Philip Beder v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 14, 2025 CanLII 96320

Tribunals Ontario

Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

September 16, 2025

FILE NO.:

WR 189092

Assessed Person(s):

Philip Beder; Erin Beder; Alex Beder

Appellant(s):

Philip Beder

Respondent(s):

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 14

Respondent(s):

City of Vaughan

Property Location(s):

2 Langtry Place

Municipality(ies):

City of Vaughan

Roll Number(s):

1928-000-050-57120-0000

Appeal Number(s):

3530558 and 3535075

Taxation Year(s):

2024 and 2025

Hearing Event No.:

788398

Legislative Authority:

Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel/Representative

Philip Beder; Erin Beder

Andrew Attard

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation

Leo Verduci

City of Vaughan

Submissions not received

HEARD:

July 4, 2025 by video conference

ADJUDICATOR(S):

Anita Lovrich, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1Philip Beder (the “Appellant”) brought an appeal before the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) relating to assessments of 2 Langtry Place in the City of Vaughan (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 for the 2025 taxation years at $2,127,000. 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 $1,697,350.

3The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) is responding to these appeals. MPAC’s opinion of value for the Subject Property is $2,372,000, however MPAC is requesting the Board to confirm the returned assessment of $2,127,000.

4The City of Vaughan is also a party to this appeal but did not make submissions.

Issues for the Hearing

5At issue in this proceeding is:

1. What is the current value of the Subject Property?

2. Is a reduction of current value required pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act?

Result

6For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that the current value of the Subject Property is $1,910,000 (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 $1,910,000.

ANALYSIS

Description of Subject Property

8The Subject Property is a single family detached residential dwelling built in 2007.

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 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

Subject Property

Property #1

Property #2

Property #3

Property #4

Roll Number

192800005057120

192800005057364

192800005057356

192800002086010

192800002068007

Address

2 LANGTRY PL

9 SANIBEL CRES

29 SANIBEL CRES

109 PONDVIEW RD

61 PONDVIEW RD

Neighbourhood

A30-120

A30-120

A30-120

A20-120

A20-120

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 On Water

Distance in km

0.1059

0.1453

1.3854

1,408

Valuation

2016 Current Value Assessment

$2,127,000

$2,278,000

$2,119,000

$2,218,000

$2,282,000

Sale

Sale Date

20150603

20150911

20150626

20160226

Sale Amount

$1,930,500

$2,040,000

$2,212,000

$2,520,000

Time Adjusted Sale Amount

$2,072,564

$2,108,308

$2,374,780

$2,472,193

Site

Effective Site Area (Acres)

0.16

0.13

0.14

0.13

0.13

Actual Site Area (Acres)

0.16

0.13

0.14

0.13

0.13

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

2007

2010

2006

2002

2015

Quality of Construction

8.5

8.5

8

8

8

Full Storeys

2 Storeys

2 Storeys

2 Storeys

2 Storeys

Building Total Area (SF)

4,290

4,005

4,475

1,822

3,937

Basement Area (SF)

1,901

1,822

2,473

2,025

1,797

Finished Basement Area

1,520

1,457

2,003

1,822

1,527

13MPAC testified as follows:

1. Sale 1, 9 Sanibel Crescent, has a similar lot compared to the Subject Property, is similar vintage in terms of year built, has slightly less total building area compared to the subject. Sale 1 is similar to the Subject Property. The time adjusted sale price of Sale 1 is $2,072,564, therefore the Subject Property could have a similar value as the time adjusted sale price of Sale 1.

2. Sale 2, 29 Sanibel Crescent, has a similar lot compared to the Subject Property, is similar vintage in terms of year built, has slightly more total building area compared to the subject. Sale 2 is similar to the Subject Property. The time adjusted sale price of Sale 2 is $2,108,308, therefore the Subject Property could have a similar value as the time adjusted sale price of Sale 2.

3. Sale 3, 109 Pondview Road, has a similar lot compared to the Subject Property, is similar vintage in terms of year built, has slightly less total building area compared to the subject. Sale 3 is similar to the Subject. Property. The time adjusted sale price of Sale 3 is $2,374,780, therefore the Subject Property could have a similar value as the time adjusted sale price of Sale 3.

4. Sale 4, 61 Pondview Road, has a similar lot compared to the Subject Property, is similar vintage in terms of year built, has slightly less total building area compared to the subject. Sale 4 is similar to the Subject Property. The time adjusted sale price of sale 4 is $2,472,193, therefore the Subject Property could have a similar value as the time adjusted sale price of sale 4.

14Based on the sale prices of the most similar properties, MPAC estimated the current value of the Subject Property to be $2,372,000. Based on its opinion that the comparison properties are similar to the Subject Property in related to attributes such as total building area, lot size, quality class, year built and finished basement areas, MPAC used the average time adjusted sale prices per square foot of $553.01. When applied to the Subject Property’s square footage of 4,290 square feet, this equates to $2,372,000.

Appellant

15The Appellant submits that the Subject Property should be assessed at $2,045,000 when adjusted for time and a number of other adjustments. In support of this position, the Appellant provided a number of analyses with respect to the direct comparison approach, but ultimately relied on two mutual sales that both parties relied on included in the analysis that are very close to the Subject Property as follows and with the following adjustments for location, structure quality and size, as well as land:

(January 1, 2016 Valuation Date)

Subject Property

Assessment

Units

Rate

2 Langtry Pl, Vaughan

PC: 301

$2,127,000

4,290

$496

Desc: BUILT IN 2007, 2 STOREY, 4 BDRM,5 BATH, QUALITY 8.5

Type: SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED

AC: 0.15-L/B Ration:1.52

Roll#: 1928 000 050 57120

Frontage : 51.02

Comparable Properties

Adjusted Sale Price

Units

Rate

1. 29 Sanibel Cres, Vaughan

Sale Date: Sep 2015 (Adj. by 1.7%)

$2,074,000

4,475 sf

$463

PC: 301 Desc:

SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED BUILT IN 2006,2

Roll#: 1928 000 050 57356

STOREY, 5 BDRM, 2,003 FIN BSMT, QUALITY 8

AC : 0.14 – L/B Ratio: 1.36

Fr:45.7

Dp: 1.248

GOLF COURSE

2. 9 Sanibel Cres, Vaughan

Sale Date: Jun 2015 (Adj. by 1.7%)

$1,963,000

4,005 sf

$490

PC: 301 Desc:

SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED, BUILT IN 2010, 2

AC: 0.13 – L/B Ratio: 1.41 Dp: 109.84

Roll# 1928 000 050 57364

STOREY, 4 BDRM, 4 BATH, QUALITY 8.5, 1,457

FIN BSMT, GOLF COURSE

Avg AC: 0.14 (Based on 2 properties)

Average:

4.240 sf

$477

Median:

4,240 sf

$477

Subject Property 2 Langtry Pl, Vaughan

Assessment Roll# 1928 000 050 57120

Units 4,290 sf x

Median Rate $477 =

Indicated 16CVA $2,045,000

Comparable Property Adjustment

Time

Location

Physical

Land

Total Adjustments

1. 29 Sanibel Cres, Vaughan (Sold Sep 2015, 0.14 AC)

Assessment: $2,231,000 Sale Price: $2,040,000

Time: 6.7% +

Location: -10.0% Superior +

Physical 5.0% inferior +

Land:0.0% =

Adjustment (1.7%): $34,000

Residential values in Vaughan increased 20.0% between 2015 and 2016. Adjust for 4 months at rate of 1.67% per month

Golf Course

Built in 2006, 2 storey, 5 bdrm, 2,003 fin basmt, quality 8

Adjusted for 0.01 AC less land at rate of $7,000 per. (+$70)

Adjust Sale Price: $2,074,000

2. 9 Sanibel Cres, Vaughan (Sold Jun 2015, 0.13 AC)

Assessment: $2,278,00 Sale Price: $1,930,500

Time: 11.7% +

Location: -10% superior +

Physical 0.0% Average +

Land: 0.0% =

Adjustment (1.7%): $32,000

Residential values in Vaughan increased 20.0% between 2015 and 2016. Adjust for 7 months at rate of 1.67% per month.

Golf Course

Built in 2010, 2 storey, 4 bdrm, 4 bath, quality 8.5 1,457 fin bsmt

Adjusted for 0.02 AC less land at rate of $7,000 per (+$140)

Adjustment Sale Price $1,963,00

16The Appellant submits that some of MPAC’s proposed comparables are in a different neighbourhood from the Subject Property and notes that, with respect to 61 Pondview Road and 109 Pondview Road, 61 Pondview Road and 109 Pondview Road are near a park. It therefore argues that these are not appropriate comparables.

17The Appellant testified that, applying the adjusted sale prices for the Sanibel Crescent properties to the Subject Property, they have calculated the price per square foot and obtained $2,045,000. It argues that this is what the current value should be as well as a potential 4% adjustment for traffic as, as per MPAC.

18The Appellant testified that both properties back onto a golf course and as per MPAC, which testified that such properties receive an 11% premium adjustment, they made this adjustment. The Appellant also applied a 5% physical adjustment due to the difference in quality however they could not substantiate on what basis this was made or how they obtained a 5% adjustment. The Appellant accepted MPAC’s time adjustment factors.

Findings on Issue 1

19The Board accepts and relies on the two sales that both parties relied on as most comparable, namely, 9 Sanibel Crescent and 29 Sanibel Crescent. The Board finds that these 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.

20Having regard to the fact that MPAC testified that properties such as 9 Sanibel Crescent and 29 Sanibel Crescent which abut golf courses typically have an 11% upward adjustment applied to their assessed value to account for this premium feature, the Board finds it appropriate to add an 11% downward adjustment to the median time-adjusted sale price, to account for the fact that the Subject Property does not have this premium feature.

21However, the Appellant provided no evidence for the other proposed adjustments so the Board finds there is no evidence before the Board to make any further adjustments.

22There were some errors in the time adjusted prices presented by the parties so the Board conducted its own calculation. Applying the time adjustment factors from MPAC’s Price Change Over Time study that the parties agreed to, the time adjusted sale price for 29 Sanibel Crescent is $2,154,240 (1.056 x 2,040,000). Applying an 11% adjustment results in a current value of $1,917,274.

23Applying the time adjustment factors from MPAC’s Price Change Over Time study that the parties agreed to, the time adjusted sale price for 9 Sanibel Crescent is 2,138,994 (1.108 x 1,930,500). Applying an 11% adjustment results in a current value of $1,903,704.

24The median sale price, adjusted for time and location, is $1,910,489. The Board therefore finds that the current value is $1,910,489.

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?

25Section 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

26The Appellant provided a number of equity studies but ultimately relied on an equity analysis utilizing the 30 closest time-adjusted sales from MPAC’s Price Change Over Time Study which yielded an Assessment to Sale Ratio (“ASR”) of 0.83. The Appellant therefore argues that an equitable adjustment is required and that an ASR of 0.83 applied to the current value of $2,045,000 yields a current value, adjusted for equity of $1,697,350.

27The Appellant submits that MPAC’s equity analysis includes properties that are too far from the Subject Property and states that those sales that are outside the Subject Property neighbourhood, had higher ASRs, and have lower assessments and are less comparable than sales closer to the Subject Property.

MPAC

28MPAC provided an equity analysis report reflecting an 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 33 single-family detached residential properties (not on water) that sold between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2016 within 2 kilometres of the Subject Property and considered the following physical attributes:

a) Property type (residential)

b) Structure type (single family detached)

c) Neighbourhood location

30MPAC testified that the analysis reveals an ASR of 0.99, which means that similar properties in the vicinity have been assessed at or near their current values and an equity adjustment is not required.

31MPAC argues that the Appellant’s equity analysis considers vicinity but fails to consider similarity. It states that most of the sales in the Appellant’s equity analysis are not similar to the Subject Property and should therefore not be relied on.

Findings on Issue 2

32The Board does not accept the Appellant’s proposed equity analysis to determine whether an equitable adjustment should be applied. The Appellant relied on the 30 closest sales in MPAC’s Price Change Over Time Study to ensure they are sales in the vicinity. However, 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. 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.

33The Board accepts and relies on MPAC’s ASR analysis that demonstrates an ASR of 0.99. MPAC’s equity study considered sales within 2 kilometres of the Subject Sale which to ensure it is within the of the Subject Property. This selection provides similar properties as the Subject Property, in terms of the structure type and location of these properties within the vicinity of the Subject Property. The Board finds that the sales used in MPAC’s equity analysis are similar sales in the vicinity of the Subject Property.

34The Board agrees with MPAC that a median ASR of 0.99 demonstrates that similar properties in the vicinity have been assessed at or near their current value, and therefore an equity adjustment is not necessary. The 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 current value determined is required.

35The Board finds that the equitable current value is $1,910,000 (rounded).

CONCLUSION

36The Board has found that the correct value of the Subject Property is $1,910,000 (rounded) and that no reduction of this value is required pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act.

37Therefore, the Board finds that the current value of the Subject Property for the taxation years 2024 and 2025 is $1,910,000.

ORDER

38The current value of the Subject Property for the taxation years 2024 and 2025 is $1,910,000.