Dupuis v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 06, 2025 CanLII 96321

Tribunals Ontario

Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

September 17, 2025

FILE NO.:

WR 189042

Assessed Person(s):

Fraser Drive Developments Inc; Constance Dupuis; Gail Crossman

Appellant(s):

Constance Dupuis; Gail Crossman

Respondent(s):

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 06

Respondent(s):

City of Quinte West

Property Location(s):

63 Fraser Drive

Municipality(ies):

City of Quinte West

Roll Number(s):

1204-211-060-00350-0000

Appeal Number(s):

3528198; 3528478 and 3534597

Taxation Year(s):

2023, 2024 and 2025

Hearing Event No.:

787464

Legislative Authority:

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

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel/Representative

Constance Dupuis; Gail Crossman

Self-represented

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation

Jean-Paul Maurice

City of Quinte West

No one appeared

HEARD:

May 12, 2025 by video conference

ADJUDICATOR(S):

Anita Lovrich, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1Gail Crossman and Constance Dupuis (the “Appellants”) brought an appeal before the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”), and filed an appeal pursuant to s. 34 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”) effective September 07, 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 Appellants say the assessment is too high and ask the Board to reduce the value to $270,000.

3MPAC is responding to these appeals. MPAC submits that the correct current value is $383,000, and that an equitable adjustment is not necessary.

4The City of Quinte West is also a party to this appeal but did not participate in the hearing.

Areas of Agreement

5There was no dispute that:

1. The s. 34 effective date is September 7, 2023.

Issues for the Hearing

6At issue in this proceeding is:

1. What is the current value of the Subject Property as of the statutory valuation day of January 1, 2016?; and

2. 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:

1. The decrease in value with respect to the s. 34 supplementary assessment is $280,000 (rounded).

2. The current value as reflected on the annual assessments for the 2024 and 2025 taxation years is $314,000 (rounded).

3. The effective date of the s. 34 supplementary assessment is confirmed as September 7, 2023.

4. A reduction of current value pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) is not required.

ANALYSIS

Description of Subject Property

1The Subject Property is a detached residential dwelling. It was built in 2021 and has a total building area of 2,377 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

2In 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.”

3Accordingly, the Board must first determine what the Subject Property would have sold for in an arm’s length transaction on the statutory valuation day.

4In 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

5MPAC provided evidence regarding the sale of seven properties sold near the valuation day. 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

Property 6

Property 7

Roll Number

120421106000350

120430108016214

120403005530183

120403005530201

120403005530247

120403005530249

120403005530181

120403005530187

address

63 Fraser Dr

37 Pinegrove Cres

4 Bridlewood Lane

92 Parkview Hts

3 Simmons Crt

5 Parker Dr

64 Parkview Hts

12 Bridlewood Lane

Neighbourhood

B70-305

A82-305

A72-3

A72-3

A72-3

A72-3

A72-3

A72-3

Property Code & Desc.

(301}5ingle-Family Detached (Not On Water)

(301}5ingle-Family Detached (Not On Water

(301}5ingle-Family Detached (Not On Water

(301}5ingle-Family Detached (Not On Water

(301}5ingle-Family Detached (Not On Water

(301}5ingle-Family Detached (Not On Water

(301}5ingle-Family Detached (Not On Water

(301}5ingle-Family Detached (Not On Water

Distance in Km

4.3034

9.4684

9.546

9.357

9.376

9.4635

9.5453

Valuation

Current Value Assessment

$383,000

$314,000

$323,000

$321,000

$334,000

$311,000

$349,000

$387,000

Sale

Sale Date

20150824

20150629

20160831

20150727

20150710

20160812

20150904

Sale Amount

$307,500

$317,500

$305,000

$332,500

$310,000

$377,500

$385,000

Assessment to sale ratio (ASR)

1.02

1.02

1.05

1.00

1.00

0.92

1.01

Time Adjusted Sale Amount

$314,286

$320,211

$292,704

$334,912

$312,248

$362,282

$387,140

Time Adjusted Sale Ratio

0.9991

1.0087

1.0967

0.9973

0.996

0.9633

0.9996

Time Adjusted (ASR)

1.00

1.01

1.10

1.00

1.00

0.96

1.00

Site

Effective Frontage (F)

55.77

175

63.64

103.35

50

58.23

65.62

60.01

Effective Depth (F)

161.22

149

112.41

50

123.2

100

144.47

121.39

Effective Site Area (Acres)

0.21

0.6

0.16

0.19

0.14

0.13

0.22

0.17

Abuts Variable(s)

(B)Abuts lndustrial

(B)Abuts lndustrial

(V)Abuts Green space

(K)Traffic Pattern-Light

Residential Structure

Year Built

2021

1990

1994

1990

1992

1991

1991

1989

Quality of Construction

6.5

6.5

6.5

6.5

6.5

6.5

6.5

6.5

Full Storeys

13/4 Storeys

2 Storeys

2 Storeys

2 Storeys

2 Storeys

2 Storeys

2 Storeys

2 Storeys

Baths

2.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

3.5

3

3.5

2.5

Building Total Area (SF)

2,377

2,273

2,308

2,256

2,368

2,104

2,494

2,624

First Floor Area (SF)

1313

975

1148

1172

1207

1112

1240

1475

Second Floor Area (SF)

1064

1298

1160

1084

1161

992

1254

1149

Basement Area (SF)

975

1,160

1,172

1,207

1,134

1,240

1,475

Finished Basement Area (SF)

770

468

500

851

730

Secondary Structure(s)

Structure Description

(116) Attached Garage

(116) Attached Garage

(116) Attached Garage

(116) Attached Garage

(116) Attached Garage

(116) Attached Garage

(116) Attached Garage

(116) Attached Garage

Year Built

2021

1990

1994

1990

1992

1991

1990

1989

Building Total Area (SF)

698

440

484

543

440

477

482

690

Quality of Construction

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

Structure Description

(108}0utdoorPool

Year Built

1989

Building Total Area (SF)

448

Quality of Construction

2

6Each of MPAC’s proposed comparable properties were two-storey homes. MPAC testified that each of the proposed is inferior by age only. MPAC testified that there are very few new two-storey homes in the Batawa division near the Subject Property, and the ones that are there are small and inferior, so the most comparable properties were in neighbouring Trenton. MPAC’s proposed Sales 2 to 7 are in Trenton while Sale 1 is between the other sales and the Subject Property. MPAC testified that in order to find new two-storey comparables it had to look in Trenton. The Subject Property is built on slab and has no basement.

7MPAC testified that based on the time adjusted sale price the most comparable properties MPAC estimated is the current value of the Subject Property to be $383,000. When asked how it obtained that number, MPAC stated that the Assessment to Sale ratio (“ASR”) of the seven proposed comparables are “very tight” so MPAC is confident that the returned value of $383,000 is correct as the close ASRs show MPAC is treating two- storey homes in the area accurately.

Appellants

8The Appellants submit as follows:

a. MPAC’s proposed comparables are not located in Batawa.

b. The Subject Property is in Batawa, which is a small hamlet with no amenities.

c. The Subject Property has only two levels as it has no basement, whereas many of the proposed comparables from MPAC have three levels as they are two-storey homes with basements.

d. All of MPAC’s proposed comparables are superior to the Subject Property.

e. MPAC’s comparables 2 to 7 are in Trenton which has amenities such as hospitals, gas stations, LCBO and grocery stores whereas Batawa has none of those things.

f. MPAC’s proposed comparables have 3 levels of living space including a basement, main floor, and an upper level, and 5 have recreation rooms.

g. Many of MPAC’s proposed comparables are larger than the Subject Property if one considers basement space as living space.

h. MPAC’s Proposed Sale 1 has a larger lot than the Subject Property.

i. MPAC’s Proposed Sale 2 has over 3,000 square feet of living space and does not abut industry.

j. MPAC’s Proposed Sale 3 has a larger frontage and a recreation room and does not abut industry like the Subject Property does.

k. MPAC’s Proposed Sale 4 has over 3,500 square feet of living space and does not abut industry.

l. MPAC’s Proposed Sale 5 has a recreation room that has three levels, is larger, and does not abut industry.

m. MPAC’s Proposed Sale 6 abuts green space and is bigger than the Subject Property and has 3 levels, does not abut industry, is not built on a slab like the Subject Property.

n. MPAC’s proposed Sale 7 does not abut industry and has a recreation room.

o. MPAC did not look only to the neighbourhood of the Subject Property for its time adjustment analysis so that the neighbourhood of the Subject Property could have had different time adjustment factors.

9The Appellants stated that the current value of the Subject Property should be $270,000 based on the following proposed comparables based on age, construction and location:

Subject Property

71 Fraser Drive

88 Fraser Drive

75 Fraser Drive

92 Fraser Drive

Sale date

April 2016

October 2016

July 2016

May 2025

Sale price

$248,000

$274,000

303,000

255,000

Lot size

62.3 x 150 (square feet)

65 x 151.19 (square feet)

0.21 acres

0.23 acres

Building area (square feet)

2,377

1,528

1,528

1,356

1,283

Basement living area (square feet)

No basement

1,528

1,528

1,231

1,283

Finished basement area (square feet)

0

0

1,200

0

Construction quality

6.5

6.5

6.5

6.5

6.5

Full storeys

1 ¾

1

1

1

1

10The Appellants stated that the median of the above sales is $288,500. The Board notes that the Appellants calculated this figure by looking at the average of 75 Fraser Drive and 88 Fraser Drive. However, this is not in fact the median of the above sales. The Appellants stated that a downward adjustment of $15,400 (applying MPAC’s estimate of $15.40 per square foot of basement area and assuming a basement area of 1,000 square feet) should be made as the Subject Property is built on a slab which amounts to approximately $273,000.

Findings on Issue 1

11The Board notes that MPAC’s time adjustment analysis was the only one presented in evidence. Even though it included sales beyond the immediate neighbourhood of the Subject Property, the Board heard no evidence that it was unreliable. The Board finds that MPAC’s Sales Ratio Trend Analysis is the best evidence regarding time adjustment factors before the Board and relies on it.

12The Board does not rely on the Appellant’s proposed comparable properties to determine the current value of the Subject Property as the Appellants’ proposed comparable sales are significantly smaller in size to the Subject Property. In this instance, the Board finds that having unfinished, or even finished, basement area, is not comparable to the above-ground living space of the Subject Property.

13The Board notes that MPAC’s proposed comparable Sale 6 abuts green space and is thus not a good comparable to the Subject Property. Proposed comparable Sale 7 has a pool and is thus not a good comparable to the Subject Property. As a result, the Board does not rely on these sales. The Board finds that the best evidence before the Board, regarding the current value of the Subject Property, are MPAC’s proposed comparable Sales 1 to 5. The median time-adjusted sales price of these comparables is $314,286.

14As the only evidence of land value before the Board is MPAC’s evidence that it is $34,000, the Board accepts that this is the value of the land. The Board finds that the value of the s. 34 supplementary assessment is therefore $280,286 ($314,286 less $34,000).

15The current value as reflected on the annual assessments for the 2024 and 2025 taxation years is $314,286.

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?

16Section 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

Appellants

17The Appellants stated that, of the 30 sales in MPAC’s equity analysis, 16 fall outside the range as they are either above 1.05 or below 0.95. Further, they stated that another 9 that are not similar as they have different quality classes or frontage size for example. The Appellants noted a number of differences between the Subject Property and the sales listed in MPAC’s equity study.

18The Appellants presented their own equity analysis. The Appellants’ comparators are in the same location identifier (B70) with the same construction quality (6.5) as the Subject Property. The properties in the Appellants’ equity analysis are:

1. 71 Fraser Drive, Batawa - Current Assessment Value $266,000-2016

Sales Comparator - $248,000 [Ratio 0.93].

2. 75 Fraser Drive, Batawa - Current Assessment Value $285,000.

3. 79 Fraser Drive, Batawa - Current Assessment Value $269,000.

4. 83 Fraser Drive, Batawa - Current Assessment Value $277,000.

5. 84 Fraser Drive, Batawa - Current Assessment Value $296,000.

6. 87 Fraser Drive, Batawa - Current Assessment Value $271,000.

7. 88 Fraser Drive, Batawa - Current Assessment Value $285,000 2016

Sales Comparator - $285,000 [Ratio 0.96].

8. 92 Fraser Drive, Batawa - Current Assessment Value $250,000.

19The Appellants testified that all the properties in Batawa and the mean assessment of the above properties is approximately $269,000, which demonstrates that the proposed current value of $273,000 is reasonable and equitable MPAC.

20MPAC 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.

21MPAC 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 5 kilometres of the Subject Property. MPAC testified that the analysis reveals an ASR of 1.01, which means that an equitable reduction is not required to make the assessments of the Subject Property equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity.

Findings on Issue 2

22The Board has considered both the Appellants’ and MPAC’s equity analysis and prefers MPAC’s. In these facts and circumstances, the Board prefers the use of actual sales relative to assessment values to determine equity. Furthermore, the Appellants failed to adduce evidence as to why the properties chosen in their report are similar enough to the Subject Property such that assessment values alone should be used. The Board finds that ASR is a tool routinely relied on to ascertain whether a property requires an equitable adjustment. 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. MPAC’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 legislated valuation day. Further, MPAC considered properties that are within 5 kilometres of the Subject Property.

23The Board finds that no equitable reduction is necessary in the circumstances.

CONCLUSION

24The Board finds that:

1. The decrease in value with respect to the s. 34 supplementary assessment is $280,000 (rounded).

2. The current value as reflected on the annual assessments for the 2024 and 2025 taxation years is $314,000 (rounded).

3. The effective date of the s. 34 supplementary assessment is confirmed as September 7, 2023

4. A reduction of current value pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) is not required.

ORDER

25The Board orders that the current value of the Subject Property for the 2024 and 2025 taxation years is $314,000 and the current value reflected on the s. 34 supplementary assessment value is $280,000.

26The effective date is confirmed as September 7, 2023.