Tribunals Ontario
Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario
Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE:
August 28, 2025
FILE NO.:
WR 188250
Assessed Person(s):
Jamil Muhammad Faisal
Appellant(s):
Jamil Muhammad Faisal
Respondent(s):
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 15
Respondent(s):
City of Mississauga
Property Location(s):
19 Maldaver Avenue
Municipality(ies):
City of Mississauga
Roll Number(s):
2105-130-008-14100-0000
Appeal Number(s):
3523100, 3525542 and 3535283
Taxation Year(s):
2023, 2024 and 2025
Hearing Event No.:
786869
Legislative Authority:
Sections 34, 36 and 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel/Representative
Jamil Muhammad Faisal
Self-represented
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
Tanya Janeczek-Boyle
City of Mississauga
No one appeared
HEARD:
March 25, 2025 by video conference
ADJUDICATOR(S):
Anita Lovrich, Member
DECISION
OVERVIEW
1Jamil Muhammad Faisal (the “Appellant”) is the owner of the property located at 19 Maldaver Avenue (the “Subject Property”) and has filed an appeal pursuant to s. 34 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”) for the supplementary assessment for the 2023 taxation year and an appeal relating to the returned current value for the annual assessment for the 2024 taxation year. The basis of these appeals is that the current value of the Subject Property, which was determined by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”), is too high and therefore, is incorrect.
2The Appellant has brought appeals before the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) relating to a s. 34 supplementary assessment of $1,309,000 with the effective date of September 28, 2023 related to the completion of a new single family residence on the Subject Property. The returned current value for the Subject Property is $1,995,000 for the annual assessment for the 2024 taxation year. 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.
3The Appellant asks the Board to reduce the assessments of the s. 34 supplementary assessment to between $1,100,000 and $1,1200,000 and between $1,500,000 and $1,600,000 for the annual 2024 taxation year.
4MPAC confirms that its assessment for the s. 34 supplementary assessment is based on the erection of a new single family dwelling on the Subject Property, and, therefore, MPAC states that it has the authority to issue its assessment pursuant to s. 34(1)(a) of the Act.
5The City of Mississauga (the “Municipality”) is a party to this appeal proceeding but did not make submissions or otherwise participate in the proceeding.
Issues for the Hearing
6At issue in this proceeding is:
What is the current value of the Subject Property?
What is the effective date of the s. 34 supplementary assessment?
Is a reduction of current value required pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act?
Result
7For the reasons that follow, the Board finds:
The increase in value with respect to the s. 34 supplementary assessment is $1,262,000 (rounded).The current value as reflected on the annual assessments for the 2024 and 2025 taxation years is $1,948,000 (rounded).
The effective date of the s. 34 supplementary assessment is September 28, 2023.
A reduction of current value pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) is not required.
ANALYSIS
Description of Subject Property
8The Subject Property is a two-storey residential dwelling not on water. It has a total building area of 4,401 square feet.
Issue 1 – What is the Current Value of the Subject Property?
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 applicable valuation day. As stated above, the valuation day for the increase in value resulting from an improvement pursuant to s. 34 is the day that the improvement commenced to be used.
11The best evidence of current value would be the sale of the Subject Property on or close to the applicable valuation day. 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
MPAC
12MPAC provided evidence regarding the sale of two properties that sold near the valuation day of January 1, 2016. MPAC performed a time adjustment to reflect what these properties would have sold for on January 1, 2016:
Table 1
Subject Property
Property #1
Property #2
Roll Number
210513000814100
210506015323960
210506015334413
Address
19 MALDAVER AVE
3353 CIDER MILL PL
1949 LAPAD CRT
Neighbourhood
C68 – 131
B74 – 125
B72 - 125
Property Code & Desc.
(301) Single-Family Detached (Not On Water)
(301) Single-Family Detached (Not On Water)
(301) Single-Family Detached (Not On Water)
Distance in km
4.9881
4.1587
Valuation
Current Value Assessment
$1,995,000
$2,420,000
$1,915,000
Sale
Sale Date
20160510
20150116
Sale Amount
$2,265,000
$1,500.000
Time Adjusted Sale Amount
$2,142,690
$1,755,000
Rate per sqft
450.144958
451.3888889
Site
Effective Site Area (Acres)
0.26
0.21
0.25
Residential Structure
Structure Code & Desc.
(301) Single-Family Detached
(301) Single-Family Detached
(301) Single-Family Detached
Year Built
2023
2014
2002
Effective Year Built
2023
2014
2002
Quality of Construction
8.5
8.5
8.5
Full Storeys
2 Storeys
2 Storeys
2 Storeys
Bedrooms
5
5
4
Baths
5.5
6.5
4.5
Building Total Area (SF)
4,401
4,760
3,888
First Floor Area (SF)
2147
2117
1944
Second Floor Area (SF)
2254
2643
1944
Basement Area (SF)
2,594
2,117
1,944
Finished Basement Area (SF)
2,275
1,905
Secondary Structure(s)
Structure Description
(116) Attached Garage
(116) Attached Garage
(121) Basement Garage
Year Built
2023
2014
2002
Building Total Area (SF)
421
509
565
13MPAC testified that its comparables were chosen on the basis of age, size, location, lot size, and quality of construction. It testified as follows:
Sale Comparable #1, 3353 Cider Mill Place: This property is located 4.9 km away from the Subject Property. The lot size of this property is 0.05 acres smaller than the Subject Property. The structure of this property was built in 2014, It is the same quality class as the Subject Property at 8.5. It is a two-storey home, with an attached garage. Its total building area is 4,760 square feet, which is 359 square feet larger than the Subject Property. This property has one more full bath than the Subject Property, and, like the Subject Property, has a finished basement. This property sold on May 10th, 2016, for $2,265,000 or a time-adjusted sale price of $2,142,690. The time-adjusted rate per square foot of this property is $450.14.
Sale Comparable #2, 1949 Lapad Court: This property is located 4.1 km away from the Subject Property. The lot size of this property is 0.01 acres smaller than the Subject Property. The structure of this property was built in 2002, it is twenty-one years older than the Subject Property. It is the same quality class as the Subject Property at 8.5. It, like the Subject Property, is a two-storey home. Unlike the Subject Property, it has a basement garage. Its total building area is 3,888 square feet, which is 513 square feet smaller than the Subject Property. This property has one less full bath than the Subject Property, and, unlike the Subject Property, does not have a finished basement on file. This property sold on January 16th, 2015, for $1,500,000 or a time-adjusted sale price of $1,755,000. The time-adjusted rate per square foot of this property is $451.38.
14MPAC testified that the median time adjusted sale price per square foot of MPAC’s sales comparables is $450.76. When one applies this rate to the square footage of the Subject Property (4,401 square feet) this amounts to $1,983,794. MPAC testified that the land value of the Subject Property is $686,000 and when this is subtracted from $1,983,794, the current value of the newly erected improvement, pursuant to s.34 is $1,297,794.
15Therefore, MPAC submits that the current value of the improvement, as per the s. 34 supplementary assessment is $1,297,794 and the current value that should be reflected on the annual assessments for 2024 and 2025 is $1,983,794 ($1,297,794 added to the land value of $686,000).
16MPAC testified that the Appellant’s proposed comparables had no sales near the statutory valuation day of January 1, 2016, their sale prices were not time-adjusted to that date, were not of the same quality class, had smaller lots, were older, and some of residences were smaller in size. It submits that the Appellant presented no meaningful analysis to determine the Subject Property’s current value.
17MPAC stated that the sale prices of two of the sales adduced by the Appellant were for structures that have been demolished and not the new homes on the land.
Appellant
18The Appellant testified that MPAC’s proposed comparables are larger, have superior features, and are in superior neighborhoods. He testified that 3353 Cider Mill Place is larger than the Subject Property and has an extra bathroom and superior features as well as being located in a superior neighbourhood. He submits that MPAC should have made adjustments to account for these differences.
19The Appellant presented four properties as comparable to the Subject Property. The Appellant only provided the property addresses as follows:
a. 23 de Jong Drive, Mississauga.
b. 15 de Jong Drive Mississauga.
c. 20 Dora Drive, Mississauga.
d. 106 Vista Boulevard, Mississauga.
Table 2
Subject Property
Property #1
Property #2
Property#3
Property #4
Roll Number
210513000814100
210513000715100
210513000715500
210513000801800
210513000811500
Address
19 MALDAVER AVE
23 DE JONG DR
15 DE JONG DR
20SORA DR
106 VISTA BLVD
Neighbourhood
C68 – 131
C68 – 131
C68 – 131
C68 – 131
C68 – 131
Property Code & Desc.
(301) Single-Family Detached (Not On Water)
(301) Single-Family Detached (Not On Water)
(301) Single-Family Detached (Not On Water)
(301) Single-Family Detached (Not On Water)
(301) Single-Family Detached (Not On Water)
Distance in km
0.3692
0.3759
0.1823
0.4098
Valuation
Current Value Assessment
$1,995,000
$1,542,000
$1,404,000
$1,220,000
$1,332,000
Sale
381.872214
324.8496067
412.3014532
436.1493124
Sale Date
20180724
20110729
20210226
20121231
Sale Amount
$899,000
$1,165,000
$2,040,000
$460,000
Time Adjusted Sale Amount
$711,618
$1,566,663
$1,304,013
$573,720
Sale Amount details
Sale amount was for the previous house that was demolished
Sale amount was for the previous house that was demolished
Site
$1,680,620
$1,814,539
$1,919,493
Effective Site Area (Acres)
0.26
0.23
0.21
0.17
0.19
Actual Site Area (Acres)
0.26
0.2
0.19
0.17
0.21
Residential Structure
Year Built
2023
2020
2010
2020
2018
Effective Year Built
2023
2020
2010
2020
2018
Quality of Construction
8.5
8
7
8
8
Full Storeys
2 Storeys
2 Storeys
2 Storeys
2 Storeys
2 Storeys
Baths
5.5
5.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Building Total Are (SF)
4,401
4038
4,322
2,959
3054
Basement Area (SF)
2,275
1657
1,900
1,058
1353
Modifications
Secondary Structure(s)
Structure Description
(116) Attached Garage
(116) Attached Garage
(116) Attached Garage
(116) Attached Garage
(116) Attached Garage
Year Built
2023
2020
2010
2020
2018
Building Total Area (SF)
421
435
460
409
485
Structure Description
(108) Outdoor Pool
(108) Outdoor Pool
Year Built
2017
2018
Building Total Area (SF)
512
562
20He testified that the current value of the Subject Property should be between $1,500,000 and $1,600,000 based on the values of custom homes in the neighborhood of the Subject Property but did not provide a more detailed analysis. He testified that he estimated that the land value should be approximately $400,000.
Findings on Issue 1
21The Board does not accept the Appellant’s proposed current value of between $1,500,000 and $1,600,000 as two of the proposed comparables adduced by the Appellant have sales price that relates to homes that have been demolished and the Board has no evidence of the characteristics of the home at the time it was sold, and the rest of the proposed comparables are of lower quality of construction and smaller when compared to the Subject Property.
22The Board finds that MPAC’s two proposed comparable properties are sufficiently comparable to the Subject Property for the purpose of determining current value using the Direct Comparison Approach valuation methodology. They are both within five kilometres from the Subject Property. The structures and site areas of both proposed comparables are similar to those of the Subject Property. The structures are of the same or very comparable quality of construction. Although MPAC used the valuation day of January 1, 2016 and time-adjusted the sale prices to that date, MPAC’s proposed sales are the best evidence before the Board in these appeals.
23The Board finds that the current value of the Subject Property is best determined based on the median adjusted sale price of MPAC’s two comparable properties. The Board finds that, based on the best evidence before the Board, the current value of the Subject Property is $1,948,845 (the median between the time-adjusted sale prices of $2,142,690 and $1,755,000.) The Board accepts that the land value is $686,000 as this was the best evidence before the Board as the Appellant’s estimate of value was an unsubstantiated estimate.
24As a result, the Board finds that the increase in value with respect to the s. 34 supplementary assessment is $1,262,845 ($1,948,845 less $686,000). The Board also finds that the current value as reflected on the annual assessments for the 2024 and 2025 taxation years is $1,948,845.
Issue 2: What is the Correct Effective Date of the Supplementary Assessment?
MPAC
25MPAC testified that it estimated the effective date of the supplementary assessment as September 28, 2023 on the basis of building permits that were taken out and an inspector’s visit to the Subject Property. MPAC stated that this was the date that the new dwelling commenced to be used.
Appellant
26The Appellant testified that he received the occupancy permit on September 28, 2023 and that this is the correct effective date.
Findings on Issue 2
27The Board accepts the uncontested evidence that the correct effective date for the s. 34 supplementary assessment is September 28, 2023. As the Board has found under Issue 1, this is also the valuation day for determining the increase in the Subject Property’s value.
Issue 3 - Is a reduction of Current Value required pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act?
Applicable Law
28Section 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
29The Appellant did not provide separate evidence on this issue. The Appellant relies on his evidence respecting the current value of the Subject Property.
MPAC
30MPAC 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.
31MPAC relies on the sales of 30 single-family detached residential properties (on water) two-storey homes that sold between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2016 within one kilometre of the Subject Property. MPAC testified that the analysis reveals an ASR of 0.96, 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 3
32The Board does not rely on the Appellant’s proposed comparable properties to determine whether an equitable adjustment should be applied. The Appellant has not provided an equity analysis apart from its submission that the current value should be somewhere between $1,500,000 and $1,600,000.
33The Board accepts and relies on MPAC’s ASR analysis that demonstrates an ASR of 0.96. The analysis is uncontested by the Appellant, and the Board finds that the ASR is a tool routinely relied on to ascertain whether a property requires an equitable adjustment.
34The Board accepts and relies on MPAC’s ASR analysis using 30 properties that demonstrates an ASR of 0.96. The Board finds that the ASR is a tool routinely relied on to ascertain whether a property requires an equitable adjustment and an ASR from a reasonable sample of sold properties is usually a good indicator for determining whether an equitable adjustment is required.
35The 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 reduce the Subject Property’s current value is required.
CONCLUSION
36The Board finds that:
The increase in value with respect to the s. 34 supplementary assessment is $1,262,000 (rounded).
The current value as reflected on the annual assessments for the 2024 and 2025 taxation years is $1,948,000 (rounded).
The effective date of the s. 34 supplementary assessment is September 28, 2023.
A reduction of current value pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) is not required.
ORDER
37The Board orders that:
The s. 34 supplementary assessment is reduced to $1,262,000 (rounded).
The current value as reflected on the annual assessments for the 2024 and 2025 taxation years is reduced to $1,948,000 (rounded).
The effective date of the s. 34 supplementary assessment is September 28, 2023.