Tribunals Ontario

Assessment Review Board

ISSUE DATE: August 28, 2025 FILE NO.: WR 188695

Assessed Person(s): Jeffrey Thomas Wade Appellant(s): Jeffrey Wade Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 07 Respondent(s): City of Kawartha Lakes

Property Location(s): 438 Front Street West Municipality(ies): City of Kawartha Lakes Roll Number(s): 1651-028-001-46100-0000 Appeal Number(s): 3528976 and 3534650 Taxation Year(s): 2024 and 2025 Hearing Event No.: 787473

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

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel/Representative
Jeffrey Thomas Wade	Self-represented
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation	Laurie-Ann Freymond
City of Kawartha Lakes	No one appeared

HEARD: May 7, 2025 by video conference

ADJUDICATOR(S): Anita Lovrich, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1Jeffrey Thomas Wade (the “Appellant”) is the owner of the property located at 438 Front Street West (the “Subject Property”) and filed an appeal pursuant to s. 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”) for the 2024 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 Appellant says the assessment is too high and asks the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) to reduce the value to between $500,000 and $600,000. The Appellant also claims 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 submits that the correct current value is $843,000.

4A representative for the City of Kawartha Lakes attended the hearing but did not make submissions or otherwise participate in the proceeding.

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 the current value equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity and, if not, should an equitable reduction be made?

Result

6For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that the current value of the Subject Property is $867,000 (rounded).

7The Board also finds that there is no evidence to support a reduction in the current value to make the current value equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity. The Board therefore orders that the current value is $867,000 in the Residential Property Class.

ANALYSIS

Description of Subject Property

8The Subject Property is a one and a half-storey residential dwelling. It was built in 2003 and has a total building area of 2,534 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

9In 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.”

10Accordingly, 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 2024 and 2025 taxation years is January 1, 2016.

11In 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.

Evidence on Current Value

12MPAC provided evidence regarding the sale of four 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	Property #1	Property #2	Property #3	Property #4
Roll Number	165102800146100	165102603039000	165121003055147	165121003055600	165121003035800
Address	438 FRONT ST W	105 TRINITY DR	35 ADMIRAL DR	49 ADMIRAL DR	53 MANOR RD
Neighbourhood	N44 - 621	R10 – 617	R01 – 602	R01 – 602	R01 – 602
Property Code & Desc.	(313) Single-Family Detached On Water	(391) Seasonal/Recreational Dwelling – First Tier On Water	(391) Seasonal/Recreational Dwelling – First Tier On Water	(313) Single-Family Detached On Water	(313) Single-Family Detached On Water
Distance in km		6.5507	14.0247	14.0877	15.8411
Valuation
2016 Current Value Assessment	$941,000	$811,000	$860,000	$785,000	$849,000
Sale
Sale Date		20200915	20161125	20160318	20150930
Sale Amount		$1,145,000	$989,000	$1,000,000	$725,000
Time Adjusted Sale Amount			$893,067	$976,000	$751,825
Time Adjustment Factor			0.903	0.976	1.037
Time Adjusted Sale Ratio			0.91	0.88	1.04
Site
Effective Frontage (F)	100	120	123	72	120
Effective Depth (F)	260	125.58	420	332.75	206
Effective Site Area (Acres)	0.6	0.35	1.19	0.67	0.57
Access	Year Round Road	Year Round Road	Year Round Road	Private Road Access	Private Road Access
On Site Variable(s)	(Z) Quality Of Site = Good, (F) Topography Level	(Z) Quality Of Site = Good, (O) Gravel Road, (F) Topography Level	(G) Topography – Slight Slope, (Z) Quality Of Site = Good, (L) No Street Lighting, (K) No Curbs And Gutters, (M) No Sidewalk On Street	(F) Topography – Level, (K) No Curbs And Gutters, (M) No Sidewalk On Street, (L) No Street Lighting, (Z) Quality Of Site = Good, (O) Gravel Road	(I) Quality Of Site = Excellent, (H) Topography – Steep Slope
Water Service Code	Municipal	Private Well	Private Well	Private Well	Private Well
Sanitary	Municipal	Septic Bed	Septic Bed	Septic Bed	Septic Bed
Residential Structure
Structure Code & Desc.	(301) Single Family Detached	(301) Single Family Detached	(301) Single Family Detached	(301) Single Family Detached	(301) Single Family Detached
Year Built	2003	2008	2000	1998	2015
Effective Year Built	2003	2008	2004	1998	2015
Structure Variable(s)	N	N	(B) Basement Walkout	(B) Basement Walkout	(B) Basement Walkout
Structure Condition Code	Average	Average	Average	Average	Average
Quality of Construction	7.5	7	7.5	7	7
Full Storeys	11/2 Storeys	2 Storeys	11/2 Storeys	2 Storeys	1 Storey
Baths	2.5	2.5	3	2.5	3
Fire Places	1	1	1	1	2
Air Conditioning	N	Y	Y	Y	Y
Heating Type	In-Floor Radiant	Forced Air	Forced Air	Forced Air	Forced Air
Building Total Area (SF)	2,532	3,004	2,506	3,224	2,165
Basement Area (SF)	N	N	1,696	1,702	2,278
Finished Basement Area	N	N	1,272	N	1,845
Secondary Structure(s)
Structure Description	(118) Cabin	(105) Boathouse	(101) Detached Garage	(116) Attached Garage	(116) Attached Garage
Year Built	1950	2002	2000	1998	2015
Building Total Area (SF)	494	522	936	307	991
Quality of Construction	4	3	4	3	4
Structure Description	(102) Shed	(101) Detached Garage
Year Built	1953	2000
Building Total Are (SF)	233	572
Quality of Construction	1	3
Structure Description	(118) Cabin
Year Built	1953
Building Total Area (SF)	502
Quality of Construction	4
Structure Description	(116) Attached Garage
Year Built	2003
Building Total Area (SF)	816
Quality of Construction	4
Year Built	1953
Building Total Area (SF)	600
Quality of Construction	4

13MPAC testified as follows:

a. Sale 1 is situated on Sturgeon Lake as is the Subject Property. Sale 1 has year-round access as does the Subject Property. Sale 1 has more effective water frontage than the Subject Property but has a smaller effective lot size than the Subject Property. Sale 1 has a well and a septic tank which is inferior to the Subject Property which has municipal water and sanitary services. Sale 1 is superior in terms of larger floor area. Sale 1 and the Subject Property are similar in that they both have 2.5 bathrooms and one fireplace. MPAC submits that this property is similar to the Subject Property.

b. Sale 2 has a larger effective lot size than the Subject Property. It is similar to the Subject Property in terms of quality of construction. It is considered slightly inferior to the Subject Property in terms of floor area. It has a basement which is considered to be superior to the Subject Property which does not have a basement. In its expert report, MPAC stated that it is superior to the Subject Property but at the hearing MPAC testified that it in fact deems it to be similar to the Subject Property in terms of land and “overall feel.”

c. Sale 3 has slightly more effective site area than the Subject Property. It has a well and a septic tank which is inferior to the Subject Property which has municipal water and sanitary services. It is inferior to the Subject Property in terms of dwelling characteristics including chronological and effective age. Sale 3 is considered inferior to the Subject Property as it has a lower quality construction than the Subject Property. It has a larger square footage than the Subject Property. It has a basement with finished area, while the Subject Property does not have a basement. MPAC submits that it is inferior to the Subject Property.

d. Sale 4 has more effective water frontage than the Subject Property but has a slightly smaller effective lot size than the Subject Property. It has an overall superior site quality compared to the Subject Property. It is newer, but has a lower quality of construction. Sale 4 is superior to the Subject Property in that it has 3 full bathrooms compared to the Subject Property’s 2.5 full bathrooms, two fireplaces compared to the Subject Property’s one and it has air conditioning whereas the Subject Property does not have air conditioning. Sale 4 has a smaller dwelling square footage compared to the Subject Property. Sale 4 has a finished basement, with walkout which makes it superior to the Subject Property which does not have any of these features. Overall, MPAC deemed it similar to the Subject Property.

14MPAC testified that Sales 1 and 2 are most comparable to the Subject Property. MPAC testified that it is, however, recommending that the current value should be $843,000 which is an offer made to the Appellant that was not accepted.

Appellant

15The Appellant testified as follows:

a. The Subject Property failed to sell by October 8, 2014, at $799,900 after 171 days on the market indicating that this amount was overpriced. He states that, less than 14 months later, MPAC claims a valuation of $941,000 which is “impossible.”

b. He is finding it very difficult to keep up with his property tax payments.

c. He purchased the property in 2020 during a spike in sales values and that “the MPAC assessed value is divorced from reality”

d. At the time that he purchased the Subject Property he knew what the property taxes were, but assumed that there was an error and that it would be corrected by MPAC.

e. The Subject Property “needs a lot of work” and he does not have sufficient funds to renovate it. He states that it is in very poor shape. It has cracked tile floors, a slab foundation, and the structure has shifted. It has poor construction quality and little light with no view of the lake from much of the house. The Subject Property would require between $200,000 to $400,000 worth of renovation work to be marketable. He states that the Subject Property is freezing cold in the winter and that all the doors and floors must be replaced.

f. MPAC’s proposed comparable sales are not comparable to the Subject Property.

g. Sale 2, 105 Trinity Drive is a 3,200 square foot home that is unique and superior to the Subject Property.

h. Sale 3, 35 Admiral Drive is in a superior neighbourhood to the Subject Property.

i. The Subject Property does not have a basement or a fireplace as the fireplace noted by MPAC is “just a Napoleon” and makes no heat.

j. Most of MPAC’s proposed comparables had basements, unlike the Subject Property.

16The Appellant submits that the current value of the Subject Property should be between $500,000 and $600,000 based on the following:

a. The Appellant suggested that the most appropriate way to obtain current value for the Subject Property would be to consider what his next-door neighbors are paying in property taxes. He states that his next-door neighbor purchased his home a month before the Appellant did in 2020 and paid $1,570,000. The Appellant states that this home is twice the size of the Subject Property and has 5 bedrooms as well as a detached workshop, private lane access, a superior location, and is completely renovated. The ratio of the sales price of the Subject Property compared to his next-door neighbor’s home is 0.73. He states that as his neighbour’s assessment is $782,000, when one applies the ratio of 0.73 to that assessment one obtains a value of $570,860 which he says what the current value of the Subject Property should be.

b. The Appellant presented a list of comparable properties that he said he obtained from MPAC that are based on actual sales near the valuation day but that he did not know what methodology was used to select these sales nor had information about these sales. However, the median assessed value was $537,766.67, which he submits is in line with the first analysis.

c. Finally, the Appellant presented some listings of properties that failed to sell in and around 2016 to demonstrate “what properties were going for in 2016.” He pointed to a number of specific properties that sold near the valuation day, one of which is 121 Anderson Drive, which he said had more frontage, a partially finished basement, and sold for $230,000 in 2016. Another home at 9 Lilac Lane had three more bedrooms, 2.5 times more frontage, and sold for 580,000 in 2015. He also adduced a sale of 277 Raby’s Shore that sold for 373,000 in 2015.

17The Appellant noted that all of these three methods of calculating current value point to a correct current value of between $500,000 and $600,000.

Findings on Issue 1

18In determining the correct current value of the Subject Property, the Board must consider the best evidence at the hearing that represents the amount that the Subject Property would have sold for on the January 1, 2016 valuation day.

19The Board does not accept the Appellant’s proposed current value of between $500,000 and $600,000, nor does it rely on the Appellant’s proposed comparable properties to determine current value of the Subject Property, for the following reasons:

a. With respect to 121 Anderson Drive this property is not on water and as such is not comparable to the Subject Property. Accordingly, the Board does not rely on this sale as evidence of current value.

b. With respect to 9 Lilac Lane and 277 Raby’s Shore, the Appellant did not provide information such as quality class, square footage, or site area to allow the Board to determine if these properties are in fact comfortable to the Subject Property. Further, the sales prices were not time-adjusted. Accordingly, the Board does not rely on these sales as evidence of current value.

c. With respect to the neighbouring property of 444 Front Street West, the property did not sell on or close to the statutory valuation day of January 1, 2016, or in the year preceding or following the valuation date. Instead, the Appellant asks the Board to apply the ratio of the 2020 sales value of the Subject Property to the neighbouring property’s 2020 sales value to determine the value of the Subject Property. The Board does not accept this approach – the Board requires market-tested sales evidence at or near the valuation day to determine current value.

d. With respect to the list of comparable properties that the Appellant said he obtained from MPAC that are based on actual sales near the valuation day, the Appellant did not provide information such as quality class, square footage, year built, or site area to allow the Board to determine if these properties are in fact comfortable to the Subject Property. Further, the sales prices were not time-adjusted. Accordingly, the Board does not rely on these sales as evidence of current value.

20In considering the proposed comparable sales submitted by MPAC, the Board does not rely on Sale 2 on the basis that it has a significantly larger site area than the Subject Property.

21The Board finds that MPAC’s proposed comparable Property Sales 1, 3, and 4 are the most similar proposed comparable sales to the Subject Property. The median time-adjusted sale price of these properties is $867,744.

22The 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 the current value is required.

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?

23Section 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

24The Appellant did not provide separate evidence on this issue. The Appellant relies on his evidence respecting the current value of the Subject Property.

MPAC

25MPAC 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 of 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.

26MPAC relies on the sales of 30 single-family detached residential properties (on water), with a Property Code 313: Single Family Detached On Water and Property Code 391: Seasonal/Recreational Dwelling - First Tier On Water, that sold between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2016 within four kilometres of the Subject Property. MPAC testified that the analysis reveals an ASR of 1.04, 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

27The Board does not accept the Appellant’s proposed equitable current value of between $500,000 and $600,000, nor does it rely on the Appellant’s proposed comparable properties to determine whether an equitable adjustment should be applied, for the following reasons:

a. As outlined above, the Appellant has not adjusted sale prices for the proposed properties, such that the Board cannot determine an ASR using these properties.

b. The Appellant has not provided sufficient evidence regarding the particulars of these proposed similar properties for the Board to determine whether they are sufficiently similar to the Subject Property for the purposes of relying on their assessed values as reflective of the equitable current value. The Board does not have sufficient information to confirm whether these properties are sufficiently similar to the Subject Property for the purposes of an equity analysis. The Board also prefers a larger sample size in an equity analysis to determine if there is a trend of underassessment of similar properties in the vicinity.

c. The Appellant’s determination of the ratio of the 2020 sales value of the Subject Property compared to the neighbour’s property’s 2020 sale value and application of this ratio to his neighbour’s assessed value to determine the assessed value of his property uses the non-time adjusted sales values of a single property to determine to determine whether the current value should be adjusted for equity. The Board does not accept this approach – s. 44(3)(b) requires reference to the “value at which similar lands in the vicinity are assessed” (emphasis added) and the Appellant’s analysis does not demonstrate that there is a trend of similar lands in the vicinity being under-assessed.

28The Board accepts and relies on MPAC’s ASR analysis that demonstrates an ASR of 1.04. The Board finds that the ASR is a tool routinely relied on to ascertain whether a property requires an equitable adjustment.

29The Board finds that the equitable current value is $867,000 (rounded).

CONCLUSION

30The Board has found that the correct value of the Subject Property is $867,000 (rounded) and that no reduction of this value is required pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act.

31Therefore, the Board finds that the current value of the Subject Property for the taxation years 2024 and 2025 is $867,000 (rounded).

ORDER

32The current value of the Subject Property for the taxation years 2024 and 2025 is $867,000 (rounded).