Khaled Q A M Ferdaus and Monowara Begum v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 13 and Town of Ajax, 2025 CanLII 91060

Tribunals Ontario

Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: September 03, 2025

FILE NO.: WR 188992

Assessed Person(s): Khaled Q A M Ferdaus; Monowara Begum

Appellant(s): Khaled Q A M Ferdaus; Monowara Begum

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 13

Respondent(s): Town of Ajax

Property Location(s): 133 Sharplin Drive

Municipality(ies): Town of Ajax

Roll Number(s): 1805-040-018-05275-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3528483, 3528498 and 3535014

Taxation Year(s): 2023, 2024 and 2025

Hearing Event No.: 786892

Legislative Authority: Sections 34, 36 and 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel/Representative

Khaled Q A M Ferdaus; Monowara Begum

Self-represented

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation

Kyle Booth

Town of Ajax

No one appeared

HEARD: April 29, 2025 by video conference

ADJUDICATOR(S): Anita Lovrich, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1Khaled Q A M Ferdaus (the “Appellant”) is the owner of the property located at 133 Sharplin Drive (the “Subject Property”), and filed an appeal pursuant to s. 34 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”) effective March 21, 2023. The ground of this appeal 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. Pursuant to the deeming provision under s.40(28) of the Act, appeals have been deemed for the 2024 and 2025 taxation years.

2The Appellant says the assessment is too high and asks the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) to reduce the value of the annual assessment to $550,000.

3MPAC is responding to these appeals. MPAC submits that the correct current value is $716,000, and that an equitable adjustment is necessary. It states that the current value, adjusted for equity, is $651,000.

4The Town of Ajax is also a party to this appeal but did not participate in the hearing.

Areas of Agreement

5The parties agreed that:

The s. 34 effective date is March 21, 2023.

Issues for the Hearing

6At issue in this proceeding is:

What is the current value of the Subject Property as of the statutory valuation day of January 1, 2016?; and
Is the current value equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity and, if not, is an equitable adjustment required?

Result

7For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that:

The current value as reflected on the s. 40 assessment is $719,000.
The current value as reflected on the s. 34 assessment is $484,000, with an effective date of March 21, 2023. The effective date is confirmed as March 21, 2023.
The Board also finds that there is 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 finds that the equitable current value is $654,000 (rounded) as reflected on the s. 40 assessment, and $440,000 (rounded) as reflected on the s. 34 assessment.

ANALYSIS

Description of Subject Property

8The Subject Property is a two-storey detached residential dwelling. It was built in 2023 and has a total building area of 2,909 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.

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 six 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

Property Address

133 Sharplin Drive (Subject Property)

113 Sharplin Drive

5 Moynahan Crescent

6 Moynahan Crescent

10 Holloway Drive

814 Audley Road South

8 Moynahan Crescent

Sale Date

20150702

20160712

20150731

20150102

20161212

20150827

Time Adjusted Sale Amount

$719,530

$640,983

$719,530

$645,522

$754,250

$725,560

Effective Site Area (Acres)

0.1

0.09

0.1

0.08

0.13

Year Built

2023

2014

2004

Full Storeys

Quality of Construction

6.5

Building Total Area (Sq. Ft.)

2,909

2,582

2,508

3,139

2,434

2,508

Secondary Structures

Attached Garage

(116) Attached Garage

13MPAC testified that the land value of the Subject Property was valued at $235,000 prior to the supplementary assessment being added. It testified that the current value of the Subject Property should be $716,000 (including land value and the value of the new structure as per the supplementary assessment). MPAC states that the time-adjusted sales values of its proposed comparable sales range from $615,000 to $727,000 and $716,000 was determined to be reasonable as it fell within that range.

Appellant

14The Appellant submits as follows:

a. In May 2023, 142 Sharplin Drive sold for $1,500,000. According to the listing description, the property included over $350,000 in builder upgrades, significantly contributing to its market value.

b. Given the lack of $150,000 worth of premium lot and $350,000 in upgrades in the Subject Property, a reasonable adjustment for the Subject Property would be a reduction of $500,000 in comparison to 142 Sharplin Drive to account for the absence of premium features and extensive upgrades in the Subject Property.

c. The ratio of MPAC’s assessed value of 142 Sharplin Drive to the 2023 sale price of 142 Sharplin Drive is 45.3%

d. Applying this ratio to the adjusted 2023 sale value of the Subject Property (which he estimated was $1,000,000 when the differences in features between the Subject Property and 142 Sharplin Drive are accounted for) amounts to an equitable valuation of $450,000.

Findings on Issue 1

15The Board does not accept the Appellant’s proposed current value of $450,000, nor does it rely on the Appellant’s proposed comparable properties to determine current value of the Subject Property, as the Board requires market-tested sales evidence at or near the valuation day. Neither proposed comparable from the Appellant sold on or close to the statutory valuation day of January 1, 2016, or in the year preceding or following that date. Accordingly, the Board does not rely on the Appellant’s proposed comparables to determine the correct current value.

16MPAC’s proposed comparable sales were the only market-tested sales evidence with sales near the valuation day before the Board. The Board accepts and relies on MPAC’s proposed comparable properties, as they all sold near the valuation day, are of similar size and similar quality of construction. The median time-adjusted sale price of the six comparables is $719,530. The Board therefore finds that the current value is $719,000 (rounded).

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?

17 Section 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

18The Appellant did not provide separate evidence on this issue. He relied on his evidence respecting the current value of the Subject Property.

MPAC

19MPAC 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.

20MPAC relies on the sales of 30 two-storey single-family detached residential properties (not on water) that sold between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2016 within 5 kilometres of the Subject Property, that had a total square footage of 2,400 to 3,000 square feet, were built between 2004 and 2016, were between 0.09 acres to 0.13 acres. MPAC testified that the analysis reveals an ASR of 0.91, which means that an equitable reduction is required to make the assessments of the Subject Property equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity.

Findings on Issue 2

21The Board does not accept the Appellant’s proposed equitable current value of $450,000 nor does it rely on the Appellant’s equity analysis to determine whether an equitable adjustment should be applied, for the following reasons:

a. An equity analysis considers whether there is a trend of underassessment of similar properties in the vicinity of the Subject Property. The Subject Property, like other similar properties in the vicinity, has been assessed as of January 1, 2016.

b. An ASR analysis that compares assessments to sale prices should do so as of a single date. If an assessment is made as of the legislated valuation day, the sale prices in the ASR analysis must be time-adjusted to that date as well to accurately compare assessment values to sales values. At that point, if the equity analysis demonstrates that there is a trend of under-assessment, this may lead to an equity adjustment to a property’s current value.

c. The Appellant’s equity analysis compares assessment values which have been assessed as of January 1, 2016 with sale values from 2023. Comparing assessments as of 2016 with sale prices as of 2023, which have not been time-adjusted to January 1, 2016, would not provide an accurate determination of whether similar properties in the vicinity have been under-assessed as of the legislative valuation day.

22MPAC’s equity study time-adjusted the sales values of the 30 properties in the study to January 1, 2016 to provide a determination of whether similar properties in the vicinity have been under-assessed as of the legislative valuation day. Further, MPAC considered properties that are within 5 kilometres of the Subject Property, that had a total square footage of 2,400 to 3,000 square feet, were built between 2004 and 2016, were between 0.09 acres to 0.13 acres, which ensures that many points of similarity are taken into account. The Board finds that ASR is a tool routinely relied on to ascertain whether a property requires an equitable adjustment. Furthermore, MPAC provided a representative sample size, which is preferred and will reveal if there is a general trend of under-assessment of similar lands in the vicinity.

23The Board finds that an equitable reduction is appropriate in the circumstances, as follows:

a) Section 40: Current value of $484,000 x ASR of 0.91 = $440,440

b) Section 34: Current value of $719,000 x ASR of 0.91 = $654,290

24The Board finds that the equitable current value is $654,000 (rounded) as reflected on the s. 40 assessment, and $440,000 (rounded) as reflected on the s. 34 assessment.

CONCLUSION

25The current value as reflected on the s. 40 assessment is $719,000.

26The current value as reflected on the s. 34 assessment is $484,000, with an effective date of March 21, 2023. The effective date is confirmed as March 21, 2023.

27The Board also finds that there is 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 finds that the equitable current value is $654,000 (rounded) as reflected on the s. 40 assessment, and $440,000 (rounded) as reflected on the s. 34 assessment.

ORDER

28The current value of the Subject Property for the taxation years 2024 and 2025 is is $654,000.

29The s. 34 supplementary assessment value is $440,000. The effective date is confirmed as March 21, 2023.

"Anita Lovrich"

ANITA LOVRICH

MEMBER

Assessment Review Board

Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb```