Tribunals Ontario
Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario
Assessment
Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE:
August 27, 2025
FILE NO.:
WR 188698
Assessed Person(s):
Suzanne Benoit; Richard John Wayne Hess
Appellant(s):
Suzanne Benoit
Respondent(s):
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 01
Respondent(s):
South Dundas Municipality
Property Location(s):
12301 Saving Street
Municipality(ies):
South Dundas Municipality
Roll Number(s):
0506-001-007-76225-0000
Appeal Number(s):
3529955 and 3534364
Taxation Year(s):
2024 and 2025
Hearing Event No.:
788101
Legislative Authority:
Sections 36 and 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel/Representative
Suzanne Benoit
Self-represented
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
Cory Leclerc
South Dundas Municipality
No one appeared
HEARD:
June 20, 2025 by video conference
ADJUDICATOR(S):
Anita Lovrich, Member
DECISION
OVERVIEW
1Suzanne Benoit (the “Appellant”) brought an appeal before the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) relating to assessments of 12301 Saving Street in South Dundas Municipality (the “Subject Property”)”
2The Subject Property was assessed pursuant to s. 36 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”) at $358,000 for the 2024 and 2025 taxation years. It is the Appellant’s position that these assessed values are too high, and the Board should reduce them to reflect a total current value of $240,000.
3The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) is responding to these appeals. MPAC takes the position that the current value of the Subject Property is $362,000, however MPAC is requesting the Board to confirm the assessment at $358,000, as per the returned assessment.
4A representative for South Dundas Municipality attended the hearing but did not make submissions or otherwise participate in the proceeding.
Issues for the Hearing
5At issue in this proceeding is:
A determination of the current value of the Subject Property.
Whether an equity reduction in the current value should be made.
Result
6For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that the current value of the Subject Property is $362,000 (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 of the Subject Property is $362,000 (rounded) in the residential property class.
ANALYSIS
Description of Subject Property
8The Subject Property is a one-storey single family detached residential dwelling with two bedrooms and 1,873 total building area. It was built in 2004 and has a quality class of 6.5.
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 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 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
Address
12301 SAVING ST
5599 PARLOW RD
10689 ENGLISH RD
12855 COUNTY RD 13
1291 LAFORTUNE DR
1275 LAFORTUNE DR
Distance in km
15.3658
16.2686
18.2152
18.4889
18.7473
Valuation
Current Value Assessment
$389,000
$337,000
$343,000
$338,000
$342,000
$343,000
Sale
Sale Date
2016/11/25
2016/04/28
2016/08/31
2016/07/12
2015/07/03
Sale Amount
$335,000
$357,000
$435,000
$366,000
$365,900
Time Adjusted Sale Amount
329,627
355,123
430,753
362,939
370,255
Time Adjusted Sale Ratio
1.02
0.96
0.78
0.94
0.92
Site
Effective Site Area (Acres)
0.5
2.01
1.04
1.5
0.99
Actual Site Area (Acres)
1
0.5
2.09
1.04
1.5
0.99
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
(301) Single-Family Detached
Year Built
2004
2006
2006
2007
2007
2005
Effective Year Built
2004
2006
2006
2007
2007
2005
Structure Condition Code
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Quality of Construction
6.5
7
7
6.5
6.5
6.5
Full Storeys
1 Storey
1 Storey
1 Storey
1 Storey
1 Storey
1 Storey
Split level
No Split
No Split
No Split
No Split
No Split
No Split
Bedrooms
2
3
2
3
3
3
Subject Property
Property 1
Property 2
Property 3
Property 4
Property 5
Baths
2.5
2.5
2
2
2
2
Fireplaces
1
1
Air Conditioning
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Heating Type
Forced Air
Forced Air
Forced Air
Forced Air
Forced Air
Forced Air
Driveway
Separate or Private Driveway
Separate or Private Driveway
Separate or Private Driveway
Separate or Private Driveway
Separate or Private Driveway
Separate or Private Driveway
Building Total Area (SF)
1,873
1,662
1,652
1,745
1,546
1,543
First Floor Area (SF)
1873
1662
1652
1745
1546
1543
Basement Area (SF)
1,873
945
1,808
1,745
1,546
1,334
Finished Basement Area (SF)
1404
Basement Height
8
9
8.5
8
8
8
Modifications
Secondary Structure(s) Structure Description
(116) Attached Garage
(116) Attached Garage
(116) Attached Garage
(116) Attached Garage
(116) Attached Garage
(116) Attached Garage
Year Built
2004
2006
2006
2007
2007
2005
Building Total Area (SF)
521
874
842
893
488
520
Quality of Construction
3
4
4
3
3
3
Structure Description
(101) Detached Garage
Year Built
1985
Building Total Area (SF)
240
13MPAC testified as follows:
a. Sale 1: 5599 Parlow Road is similar to the Subject Property. It has a higher quality of construction. It also has a larger garage. However, it has only 945 square feet of basement. MPAC testified that it is similar to the Subject Property as the living space and lot size balance out the quality of construction and appearance.
b. Sale 2: 10689 English Road is considered to be superior to the Subject Property. It has a larger lot and a higher quality of construction. It is only 200 square feet smaller than the Subject Property.
c. Sale 3: 12855 County Road 13, is considered to be superior to the Subject Property. It is similar in age and square footage but the quality of construction of comparable is superior.
d. Sale 4: 1291 Lafortune Drive, is considered to be inferior to the Subject Property. It is similar in year built and quality of construction but is over 327 square feet smaller.
e. Sale 5: 1275 Lafortune Drive, is considered to be inferior to the Subject Property. It is similar in year built and quality of construction but is over 330 square feet smaller.
14MPAC testified that none of the comparables have any assessed finished basement area.
15MPAC stated that the mean time-adjusted sale amount of these five most comparable sales is $369,000 while the median is $362,000. MPAC submits that the correct current value of the Subject Property is $362,000. However, it is asking the Board to confirm the returned assessed value of $358,000.
16MPAC argued that the Appellant’s proposed comparable that she is basing her current value on, 11908 Toye Hill Road, is 155 years old while the Subject Property was built in 2004. It states that the assessed value of 11908 Toye Hill Road does not take into account renovations that were subsequently conducted on the property.
Appellant
17The Appellant testified that all of MPAC’s proposed comparable properties are aesthetically superior and have superior features such as paved driveways, brick exterior, and two car garages, as compared to the Subject Property. The Appellant testified that MPAC states that the Subject Property has a quality class is 6.5 but she believes that it is more accurately a quality class of between 4 and 5 as it has a vinyl exterior as opposed to a brick exterior, minimal landscaping, low grade laminate floors, no paved driveway and has septic and well water, minimal small closets, the electrical work needs to be upgraded, and only one car fits in the garage.
18She stated that MPAC should have conducted interior inspection of its proposed comparables but failed to do so.
19The Appellant filed evidence regarding a number of properties including the following information:
4972 County Road 31 Bank Street: Quality Class 6.5 yet the assessment value is less. It was built in 2019. It has a bigger property. It is newer and sold for $495,000.
11908 Toye Hill Road: Quality Class 6. Assessment value is $240,000. Sold for $254,000 in 2016 and is now up for sale for $599,900 (the Appellant testified that at the hearing that it was renovated in 2023). It has a six-car detached garage. It is an older house, the detached garage is as big as the Subject Property and was newly renovated, sold for $600,000 and was assessed at 240,000.
12416 Barkley Road: Quality Class 6. Assessment value is $282,000 Sold in June 2022 for $505,000.
20The Appellant provided printouts of MPAC’s “My Neighbourhood – My Favourites” with comparisons of the Subject Property to eight of its neighbours along with their descriptions and assessed values. The proposed sale she relied on was 11908 Toye Hill Road which was the only proposed sale near the valuation day. 11908 Toye Hill Road, which sold for $254,000 in 2016, was renovated in 2023, and is assessed at $240,000. She testified that, although it is an older home, it is newly renovated. She submits that the Subject Property should be assessed at the same value as 11908 Toye Hill Road.
Subject Property
11908 Toye Hill Road
Current assessment value
$358,000
$240,000
Sale date
n/a
June 2016
Sale amount
n/a
$254,000
Site area (acres)
1
1.79
Effective site area
0
86,972 Sq. Ft.
Effective frontage (feet)
200.05
408.32
Effective depth (feet)
216.11
213
Year built
2004
1870
Construction quality
6.5
6
Full storeys
1
1
Partial storeys
No partial storeys
3/4 storey
Building - exterior square footage (square feet)
1,873
1,895
Basement area (square feet)
1,873
1,398
Findings on Issue 1
21The Board does not accept the Appellant’s proposed equitable current value of $240,000 nor does it rely on the Appellant’s proposed comparable properties to determine whether an equitable adjustment should be applied, for the following reasons:
With respect to the Appellant’s evidence titled ‘My Neighbourhood – My Favourites”, a number of the properties listed did not have sales associated with them. The Board requires market-tested sales evidence near the valuation day to determine current value. Out of those that did have sales listed, most did not have sales near the valuation day. The only sale near the valuation day was 11908 Toye Hill Road.
11908 Toye Hill Road sold for $254,000 in 2016 and is assessed at $240,000. The Board notes that this property was constructed in 1870, and it was not renovated at the time of its 2016 sale, whereas the Subject Property was built in 2004. It is a one-and-three-quarter-storey dwelling whereas the Subject Property is a one-storey building and has more than twice the effective frontage of the Subject Property. The Board finds that, on the evidence before the Board, 11908 Toye Hill Road is not comparable to the Subject Property. As a result, the Board does not rely on this sale.
The Board finds that MPAC’s five proposed comparable properties are sufficiently comparable to the Subject Property for the purpose of determining current value using the direct comparison valuation methodology. All are single-storey residential dwellings. All sales occurred within sufficient proximity to the valuation day, and the sale prices were appropriately adjusted for time. The structures are of the same or very comparable quality of construction and similar size and age.
The Board finds that the current value of the Subject Property is best determined based on the median adjusted sale price of MPAC’s five comparable properties. The Board finds that, based on the best evidence before the Board, the current value of the Subject Property is $362,000.
The Board therefore finds that the current value is $362,000.
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?
22Section 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
23The Appellant did not provide separate evidence on this issue. She relies on her evidence respecting the current value of the Subject Property.
MPAC
24MPAC 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.
25MPAC relies on the sales of 30 single-family detached residential properties (not on water) that sold between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2016 within 20 kilometres of the Subject Property. MPAC testified that the analysis reveals an ASR of 1.00 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
26The Board does not accept the Appellant’s proposed equitable current value of $240,000 nor does it rely on the Appellant’s proposed comparable properties to determine whether an equitable adjustment should be applied, for the following reason:
a. the Appellant relies on the sale and assessment of a single property, 11908 Toye Hill Road, to determine the correct current value assessment. 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.
27The Board accepts and relies on MPAC’s ASR analysis that demonstrates an ASR of 1.00. The Board finds that the ASR is a tool routinely relied on to ascertain whether a property requires an equitable adjustment.
28The Board finds that no equitable adjustment is necessary in the circumstances.
CONCLUSION
29The Board has found that the correct value of the Subject Property is $362,000 (rounded) and that no reduction of this value is required pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act.
30Therefore, the Board finds that the current value of the Subject Property for the taxation years 2024 and 2025 is $362,000 (rounded).
ORDER
31The current value of the Subject Property for the taxation years 2024 and 2025 is $362,000 (rounded).