both Property 1 and 2 were qualitatively inferior to the Subject Property because they were older and had less gross living area. Accordingly, being qualitatively superior, the Subject Property’s value had to exceed the $811,000 value derived from the average value of gross living area of the two inferior comparables. MPAC did not describe the path to the $833,000 assessment submitted as correct.

Appellant’s Evidence

20The Appellants described how their dreams to build on their vacant lot had been dashed by the imposition of flood restrictions after their purchase. They testified that they had made inquiries of the City at the time of purchase of the lot and had been assured that they could effectively build on two acres of their 3.95 acre lot.

21The Appellants indicates that their intention had been to construct their residence further back from the road to leave some forested area between the house and the road for more privacy. As a result of the new floodplain restrictions, they had to take down 130 trees to build much closer to the road, and place a more expensive septic tank in the front yard, at higher cost and greater annual maintenance expense.

22The Appellants testified that because of the floodplain regulations, the allowable use of their land had been reduced to less than 1.39 acres. They could not landscape the rear of their property, have a detached garage, pool, or garden as some of their neighbours have. The balance of the back yard had to be kept in its original state.

23The Appellants indicate that all the properties on the street were built before the changes to the floodplain regulations which affected the Subject Property. Their backyards are landscaped, some have pools, gardens, and additional detached garages.

24In the Appellants’ view the floodplain regulations have greatly diminished the utility of the property and have resulted in extra annual expenses. None of these impacts were disputed by MPAC who acknowledged this to be a unique situation.

25As a comparable property, the Appellants relied upon the sale of 1950 Beckett’s Creek in February 2020 for $875,000. It had a 2016 assessment of $693,000. The Board does not retain this sale as comparable for the following three reasons. Firstly, the gross floor area at 2,068 sf is almost half of the Subject Property’s 4,024 sf. In the Board’s view this property would not be seen as a competitive alternative to a purchaser looking to purchase the Subject Property because of this too large size disparity, Secondly, 1950 Beckett’s Creek is of a different construction style, a bungalow compared to the Subject Property’s two stories. Thirdly, the sale occurred in 2020, too far from the January 1, 2016, valuation day.

Parties’ Evidence Insufficient to Support a Valuation

26In the Board’s view insufficient sales evidence was presented by MPAC or the Appellant to derive a 2016 current value of the Subject Property. MPAC, on whose burden it was, did not explain how the value of $833,000 was derived from its comparable sales. The Board has previously decided in Pacey v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 02, 2018 CanLII 104614 (ON ARB) para. 30, that MPAC must show the path from the evidence to the opinion of value. In this appeal MPAC has not done so.

27More importantly, MPAC did not adjust the value of the comparable sales for significant differences between its comparables and the Subject Property. Other than a market or time adjustment to bring the sale price values to their January 1, 2016 values, no further adjustments were made for significant differences in lot size, gross living area, age difference as well as other items. Also missing were adjustments for an outdoor pool and detached garage, two significant features present in the comparables but unavailable to the Appellants’ property due to the flood plain restrictions.

The Board Must Determine the Current Value

28Notwithstanding this state of the evidence, both parties failing to adduce evidence sufficient to substantiate a correct current value, the Board is nevertheless obligated to find a correct value. The Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Municipal Property Assessment Corporation v. Claireville Holdings Limited, 2024 ONCA 598, at para. 36, cited with approval the Divisional Court’s decision in Municipal Property Assessment Corporation v. Zarichansky, 2020 ONSC 1124. In Zarichansky, paras. 40-41, the Divisional Court stated that Board must make a determination of current value even when MPAC has not discharged its burden of proof.

29To arrive at the 2016 correct current value the Board will use the limited sales evidence before the Board: MPAC’s two retained comparable sales, as well as two sales of vacant flood plain land sold near the January 1, 2016 valuation day, included in MPAC’s expert report.

Adjustments to Sale Prices of Comparable Properties

30As noted, the comparable properties vary substantially from the Subject Property in certain elements of comparison: the lot sizes, the gross living area, age, the presence of an additional detached garage and pool and other elements.

31In order to account for these differences, value adjustments must be made to the time adjusted sale prices of the comparable properties. These will determine an average adjusted value per square foot of gross living area of the comparable properties which can then be applied to square footage of gross living area of the Subject Property to indicate its value.

32In the present matter the time adjusted sale price of Property 1 (1809 Emmett Road) was $ 694,021. The time adjusted sale price of Property 2 (1827 Beckett’s Creek Road) was $640,264. Property 1 sold for $ 53,757 more than Property 2.

33The Board will determine the value of each individual adjustment based on the Board’s view of the relative utility of each element of comparison. The net value of adjustments will account for the time adjusted price difference between Property 1 and Property 2.

34Where Property 2 has an element of comparison of greater value than Property 1, that greater value will be subtracted (a negative adjustment) from its time adjusted sale price to make it more similar to Property 1. Where Property 1 has an element of comparison of greater value than Property 2, that greater value will be added (a positive adjustment) to the time adjusted sale price of Property 2 to make it more similar to Property 1.

Adjustment for Land Value - $10,000/acre

35MPAC provided evidence of land values from sales of vacant land at or near the valuation date. The following table illustrates these sales.

Appendix J – Vacant Land Sales

Subject Property

Property 1

Property 2

Property 3

Property 4

Roll Number

061450050140408

061450050140407

061450050139998

061450050139805

061450050139229

Address

1980 BECKETT’S CREEK RD

1950 BECKETT’S CREEK RD

1910 EMMETT RD

1856 EMMETT RD

2970 WILHAVEN DR

Neighbourhood

Ai1 - 300

Property Code & Desc.

(100) Vacant Residential Land Not on Water

Distance in km

0.0944

0.9576

0.8059

2.3061

Valuation

floodplain

Vacant Land Assessment Value

$214,000

$203,000

$224,000

$200,000

Sale

Sale Date

2018-10-16

2017-04-25

2015-10-14

2017-10-16

2014-01-07

Sale Amount

$380,000

$215,000

$205,000

$250,000

$205,000

Site

Actual Site Area (Acres)

3.95

2.35

5.09

1.94

Variance

Irregular

Regular

Irregular

Regular

now built-on

2 storey home in 2021

Bungalow built in 2018

2 storey home built in 2020

Bungalow built in 2016

4,024 sq.ft.

2,068 sq.ft.

2,876 sq.ft.

3,249 sq.ft.

2,418 sq.ft.

sold in 2020/02 for $875,000

sold in 2021/09 for $1,663,000

CVA $833,000

CVA $693,000

CVA $848,000

CVA $813,000

CVA $700,000

36The Board excludes from consideration Land Sales 3 and 4 as comparable as these were not affected by floodplain regulations. The Board also excludes the purchase of the Subject Property’s vacant land as it is an outlier price and far beyond the usual period of comparability of one year from the January 1, 2016 valuation day, which in the present case was extended to two years because of insufficient sales evidence.

37Time adjusting Land Sales 1 and 2 using MPAC’s undisputed time adjustment factors yields a time adjusted sale price of Land Sale 1 of $200,380 ($215,000 x 0.932) and $207,870 ($205,000 x 1.014) for Land Sale 2. The time adjusted price per acre of Land Sale 1 is $50,730/acre ($200,380/3.95 acres). The time adjusted price per acre of Land Sale 2 is $88,455/acre ($207,870/2.35 acres). From this evidence the market demonstrates economies of size leading to a rapidly diminishing price per acre as the acreage increases.

38To determine the value of land in excess of 3.95 acres (Land Sale 1) it is useful to consider Land Sale 3. This was a sale of 5.09 acres of vacant land, not in a flood plain, for $250,000 on October 16, 2017. Its time adjusted price was $226,250 ($250,000 x 0.905). Comparing Land Sale 3 with the sale of the next smaller parcel: Land Sale 1, ($200,380 for 3.95 acres) the purchaser of Land Sale 3 obtained 1.14 additional acres, (5.09-3.95 acres) of non-floodplain land for $25,870 ($226,250-$200,380) or a per acre value of $22,690 per acre ($25,870/1.14). Considering that this was for land not in the floodplain and considering diminishing value per acre due to economies of scale, the Board determines the adjustment value of land of floodplain land in exceeding 3.95 acres to be less than 50% of non-floodplain land. Accordingly, the Board determines this adjustment value to be $10,000 per acre.

39A further adjustment is made for the additional cost of annual servicing of the front lawn septic tank. This is because the two retained comparable sales of constructed dwellings (Property 1 and 2) were constructed well before the imposition of the floodplain mapping and are not required to bear similar costs. Based on an estimate of the discounted future cost of maintenance of $500 per year, the Board determines this adjustment to both Properties 1 and 2 to be $10,000.

Adjustments for Structure Value

40Adjustments for the relative contribution to the difference in structure values between Property 1 and Property 2 have been determined by the Board as follows:

$25 per square foot for the difference in gross living area.
$500 per year older than the January 1, 2016 valuation day.
$20 per square foot for the outdoor pool.
$10 per square foot for the detached garage.
$5 per square foot for difference in basement area and backyard shed.
$2,000 each for air conditioning, a third bathroom and an extra fireplace.

41As demonstrated in the following table, these adjustment values are validated by their application to the differences in elements of comparison between Property 1 and Property 2 to account for the difference in price between Property 1 and Property 2.

Adjustments Between Property 1 and Property 2

Property 1

Property 2

Address

1809 EMMETT RD

1827 BECKETT’S CREEKS RD

Sale Date

2017-09-08

2016-05-02

Sale Price

$763,500

$652,000

Sale price time adjusted to January 1, 2016

$694,021

$640,264

Acres

9.92

5.05

Adjustment at $10,000/ac

+$48,700

Gross Living Area

3,539

3,089

Adjustment at $25/sf

+$11,250

Year of Construction

2008

1990

Age at 2016

Age Adjustment at $500/yr

+$9,000

Basement sf

2351

1656

Basement Adjustment at $5/sf

+$3,475

Pool sf

656

Pool adjustment at $20/sf

-$13,120

Detached Garage sf

1689

Property 1

Property 2

Address

1809 EMMETT RD

1827 BECKETT’S CREEKS RD

Detached Garage Adjustment at $10/sf

-$16,890

Shed sf

1269

128

Shed Adjustment at $5/sf

+$5705

Air Conditioning

Air Conditioning Adjustment at $2000

+$2,000

Bathrooms

3.5

2.5

Bathroom Adjustment at $2000

+$2,000

Fireplace

Fireplace Adjustment at $2000

-$2,000

Difference in Time Adj Price Prop.1 minus Prop.2

$53,757

Net Value of Adjustments to Prop. 2

$53,595

42Due to rounding of the adjustment values, the net value of adjustments is not exactly the same as difference in value between Property 1 and Property 2, but sufficiently close to support the adjustment values.

43Applying the same adjustment values to Property 1 and Property 2 and comparing them to the Subject Property produces the following table:

Comparison Between the Subject Property, Prop. 1 and Prop. 2 Using Market Derived Adjustments

Subject Property

Prop. 1

Prop. 2

Address

1980 BECKETT’S CREEK RD

1809 EMMETT RD

1827 BECKETT’S CREEKS RD

Sale Date

2017-09-08

2016-05-02

Sale Price

$763,500

$652,000

Time Adjusted Price to January 1, 2016

$694,021

$640,264

Acres

3.95

9.92

5.05

Adjustment at $10,000/ac

-$59,700

-$11,000

Adjustment for Septic Tank Maintenance

-$10,000

Gross Living Area

4,024

3,539

3,089

Adjustment at $25/s.f.

+$12,125

+$23,375

Year of Construction

2021

2008

1990

Age at 2016

Age Adjustment at $500/yr

-$4,000

-$13,000

Basement sf

2007

2351

1656

Basement Adjustment at $5/sf

-$1,720

+$1,755

Subject Property

Prop. 1

Prop. 2

Address

1980 BECKETT’S CREEK RD

1809 EMMETT RD

1827 BECKETT’S CREEKS RD

Pool sf

656

Pool Adjustment at $20/sf

$-13,120

Detached Garage sf

1689

Detached Garage Adjustment at $10/sf

-$16,890

Shed sf

1269

128

Shed Adjustment at $5/sf

-$6,345

-$640

Air Conditioning

Air Conditioning Adjustment at $2000

-$2,000

Bathrooms

3.5

2.5

Bathroom Adjustment at $2000

+$2,000

Fireplace

Fireplace Adjustment at $2000

-$2,000

Adjusted Value

$630,381

$626,744

Average Adjusted Value per sf

$178.12/sf

$202.90/sf

Average Value per sf of Gross Living Area (GLA)of Prop. 1 and Prop. 2

$190.51/sf

Value of Subject = 4,024 GLA x Average Value per sf of GLA of Prop. 1 and Prop. 2

$767,000

Findings on Issue 1

44The Board finds that the January 1, 2016 correct current value of the Subject Property is $767,000 (rounded).

Issue 2 - Whether an equity reduction in the current value should be made pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act?

45The Appellants did not present any evidence that similar properties in the vicinity were under assessed in relation to their market values.

46MPAC presented an equity study of the assessment of 30 similar properties in the vicinity which indicated that on average these properties were assessed at 104% of their adjusted sales values. This demonstrates that similar properties in the vicinity were not generally underassessed.

Findings on Issue 2

47The Board finds that similar properties in the vicinity are not generally under assessed. Accordingly, there is no need to further reduce the correct current value to account for inequity of assessment.

CONCLUSION

48MPAC’s assessment pursuant to s. 36 of the Act for the taxation year 2024 reported $833,000 as the correct value of the Subject Property.

49The Board has found that the correct value of the Subject Property is $767,000 and that no reduction of this value is required pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act.

50Therefore, the Board finds that the correct assessment of the Subject Property for the taxation years 2024 and 2025 is $767,000.

ORDER

51The assessment of the Subject Property for the taxation years 2024 and 2025 is reduced from $833,000 to $767,000.

"Pierre R. Lavigne"

PIERRE R. LAVIGNE

MEMBER

Assessment Review Board

Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb