Tribunals Ontario
Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario
Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE:
September 18, 2025
FILE NO.:
WR 189046
Assessed Person(s):
Sinisa Jolic; Sanja Todorovic
Appellant(s):
Sinisa Jolic; Sanja Todorovic
Respondent(s):
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 09
Respondent(s):
City of Toronto
Property Location(s):
227 Glendonwynne Road
Municipality(ies):
City of Toronto
Roll Number(s):
1904-013-290-04900-0000
Appeal Number(s):
3530064 and 3534789
Taxation Year(s):
2024 and 2025
Hearing Event No.:
788571
Legislative Authority:
Sections 36 and 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel/Representative
Sinisa Jolic; Sanja Todorovic
Self-represented
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
Erin Comeau
City of Toronto
No one appeared
HEARD:
August 14, 2025 by video conference
ADJUDICATOR(S):
Anita Lovrich, Member Rema EL-Tawil, Member
DECISION
OVERVIEW
1Sinisa Jolic and Sanja Todorovic (the “Appellant”) brought an appeal before the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) relating to the assessment of 227 Glendonwynne Road in the City of Toronto (the “Subject Property”).
2The Subject Property was assessed pursuant to s. 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”) for the 2024 and 2025 taxation years. It was assessed at $1,265,000. 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 assessment (“CVA”) of between $1,185,000 to $2,000,000.
3The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) is responding to these appeals. MPAC states that the correct current value is $1,285,000, however MPAC is asking for the Board to find that the current value is $1,260,000, which is the returned value, adjusted slightly to account for a correction to the square footage.
4The City of Toronto is also a party to this appeal but did not attend the hearing or otherwise make submissions.
Issues for the Hearing
5At issue in this proceeding is:
What is the current value of the Subject Property?
Is a reduction of current value required pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act?
Result
6For the reasons that follow, the Board has found that the correct value of the Subject Property is $1,297,000 (rounded) and that no reduction of this value is required pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act.
7Therefore, the Board finds that the current value of the Subject Property for the taxation years 2024 and 2025 is $1,297,000.
ANALYSIS
Description of Subject Property
8The Subject Property is a single family detached residential dwelling with a detached garage.
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
MPAC
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. See Attachment 1 at the end of this decision.
13MPAC testified as follows:
The median non time-adjusted sales price of the proposed comparable sales is $1,285,000 which MPAC determined as the current value.
However, MPAC testified that it is only seeking a current value of $1,260,000 to account for a reduction to the square footage which led to a small adjustment to the returned assessment value.
Appellant
14The Appellant submits that the Subject Property should be assessed at a range between $1,185,000 and $2,000,000 and submits that it should be closer to $1,200,000. In support of this position, the Appellant provided evidence regarding seven proposed comparable properties. The Appellant requested to exclude Property #2 from evidence and would not be relying on it.
15The Appellant presented seven comparable properties, referred to as “my favourites”, which are all assessed lower than the Subject Property despite being similar or more extensively renovated. See Attachment 2 at the end of this decision.
16The Appellant submits as follows:
That several comparable properties specifically 266 Glenlake Avenue, 619 Windermere Avenue, and 76 Mavety Street, have undergone significant renovations, including structural changes, yet remain assessed at lower values than the Subject Property.
76 Mavety Street was fully renovated between 2016 and 2022, including a new kitchen, stairs, and railing, and sold for $1.692,000, but remains assessed at $1.157,000. Similarly, 619 Windermere Ave was converted to an open-concept layout with major upgrades, and 266 Glenlake Ave was fully renovated and assessed at $1.210,000.
That these properties should be assessed at values equal to or higher than the Subject Property, and that there are inconsistencies in MPAC’s assessment practices.
17The Appellant further provided evidence regarding five proposed comparable properties that were sold or listed in the last two to three months from the hearing date and he pointed to the taxes that they were paying in 2024. He pointed to a property at 187 Clendenan which was extensively renovated and is larger than the Subject Property and stated that the property taxes levied are the same as for the Subject Property.
18The Appellant further submits:
That in the past two to three months, several nearby properties have sold or been assessed inconsistently despite having extensive renovations.
The property at 133 Deforest Road features an open-concept kitchen and extensive upgrades that was listed for $1,850,000 and their annual property tax payments for 2025 are $7,511.86.
The property at 86 Ardagh Street was extensively renovated and sold for $1,849,000, yet its taxes are only $8,000.
The property at 204 Clendenan Avenue, a smaller home located just steps away from the subject property was listed for $1,849,000 after being completely renovated including the exterior, has a tax bill of $6,531.
These examples are presented to highlight disparities in MPAC’s assessment practices and support the argument that the Subject Property has been over-assessed relative to their proposed comparable, and in some cases superior, properties in their submissions.
19The Appellant’s position is that MPAC has been late in conducting assessments across Ontario, resulting in inconsistencies. He submits that while many comparable properties remain unassessed or have been assessed at lower values due to this delay, the Appellant’s property has been assessed unfairly, in their view at a higher value. They state that some comparables are assessed to reflect renovations while others are not. They contend that similar properties should be assessed at values equal to or higher than theirs, and that MPAC’s delay has created inequities in the assessment process.
20The Appellant submits that MPAC’s proposed comparable Sale 3 is not comparable to the Subject Property, as it is superior to it and larger.
Findings on Issue 1
21The Board does not accept the Appellant’s proposed current value of $1,185,000 to $2,000,000, nor does it rely on the Appellant’s proposed comparable properties to determine current value of the Subject Property, for the following reason:
- With respect to the Appellant’s proposed comparables, none of the properties sold on or close to the statutory valuation day of January 1, 2016, or in the year preceding or following that date. Instead, the Appellant asks the Board to rely on the assessment value of these properties. The Board does not accept this approach – the Board requires market-tested sales evidence to determine current value, not assessment values. Accordingly, the Board does not rely on the Appellant’s proposed comparables.
22The only evidence of market-based sales near the valuation day was adduced by MPAC. The Board accepts and relies on MPAC’s evidence regarding proposed comparable properties. However, the Board finds that MPAC’s proposed Sales 3 and 4 are larger and higher in quality class than the Subject Property. As a result, the Board will not rely on them.
23Proposed Sales 1, 2 and 5 are all two-storey residential dwellings within 1.3 kilometres of the Subject Property. All sales occurred within sufficient proximity to the valuation day, and the sale prices were appropriately adjusted for time. The structures were all renovated. The structures are of the same or comparable size and quality of construction. The Board finds that these sales are the best evidence of current value of the Subject Property before the Board.
24Calculating the average time-adjusted sale prices of MPAC’s proposed Sales 1, 2 and 5 yields a current value of $1,297,895.
25Based on the best evidence before the Board, the Board finds that the current value of the Subject Property is $1,297,895.
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?
26Section 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
27The Appellant did not provide separate evidence on this issue. The Appellant relies on his evidence respecting the current value of the Subject Property.
MPAC
28MPAC 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.
29MPAC 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 0.6 kilometre of the Subject Property. MPAC testified that the analysis reveals an ASR of 0.98, 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
30The Board does not accept the Appellant’s proposed equitable current value of between $1,185,000 to $2,000,000, nor does it rely on the Appellant’s proposed properties to determine whether an equitable adjustment should be applied, for the following reasons:
- The Appellant has not provided properties with evidence of market-tested sales transactions at or near the valuation day, such that the Board cannot determine an ASR using these properties.
31The Board prefers and relies on MPAC’s ASR analysis that demonstrates an ASR of 0.98. The Board finds that the ASR is a tool routinely relied on to ascertain whether a property requires an equitable adjustment. Furthermore, MPAC provided a representative sample size, which will provide a general level of assessment of similar lands in the vicinity and demonstrates that there is no trend of underassessment of similar lands in the vicinity.
32The Board accepts that an ASR of 0.98 indicates that similar properties in the vicinity have been assessed at or near their current values and therefore, an equitable adjustment is not required.
33The Board finds that, when reference is made to the assessments of the most similar properties in the vicinity of the Subject Property, no downward adjustment to the current value determined is required for it to be equitable.
34The Board finds that the equitable current value is $1,297,000 (rounded).
CONCLUSION
35The Board has found that the correct value of the Subject Property is $1,297,000 (rounded) and that no reduction of this value is required pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act.
36Therefore, the Board finds that the current value of the Subject Property for the taxation years 2024 and 2025 is $1,297,000.
ORDER
37The current value of the Subject Property for the taxation years 2024 and 2025 is $1,297,000.
"Anita Lovrich"
ANITA LOVRICH
MEMBER
“Rema EL-Tawil”
REMA EL-TAWIL
MEMBER
Assessment Review Board
Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb
Attachment 1 – MPAC’s Proposed Comparable Properties and Sales Information
Subject Property
Property 1
Property 2
Property 3
Property 4
Property 5
Roll Number
1904 013 290 04900
1904 012 090 04700
1904 012 120 06800
1904 012 050 01600
1904 012 230 07100
1904 012 280 00700
Address
227 GLENDONWYNNE RD
103 COLBECK ST
310 WILLARD AVE
299 KENNEDY AVE
176 COLBECK ST
379 DURIE ST
Neighbourhood
D19 - 709
D17 - 709
D17 - 709
D19 - 709
D17 - 709
D17 - 709
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)
301 - Single-family detached (not on water)
Distance in km
0.9972
1.2556
0.7274
1.3365
0.9053
Valuation
Current Value Assessment
$1,265,000
$1,168,000
$1,139,000
$1,645,000
$1,328,000
$1,200,000
Returned Base Year
2016
2016
2016
2016
2016
2016
Sale
Sale Date
2015 12 10
2016 10 12
2015 08 25
2015 04 30
2016 11 07
Sale Amount
$1,380,800
$1,500,000
$1,660,000
$1,510,176
$1,360,000
Time Adjusted Sale Amount
$1,391,846
$1,320,000
$1,776,200
$1,721,600
$1,181,840
Site
Effective Frontage (F)
25
25
25
35
25
25
Effective Depth (F)
119
115
132
120
84
149
Effective Site Area (Sq Ft)
2,975
2,875
3,300
4,200
2,100
3,725
Abuts Variable(s)
Proximity Variable(s)
V) Prox To Green Space Or Park (Not Playground Or Sports Field)
Residential Structure
Year Built
1923
1921
1929
1905
1923
1926
Quality of Construction
7
7
6
6.5
7.5
6.5
Full Storeys
2
2
2
2
2
Building Total Area (SF)
1,438
1,441
1,445
1,892
1,722
1,522
Basement Area (SF)
719
670
787
736
789
636
Finished Basement Area (SF)
502
357
591
508
Attachment 2 - Appellant’s Proposed Comparable Properties and Sales Information
Subject Property
Property 1
Property 2
Property 3
Property 4
Roll Number
1904 013 290 04900
1904 011 600 02700
1904 012 010 00900
1904 013 330 06300
1904 012 270 02200
Property Address
227 GLENDONWYNNE RD
2 OSTEND AVE
7 ELORA RD
266 GLENLAKE AVE
619 WINDERMERE AVE
Legal Description
PLAN 996 PT LOT 21
PLAN 551 BLK N LOT 40
PLAN M501 PT LOT 172
PLAN 587 PT LOTS 1 &2
Property Description
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)
Location Identifier
D19
E04
D19
D20
D17
Municipality
CITY OF TORONTO
CITY OF TORONTO
CITY OF TORONTO
CITY OF TORONTO
CITY OF TORONTO
Valuation
Current Assessment Value
$1,265,000
$1,198,000
$1,136,000
$1,103,000
$1,066,000
Realty Tax Classes
RT $1,265,000
RT $1,198,000
RT $1,136,000
RT $1,103,000
RT $1,066,000
Returned Base Year
2016
2016
2016
2016
2016
Sale Information
Sale Date
2021 Jun
2015 Aug
No valid sales
2015 Sep
2022 Aug
Sale Amount
$1,450,000
$1,251,800
N/A
$1,068,000
$1,700,000
Site
Effective Frontage
25 Feet
25 Feet
39 Feet
17.25 Feet
24.83 Feet
Effective Depth
119 Feet
115 Feet
70 Feet
111 Feet
122 Feet
Effective Site Area
2,971 Sq. Ft.
2,875 Sq. Ft.
2,730 Sq. Ft.
1,915 Sq. Ft.
2,928 Sq. Ft.
Site Area
2,971 Sq. Ft.
2,883 Sq. Ft.
2,730 Sq. Ft.
1,915 Sq. Ft.
0.07 Acres
Structure
Year Built
1923
1922
1929
1905
1920
Construction Quality
7
7
6
6.5
6.5
Heat Type
Forced Air
Forced Air
Hot Water (boiler)
Hot Water (boiler)
Forced Air
Full Baths
2
2
1
2
2
Half Baths
0
1
1
1
1
Bedrooms
4
2
3
6
3
Full Storeys
2
2
2
2
2
Partial Storey
No part storey
No part storey
No part storey
3/4 storey
No part storey
Building - exterior square footage
1,452 Sq. Ft.
1,804 Sq. Ft.
1,445 Sq. Ft.
1,892 Sq. Ft.
1,397 Sq. Ft.
Basement Area
726 Sq. Ft.
951 Sq. Ft.
787 Sq. Ft.
736 Sq. Ft.
662 Sq. Ft.
Finished Basement Area
0 Sq. Ft.
450 Sq. Ft.
357 Sq. Ft.
562 Sq. Ft.
Attachment 2 - Appellant’s Proposed Comparable Properties and Sales Information
Subject Property
Property 5
Property 6
Property 7
Roll Number
1904 013 290 04900
1904 013 350 02800
1904 013 380 04800
1914 082 030 06800
Property Address
227 GLENDONWYNNE RD
76 MAVETY ST
384 INDIAN GROVE
634 DURIE ST
Legal Description
PLAN 996 PT LOT 21
PLAN 1495 PT LOTS 8 & 9
PLAN M66 PT LOT 6
PLAN 615 BLK C S PT LOT 71
Property Description
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)
Location Identifier
D19
D20
D21
D11
Municipality
CITY OF TORONTO
CITY OF TORONTO
CITY OF TORONTO
CITY OF TORONTO
Valuation
Current Assessment Value
$1,265,000
$1,157,000
$1,121,000
$1,126,000
Realty Tax Classes
RT $1,265,000
Returned Base Year
2016
2016
2016
2016
Sale Information
Sale Date
2021 Jun
2020 Sep
2024 Oct
2020 Sep
Sale Amount
$1,450,000
$1,692,000
$2,018,023
$1,435,000
Site
Effective Frontage
25 Feet
20 Feet
20 Feet
25 Feet
Effective Depth
119 Feet
115 Feet
131.58 Feet
148 Feet
Effective Site Area
2,971 Sq. Ft.
2,300 Sq. Ft.
2,632 Sq. Ft.
3,700 Sq. Ft.
Site Area
2,971 Sq. Ft.
2,300 Sq. Ft.
2,632 Sq. Ft.
3,700 Sq. Ft.
Structure
Year Built
1923
1918
1912
1915
Construction Quality
7
6
7
7
Heat Type
Forced Air
Forced Air
Forced Air
Forced Air
Full Baths
2
3
2
2
Half Baths
0
0
0
1
Bedrooms
4
3
2
2
Full Storeys
2
2
2
2
Partial Storey
No part storey
1/2 storey
No part storey
No part storey
Building - exterior square footage
1,452 Sq. Ft.
1,885 Sq. Ft.
1,498 Sq. Ft.
1,578 Sq. Ft.
Basement Area
726 Sq. Ft.
809 Sq. Ft.
848 Sq. Ft.
833 Sq. Ft.
Finished Basement Area
0 Sq. Ft.
606 Sq. Ft.
636 Sq. Ft.
624 Sq. Ft.