Shiam Gupta v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 15, 2025 CanLII 85045

Tribunals Ontario

Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

August 19, 2025

FILE NO.:

WR 188743

Assessed Person(s):

Shiam Gupta; Sneh Lata Gupta

Appellant(s):

Shiam Gupta; Sneh Gupta

Respondent(s):

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 15

Respondent(s):

City of Mississauga

Property Location(s):

548 Canyon Street

Municipality(ies):

City of Mississauga

Roll Number(s):

2105-020-027-25390-0000

Appeal Number(s):

3529283 and 3535374

Taxation Year(s):

2024 and 2025

Hearing Event No.:

788079

Legislative Authority:

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

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel/Representative

Shiam Gupta; Sneh Gupta

Tracey Coleman

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation

Marissa Cheddi

City of Mississauga

Submissions not received

HEARD:

June 24, 2025 by video conference

ADJUDICATOR(S):

Carly Stringer, Vice-Chair

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1Shiam and Sneh Gupta (the “Appellants”) believe the $1,658,000 current value of 548 Canyon Street (the “Subject Property”) contained on the assessment roll for the 2024 and 2025 taxation years is too high. For that reason, the Appellants appealed the assessments to the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) pursuant to s. 40 of the Assessment Act (the “Act”) R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31. The Appellants have asked the Board to reduce the current value for both taxation years to $1,478,000.

2The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) is responding to these appeals. MPAC believes the current value of $1,658,000 is too low and has asked the Board to increase it to $1,744,000.

3The City of Mississauga (the “City”) is a statutory party to these appeals but did not participate in the hearing.

Areas of Agreement

4The parties agree that the Subject Property should be valued using the Direct Comparison Approach, where the value of a property is determined by considering the amount at which comparable properties in the area have sold. The parties are also in agreement that the Subject Property is appropriately classified in the residential property class.

Issues for the Hearing

5At 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. Is a reduction to the current value required for the purpose of equitable assessment and, if so, how much?

Result

6For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that the current value of the Subject Property as of January 1, 2016 and applicable to the 2024 and 2025 assessments is $1,655,000 (rounded). The Board finds that no equitable reduction is required.

ANALYSIS

Description of Subject Property

7The Subject Property is improved by a single family detached residential dwelling built in 2002 to a construction quality of 7.5. The Subject Property has a site area of 0.2 acres and the residence has a total building area of 4,227 square feet (“sq. ft.”). It is a two storey home with four bedrooms, a largely finished basement, and an attached garage. The Subject Property is located in the Watercolours subdivision in the City.

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

Evidence and Submissions

MPAC

8MPAC’s expert testified that five sold properties are comparable to the Subject Property for the purpose of determining current value.

MPAC’s Proposed Comparable Properties and Sales Information

Property Address

634 Canyon Street

589 Canyon Street

633 Cranleigh Court

1267 Cobalt Street

513 Hancock Way

Sale Date

June 2016

July 2016

January 2015

November 2016

August 2015

Time Adjusted Sale Amount

$1,585,404

$1,460,025

$1,701,150

$1,623,210

$1,534,100

Effective Year Built

2002

2004

2003

2004

2001

Site Area Acres

0.17

0.2

0.19

0.22

0.19

Building Area Sq. Ft.

3,508

3,770

3,932

3,932

3,918

Finished Basement Area

1,456

300

1,859

1,733

Quality of Construction

7.5

7.5

7.5

7.5

7.5

Secondary Structures

Attached Garage, Outdoor Pool

Attached Garage, Outdoor Pool

Attached Garage, Outdoor Pool

Attached Garage, Outdoor Pool

Attached Garage

Time Adjusted Rate Per Sq. Ft.

$451.94 ($1,585,404/ 3,508 sq. ft.)

$387.27 ($1,460,025/ 3,770 sq. ft)

$432.64 ($1,701,150/ 3,932 sq. ft.)

$412.82 ($1,623,210/3,932 sq. ft.)

$391.55 ($1,534,100/3,918 sq. ft.)

9MPAC’s witness opined that the best evidence of current value is the median rate per sq. ft. of the time adjusted sale price of the above properties applied to the 4,227 sq. ft. building area of the Subject Property. MPAC’s expert determined that the median time adjusted sale price per square foot is $412.82 and applied this rate to the Subject Property’s square footage of 4,227 to arrive at his opinion of the correct current value: $1,744,000.

Appellants

10The Appellants’ expert witness provided evidence regarding the sales of three proposed comparable properties, but ultimately relied on a single property for an opinion of current value. The Appellants’ expert opined that 513 Hancock Way had the most similar features to the Subject Property and required less adjustments due to its similar lot size, similar year built, and similar building area.

11Despite relying on a single property, the Appellants’ expert provided three different opinions of current value between the expert report dated January 30, 2025 (the “Original Report”), the undated reply report (“Reply Report”), and the hearing on June 24, 2025:

a. At paragraph 39 of the Original Report, the Appellants’ expert provided evidence that 813 [sic] Hancock Way indicates a current value of $1,428,000 for the Subject Property.

b. At paragraph 15 of the Reply Report, the Appellants’ expert relied on an adjusted rate per square foot of $380.11 which, applied to the 4,227 sq. ft. building area, resulted in a current value of $1,606,700. The Appellants’ expert did not state which property or properties he relied on to determine this rate, although the Board notes that in Appendix B, Schedule A-2 of the Reply Report, the Appellants’ expert provided an “Adjusted Sale Price $/sq. ft” of $380.11 for MPAC’s proposed comparable 1267 Cobalt Street.

c. At the hearing, the Appellants’ expert testified that the correct current value should be determined based on an adjusted rate per square foot of $361.40. This rate was reflected in Schedule A-1 of the Reply Report as an adjusted sale price per sq. ft. for 513 Hancock Way. The Appellants’ expert testified that he calculated that rate by taking the time adjusted rate per sq. ft. of 513 Hancock Way ($391.55) and applying an 8% “market adjustment” to arrive at an adjusted sale price per sq. ft. of $361.40. He testified that he obtained this 8% market adjustment by comparing the difference between the returned assessment value of the Subject Property ($1,658,000) and the returned assessment value of 513 Hancock Way ($1,665,000). He then testified that his opinion of value as of January 1, 2016 is $1,527,637, which he calculated by multiplying $361.40 by the 4,227 sq. ft. building area of the Subject Property.

12In closing submissions, the Appellants took the position that the correct current value is $1,527,637.80, being the 4,227 sq. ft. building area of the Subject Property multiplied by $361.40, the adjusted sale price per sq. ft. of 513 Hancock Way.

Findings on Issue 1

13The Board does not accept the Appellants’ evidence regarding current value for two reasons:

a. First, the Appellants’ witness provided three different values between the Original Report, the Reply Report, and the hearing. The Appellants’ witness did not sufficiently explain the reason for these three different values, nor did he otherwise reconcile them for the Board.

b. Second, the Board does not accept the “market adjustment” applied by the Appellants’ witness, as outlined in paragraph 11(c) above. The Board finds that the Appellants’ expert did not sufficiently explain how an 8% difference in the returned assessment values of two properties is an appropriate adjustment – indeed, in relying on assessment values for this adjustment (including the assessment value of the Subject Property that is currently under appeal), the Board finds that the Appellants’ “market adjustment” is not reliable.

14For these reasons, the Board does not rely on the Appellants’ evidence to determine current value.

15With respect to the evidence provided by MPAC’s witness, the Board finds that the best evidence of current value is the sale of 513 Hancock Way. This property is the most comparable to the Subject Property in terms of site area, location, secondary structures, building area, construction quality, and storeys. The other four properties relied on by MPAC had pools in the backyard while the Subject Property did not – for this reason, the Board finds, in the circumstances of this case and the evidence before it, that the other four properties are not the best evidence of current value of the Subject Property.

16Accordingly, the Board finds that the current value of the Subject Property is $1,655,000 (rounded), which is calculated by taking the time adjusted rate per sq. ft. of building area of 513 Hancock Way ($391.55) and multiplying it by the building area of the Subject Property (4,227 sq. ft.).

Issue 2 – Is a reduction to the current value required for the purpose of equitable assessment and, if so, how much?

Evidence and Submissions

MPAC

17MPAC’s witness relied on three Assessment to Sales Ratio (“ASR”) studies. 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 assessed below their current value, a reduction in the subject assessment below the correct current value is required to make the subject assessment equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity. The ASR is determined by dividing the assessed value of a property that has sold by its sale price.

18MPAC’s witness testified that his ASR studies determined that similar properties in the vicinity have been assessed at or near their current value, such that an equity adjustment is not required.

Appellants

19The Appellants’ witness provided the following evidence regarding equitable adjustment:

a. At paragraph 45 of the Original Report, he determined that the ASR of 1267 Cobalt Street is 0.99 and applied that 0.99 to the current value.

b. At paragraph 16 of the Reply Report, he stated that Appendix B of his original valuation “indicates the weighted average of the 2016 current value assessment to the time average sale indicates a ratio of 1.08, therefore for equity purposes a reduction of 8% is warranted”.

20The Appellant also challenged MPAC’s equity analysis, arguing that 50% of MPAC’s properties were outliers such that MPAC’s analysis is not reliable.

Findings on Issue 2

21Section 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.”

22The Board does not accept the Appellants’ evidence that an equitable adjustment is required, for the following reasons:

a. The Appellants’ witness used different equitable adjustments between the Original Report (0.99) and the Reply Report (8% based on an ASR of 1.08) without explaining this difference or reconciling it for the Board.

b. The Appellants’ witness concluded in the Reply Report that an 8% reduction is warranted given that “the weighted average of the 2016 current value assessment to the time average sale indicates a ratio of 1.08”. The Board does not accept this conclusion. The Board finds that if the weighted average ASR is 1.08, this would indicate that similar properties in the vicinity are being assessed higher than what they are selling for. If similar properties in the vicinity are being assessed higher than what they are selling for, and the Subject Property is being assessed at its current value, this would mean that the Subject Property’s value should be increased – not reduced – to be equitable with similar properties in the vicinity. Section 44(3)(b) does not provide for an increase in current value.

23Therefore, the Board finds that no equitable reduction is required.

CONCLUSION

24The Board finds that the current value of the Subject Property as of January 1, 2016 and applicable to the 2024 and 2025 assessments is $1,655,000 (rounded). The Board finds that no equitable reduction is required.

ORDER

25The Board orders that the current value reflected on the 2024 and 2025 assessments be reduced from $1,658,000 to $1,655,000.