Tribunals Ontario

Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

February 20, 2026

FILE NO.:

WR 189643

Assessed Person(s):

5023202 Ontario Inc.

Appellant(s):

5023202 Ontario Inc.

Respondent(s):

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 7

Respondent(s):

Municipality of Trent Lakes

Property Location(s):

105 Nichols Cove Road

Municipality(ies):

Municipality of Trent Lakes

Roll Number(s):

1542-010-002-52600-0000

Appeal Number(s):

3534631, 3529493, 3529485

Taxation Year(s):

2023, 2024 and 2025

Hearing Event No.:

790179

Legislative Authority:

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

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel/Representative

5023202 Ontario Inc

Richard Taylor

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation

Charmaine Siddle

Municipality of Trent Lakes

No one appeared

HEARD:

November 6, 2025 by video conference

ADJUDICATOR:

Steve Gilchrist, Member Hayleigh Cudmore, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

15023202 Ontario Inc. (the “Appellant”), is the owner of a residential property located at 105 Nichols Cove Road, in the Municipality of Trent Lakes (the “Subject Property”). The Appellant appealed the 2023, 2024 and 2025 assessment of the Subject Property to the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) under s. 34 and s. 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”) on the grounds that the assessment was too high, there was an incorrect property classification and an incorrect land description.

2For the original assessment for the 2023 taxation year, effective January 1, 2023, the Subject Property had been returned at a 2016 current value of $211,000. This was apportioned as $62,600 to “Other Taxable” and $148,400 to “Managed Forests”.

3MPAC issued a Supplementary Assessment effective June 9, 2023 for a newly constructed single-family dwelling, attached garage, outdoor pool and pool house. The supplementary assessment no longer contained an “Other Taxable” classification. The Other Taxable lands, $62,600, were converted to Residential Taxable and $668,000 was added to reflect the improvements. Therefore, the total Residential Taxable portion in the Supplementary Assessment was $730,600. The assessed value of the Managed Forest portion of the Subject Property remained unchanged at $148,400, for a total Supplementary Assessment of $879,000.

4There is also a building on the Subject Property in which the Appellant operates a machine shop business under the name of Steertech Performance. In the June 9, 2023 Supplementary Assessment there was no apportionment of the current value to the area of the Subject Property occupied by this machine shop business.

5For the taxation year 2024, MPAC assessed the property with a 2016 current value of $1,203,000. This included $371,300 attributable to the Steertech Performance business which MPAC classified as Industrial Taxable. It also included an updated assessment of the Residential Taxable portion of the Subject Property, assessed at $619,200, and an updated assessment of the Managed Forest portion of the Subject Property assessed at $212,500.

6At some point between January 1, 2024 and February 14, 2025, through a Request for Reconsideration, MPAC changed the Industrial Taxable classification to Commercial Taxable, but the assessed value of the Subject Property was unchanged and remains disputed by the Appellant.

7The parties disagree on: (i) the value of the residential portion of the Subject Property which includes the residence, the outdoor pool and the pool house/cabana (“pool house”); (ii) the effective dates on which each of these components of the residential portion should be included in the Subject Property’s assessment; (iii) the correct valuation of the managed forest lands and (iv) the classification of a portion of the Subject Property used by Steertech Performance as commercial, as it is the Appellant’s position that it should be classified as residential.

8MPAC submitted that its assessments reflect the correct current value of the Subject Property after consideration of the improvements (the residential building, pool, pool house and the machine shop) on the property. The Municipality did not take part in the hearing.

9The Appellant argued that the current value of the Subject Property should be a maximum of $700,000 for 2023 and 2024. For the 2025 taxation year, the Appellant conceded that “any new factors” should be subject to a new assessment but did not submit his own proposed value for the residential improvements to the Subject Property.

10The Appellant has not raised the issue of equitable reduction.

11At the completion of the hearing, the Board reserved its decision.

Issues for the Hearing

12The issues to be determined are:

1. What is the correct classification of the portion of Subject Property used for the machine shop?

2. What is the correct current value of the Subject Property, as of the January 1, 2016 valuation day for the 2023, 2024 and 2025 taxation years?

3. Is the current value as determined by the Board equitable with the assessments of similar lands in the vicinity?

Result

13The Board finds that the correct current value of the Subject Property is $542,000 for the 2023 taxation year; $542,000 for the 2024 taxation year effective January 1, 2024; $610,000 for the 2024 taxation year effective June 21, 2024 and $1,203,000 for the 2025 taxation year.

14The Board finds that no reduction of any of these values is required pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act.

15The Board further finds that MPAC correctly classified the three land uses of the Subject Property (commercial, residential, and managed forest), and correctly apportioned the areas of the Subject Property based on these land use classifications.

ANALYSIS

Description of the Subject Property

16The property has an area of 231 acres, apportioned into 1 acre for commercial use, 22 acres for residential use and a 208-acre managed forest.

17The Subject Property includes a one and a half-story single-family detached (not on water) residential dwelling built in 2023 located in the Municipality of Trent Hills. The property also includes a 532 square foot pool, a 226 square foot pool house as well as a 6,353 square foot building that operates as a machine shop and welding business.

18The commercial building was built in 2005 and then underwent two expansions which added storage area, prior to its purchase by the Appellant in 2020.

Legal Tests

19Under s. 19(1) of the Act, assessment of land for the purposes of municipal taxation is based on the land’s current value. 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”.

20Pursuant to s. 19.2 of the Act, January 1, 2016 is the day on which the Subject Property is valued for these taxation years.

21For the purpose of determining supplementary assessments to be added to the tax roll, s.34 (1) of the Act provides direction:

If, after notices of assessment have been given under section 31 and before the last day of the taxation year for which taxes are levied on the assessment referred to in the notices, (a) an increase in value occurs which results from the erection, alteration, enlargement or improvement of any building, structure, machinery, equipment or fixture or any portion thereof that commences to be used for any purpose (emphasis ours). […]

the assessor may make the further assessment that may be necessary to reflect the change, and upon receiving notice of the further assessment, the clerk of the municipality or, in the case of land in non-municipal territory, the Minister shall enter a supplementary assessment on the tax roll and the amount of taxes to be levied thereon shall be the amount of taxes that would have been levied for the portion of the taxation year left remaining after the change occurred if the assessment had been made in the usual way.

Issue 1 - What is the correct current value of the Subject Property, as of the January 1, 2016 valuation day?

22In accordance with s. 44(3)(a) of the Act, the first mandate of the Board is to 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.” That is, the Board must determine what the Subject Property would have sold for in an arm’s length transaction on the January 1, 2016 valuation day set by the Act.

23The best evidence the Board can receive of current value is an arm’s length and market-tested sale of the Subject Property on the valuation day or close to it. If no such transaction took place, the next best measure of current value is arm’s length and market-tested sales of comparable properties located nearby, as close as possible to the legislated valuation day of January 1, 2016.

MPAC’s Evidence and Submissions

24MPAC indicated that they undertook a review of the Subject Property in response to their receipt of a “change of address” form, in 2023, completed by the spouse of the owner of the company that owns the property.

Residential Improvements

25During that review, MPAC determined that there was a residential building on the property and added the current value they determined was appropriate for that building.

26There was some dispute about the condition of the residential building, at the time of MPAC’s review. MPAC’s only evidence is a “Google Earth” photograph time stamped as having been taken on September 13, 2023. This photo shows a building with what appears to be a finished roof, but there are no side views which would provide confirmation of the extent of the finish of the walls and interior of the building. Similarly, the pool house appears to have a finished roof but there is no means of knowing the extent of interior finishing. As of that same date, the Board notes that the pool appears to be complete and filled with water. MPAC provided no other evidence to support the premise that the residential building as “used”, as of the date of the Supplementary Assessment and, therefore, for the classification of any of the Subject Property as “Residential Taxable” in the June 9, 2023 Supplementary Assessment.

27On October 26, 2023 MPAC conducted a site visit to inspect the Subject Property and observed that there was an existing 6,353 square foot steel-frame commercial building on the property that had not been assessed in previous years.

28After determining that the building was used for “rebuilding, repairing and replacing exhaust systems and steering components” on trucks, MPAC classified the building as “Industrial Taxable” for the 2024 taxation year. Upon a request for reconsideration by the Appellant in 2024, MPAC revised its classification to “Commercial Taxable”.

29Table 1 below reflects a summary of the improvements on the Subject Property provided by MPAC:

Table 1

Structure Code/Building Type

Year Built

Building Area

Building Height

Classification

SC301 – Single Family Dwelling

2023

1^st floor – 1,511 sf 2^nd floor – 713 sf

Total – 2,224 sf

Residential

SC116 – Attached Garage

2023

1^st floor – 1,147 sf 2^nd floor – 922 sf

Residential

SC108 – Outdoor Pool

2023

532 sf

Residential

SC123 – Pool House/Cabana

2023

226 sf

Residential

SC508 – Load Bearing – welding shop

2005

2,444 sf

18.0’

Commercial

SC508 – Load Bearing – welding shop

2019

2,691 sf

14.0’

Commercial

SC508 – Load Bearing – welding shop

2019

1,218 sf

18.0’

Commercial

30MPAC argued that the direct comparison approach was the appropriate means of determining the value of the residential component Subject Property and that the cost approach was most appropriate for determining the value of the commercial component.

31For the direct comparison approach for the residential component, MPAC presented the Board with four proposed comparable property sales. These four proposed comparable property sales were improved with residences built between 2005 and 2012. Their effective site areas range from 0.75 acres to 75.8 acres ft. and building sizes from 1781 sq. ft. to 2823 sq. ft. The quality of construction of the four residences is 7.0. These proposed comparable property sales were not all sold within the shoulder years of the valuation day of January 1, 2016, which are 2015 and 2016. Their sales ranged from May 2014 to January 2017. The details of MPAC’s proposed comparable properties sales are in Table 2 below:

Table 2

Subject Property

Sale 1

Sale 2

Sale 3

Sale 4

Address

105 Nichol’s Cove Road

1500 Mill Line Road

77 Ellwood Crescent

191 Buckhorn Narrows Road

39 Ledge Road

Current Value Assessment

$1,203,000

$398,000

$429,000

$581,000

$618,000

Sale Date

N/A

22 May 2014

31 January 2017

12 June 2014

26 June 2015

Sale Amount

N/A

$429,000

$740,000

$635,000

$520,000

Time Adjusted Sale $

N/A

$460,000

$632,595

$681,336

$542,387

Building/Size (sq ft)

2,224 sq ft.

1,781 sq. ft.

1,812 sq. ft.

2,637 sq. ft.

2,823 sq. ft

Lot Size (sq ft)

231.0 acres

0.75 acres

2.39 acres

75.8 acres

25.03 acres

Year Built

2023

2012

2012

2006

2005

Quality of Construction

7.5

7.0

7.0

7.0

7.0

32MPAC indicated that, while the Subject Property had been sold in 2020, that date was too far from the January 1, 2016 valuation date to yield a relevant time adjusted value.

33MPAC provided a range from $429,000 and $740,000 for the actual sale prices for these properties, finding the average (although indicated by MPAC to be the median) to be $581,000.

34MPAC’s valuation report indicated that the Subject Property was slightly “more superior in comparison” [sic] to the comparable properties provided, estimating that the returned value for the Residential Taxable portion of the Subject Property was reasonable at $619,200.

35MPAC did not use the time adjusted sale prices for the comparable properties which ranged from $460,000 to $681,336. The Board finds that it is more appropriate to use the time adjusted range. The average time adjusted sale price is $579,000 (rounded). The median time adjusted sale price is $587,400 (rounded).

Commercial Building

36MPAC indicated that the cost approach was the methodology used for the commercial building valuation. MPAC asserted that this was the preferred methodology when there are special purpose-built components, which are valued based on the cost of a comparable newly built structure, less depreciation.

Pool and Pool House

37As part of its analysis of the value of the improvements to the Subject Property, MPAC submitted that the value of the pool is $26,627 and the value of the pool house is $41,230. The only evidence before us is the aerial photograph supplied by MPAC which appears to show similar roofing treatment for the residential building and the pool house.

Managed Forest

38MPAC outlined the methodology for calculating the assessed value of the 208 acres of the property which were covered under the Managed Forest Plan. MPAC cited O.Reg. 397/16, issued under the Act, which lays out the specific value, within each land band in the province. MPAC’s witness outlined that the increase in value of the Managed Forest was due to a change in the property classification of the Managed Forest land from Property Code 240 (Managed forest property, vacant land not on water) to Property Code 244 (Managed forest property, residence not on water). In other words, the formula for the value of the Managed Forest changed once there is a residential improvement on the Subject Property.

Appellant’s Evidence and Submissions

39The Appellant’s first witness provided an overview of the zoning on the property and, specifically, on the implications of the “home industry” provision in the RU zoning.

40The Appellant explained his rationale for purchasing the Subject Property and the improvements, on the property, at the time of his purchase. He indicated that the Purchase Agreement did not provide specific costs for the land, buildings or chattels which were included as part of his $700,000 purchase price for the Subject Property.

41The Appellant argued that the sale of the Subject Property should be considered when determining current value and that a time adjustment of the 2020 sale should have been performed. The Appellant did not provide evidence of a time adjusted sale price.

Commercial Building

42The Appellant testified that, since the date of purchase, minor improvements have been made to the commercial building, including pouring a larger cement floor and enclosing side walls of what had been storage areas adjacent to the main building. These repairs were completed by June 2021.

43The Appellant provided no evidence on the value of the commercial building, other than it was included in the $700,000 purchase price in 2020.

Residential Building

44The Appellant provided the chronology for the construction of the residential building. The excavation of the foundation began in December 2021, the log walls were erected in 2022 and the roof installed in 2023. As work continued, in 2023, he sold a separate residence, in Trent Lakes, and moved into the loft above the commercial building. In his oral testimony, the Appellant estimated that the residential building cost “about $550,000” to build.

45The Appellant noted that there had been extensive discussions with the municipality which had insisted on a series of revisions to the design of the residential property. The municipality finally issued an occupancy permit on December 18, 2024 and transmitted that permit in an email received by the Appellant on January 13, 2025. When asked when he commenced to use the residential building, the Appellant indicated that they started moving furniture in sometime in December 2024 or January 2025, but no specific date was provided to the Board.

Pool and Pool House

46The Appellant testified that he had paid somewhere between $25,000 and $30,000 for the swimming pool and an additional $4,000 for the materials of the pool house, which he built himself. The Appellant provided no time adjustment for these estimates, as well as no receipts or invoices to substantiate his oral submissions. Similarly, the Appellant supplied no evidence as to the quality and nature of the construction of these improvements. He indicated that the pool was installed and filled with water in 2022, the pool house was built in 2024 and the pool commenced to be used in 2024.

Comparable Properties

47The Appellant expressed concern with MPAC’s proposed comparable properties. Under questioning by the Appellant’s counsel, MPAC agreed that these properties are all much nearer to municipal, commercial and tourist amenities which MPAC conceded could affect their value. MPAC also admitted that it had not inspected these properties, aside from a visual inspection of the exterior and digital imagery for comparison purposes. The Appellant’s counsel argued against the usefulness of MPAC’s comparable properties, highlighting differences in terms of zoning and lot characteristics.

Managed Forest

48The Appellant expressed concern about the methodology MPAC uses to assess the current value of the Managed Forest portion of the Subject Property.

49The Appellant submits that the assessed value of the Managed Forest should be reduced by a percentage equal to the difference between the MPAC current value for January 1, 2016, namely $1,203,000, and the $700,000 he paid for the property in 2020. Therefore, he suggested that there should be a 41.56% reduction in the value of the Managed Forest, from $212,500 to $85,876. He stated that no credible “information/data/ evaluation has been provided by MPAC for the area allocation or value”. However, the Appellant did not provide any evidence as to why the Managed Forest Regulation, O.Reg. 397/16, should not apply.

Overall Valuation and Classification

50The Appellant noted that the MPAC current value for the Subject Property was $1,126,350 for the valuation date of January 1, 2012. He stated that the $700,000 paid for the Subject Property in October 2020 was the “best evidence” of the value of the property and, in any event, the MPAC valuations for 2012 and 2016 were too high.

51As with the Managed Forest, the Appellant suggested the value of the commercial building, if assessed as “Commercial Taxable”, should be discounted from the MPAC valuation by 41.56%, from $371,300 down to $216,987.72.

52Finally, the Appellant submitted that the workshop should be classified as “residential”. However, he supplied no evidence to suggest that the municipal definition for “home industry”, the taxation methodology applied to properties with more than one land classification, and MPAC’s definition of what qualifies for industrial and/or commercial classification should not apply to this property. More importantly, he supplied no authorities which supported his argument that a commercial operation, in the Rural Zoning on this property should not be assessed as “commercial”.

Findings on Issue 1

53The Board first observes that the parties substantially agree on the construction quality of the residential building, the square footage of all the buildings, the lot size of the Subject Property, the valuation of the commercial and residential lands and the allocation of land area between the various land classifications.

54The Appellant raised no issues with the costing elements used by MPAC to appraise the value of the commercial building using the Cost Approach. The parties also agree that the correct method to appraise the value of the residential property is the Direct Comparison Approach.

55The Board finds that, at the time of the appeal., the commercial building, the managed forest and the residential lands were essentially in the same condition as they were at the time of the sale of the Subject Property on October 19, 2020.

Pool and Pool House

56The Board will first address the impact of the addition of the pool and pool house on the Subject Property’s assessed value.

57The Appellant testified that the pool was first used in 2024 but did not indicate a specific date. Section 34(1)(a) of the Act provides” (a) an increase in value occurs which results from the erection, alteration, enlargement or improvement of any building, structure, machinery, equipment or fixture or any portion thereof that commences to be used for any purpose”. The Board notes that the Google photograph, marked as being taken on September 13, 2023, clearly shows a pool which appears to be filled with water, as well as a pool house. The Board notes that the failure of MPAC to inspect the residential improvements and take photographs of the house, pool and pool house at the time of their site visit means the best evidence as to the timing of the use of the pool was provided by the Appellant.

58The Board finds that the value of the pool should be added as a supplementary assessment for the 2024 taxation year. Outdoor pools are used in the summer months in Ontario, so the Board finds it logical and reasonable that the effective date of the Supplementary Assessment be the first day of summer, June 21, 2024.

59The parties are in general agreement on the cost of the pool, with MPAC’s submission of a current value assessment as of January 1, 2016 of $26,627 falling within the non-time adjusted cost estimate provided by the Appellant. The Board finds that the Appellant’s estimate of only $4,000 for the pool house materials does not account for the cost of labour, and again no invoices were supplied to substantiate his estimate.

60The Board must determine the impact of the improvements on the assessed value of the Subject Property, not just the cost of materials, so the Board prefers MPACs evidence for the value of the pool house. MPAC’s valuations were $26,627 for the pool and $41,230 for the pool house.

61Accordingly, the Board finds that a June 21, 2024 Supplementary Assessment under s.34 of the Act should be issued to add $67,800 (rounded down) to the residential portion of the Subject Property’s assessed value.

Residential Building

62The Board will now turn to: (i) the date on which the assessment of the residential building can be made; and (ii) the value of the remainder of the residential portion of the Subject Property’s assessed value.

63Pursuant to s.40(17) of the Act, the burden of proof rests with MPAC as to the correctness of the current value of the land, the Board finds that they failed to demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, that the residential building had commenced to be used as of June 19, 2023, which is the date of the effective date of the Supplementary Assessment.

64Despite making a site visit to the Subject Property on October 26, 2023 and taking photographs of the commercial building, MPAC has provided no photographs to demonstrate the extent to which the residential building construction was complete. Furthermore, there is nothing in the evidence to suggest that MPAC physically inspected the interior of the residential building.

65The Board finds that the best evidence regarding the timing of the initial “use” of the residential building was supplied by the Appellant. The Appellant’s testimony is that the residential building was under construction, beginning in 2021 and that problems arising from disagreements with the municipality during the building permitting process prevented the Appellant from being able to use the house until an Occupancy Permit was granted.

66Pursuant to s. 34(1)(a) of the Act, a supplementary assessment may be added to the tax roll when an erected building or any portion thereof commences to be used for “any” purpose. The Board notes that for residential properties, use and occupancy do not necessarily occur on the same date. See Canadian Tire Properties Inc. v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 15 2021, CanLII 23939 (ON ARB) at paras 34-37.

67The Appellant has agreed that January 1, 2025 can serve as the effective date of his occupancy, notwithstanding receiving a copy of the Final Occupancy Permit on January 13, 2025 from the municipality. The Board finds that the current value of the Residential Taxable portion of the Subject Property shall be increased to $619,200 as of January 1, 2025.

68MPAC supplied a list of four residential properties they claimed were comparable to the Subject Property.

69The Appellant did not supply a similar list of properties to support his own valuation. The Appellant’s sole submission was Land Registration documents related to the sale of a neighboring property, 97 Nichol’s Cove Road, on December 1, 2016.

70While there is a dollar value attached to that Land Registration, the Board has no means of objectively comparing this property to the Subject Property. There are no details related to lot size, land classification, building size, secondary buildings (if any), construction quality, age of the structure(s), etc. From the report of the Appellant’s expert witness, the only information we have is that it has a different zoning, RR (Rural Residential).

71While the Appellant raised objections to the list of comparable properties supplied by MPAC, the Board finds that MPAC’s comparable properties are still the best evidence of residential valuation before us.

72The Board does note that none of MPAC’s comparable properties included a pool and pool house. After already having determined the assessed value of the pool and house ($67,800), when the Board considers the net value of MPAC’s Residential Taxable valuation, it equals $551,400 ($619,200 - $67,800). This is $27,600 below the average time adjusted assessed value of the comparable properties supplied by MPAC and $36,000 below the time adjusted median value. Significantly, it is also in line with the $550,000 cost estimate provided by the Appellant.

73Regarding the residence, when the time adjusted value of the land ($22,482) and pool/pool house ($67,800), is added to the non-time adjusted construction estimate provided by the Appellant ($550,000), this gives total of $640,282. This value is above MPAC’s current value assessment of $619,200 for the residential portion of the Subject Property.

74The Board finds that the sale of the Subject Property in 2020 provides no relevant evidence when considering the residential improvements, which all occurred well after the sale date.

75Overall, the Board finds that MPAC provided the most reliable valuation of the residential building and it confirms MPAC’s current value of $619,200 for the residential portion of the Subject Property.

Managed Forest

76The Appellant suggested that the managed forest valuation is confusing and unfair and that the current value of that portion of the Subject Property should be reduced to $85,876. He indicated it was particularly unfair to tie the valuation of the Managed Forest lands to the assessed value of other portions of the Subject Property.

77The valuation of Managed Forests lands are calculated in accordance with O.Reg 282/98 and O.Reg 397/16. Those regulations provide for the setting of values, per acre, in every region of the province. The valuation also includes consideration of the use of the balance of a property on which a Managed Forest is located. In this case, the Assessment for the 2023 taxation year was set in accordance with the land code of the Subject Property, at that time. MPAC originally assigned Code 240 – “Managed forest property, vacant land not on water”. The valuation increased when the property was reclassified to Code 244 - “Managed forest property, residence not on water”. This change resulted from the determination that the Subject Property included a residential improvement.

78The Board finds that MPAC followed the regulatory requirements in determining the assessed value of the 208 acres of Managed Forest, because the Board did not receive any evidence to suggest otherwise. Therefore, the Board accepts the current valuation of the Managed Forest at $148,400 for 2023 and 2024 taxation years. The Board also finds that the current valuation of the Managed Forest is determined to be $212,500 (rounded down from $212,565) for the January 1, 2025 Supplementary Assessment.

Corrected 2023 Assessment

79The Board finds that, at the date of the initial review by MPAC, the uses on the Subject Property included commercial land, a commercial building, other lands and a managed forest. Furthermore, the evidence from MPAC is that a commercial building was present on the Subject Property as far back as 2005.

80Under s. 44 of the Act, because there is an appeal in regard to the 2023 taxation year, we are authorized to open up the entire taxation year.

81Pursuant to s. 33 of the Act, the Board finds that MPAC should have issued an Omitted Assessment which included the current value of the commercial building in which the Appellant operated a machine shop:

82In this case, the taxation years 2021 and 2022 are not at issue, so the Board finds that the Omitted Assessment would be effective as of the beginning of the first tax year at issue, namely January 1, 2023.

83The testimony of the Appellant is his purchase of the Subject Property in October 2020 included the commercial building. The Board finds that the value of the Commercial Taxable lands should be assessed at $371,300, effective January 1, 2023. This reflects a rounding down of the value of the commercial building, at $370,359 and commercial land, at $1,021. The total current value resulting from correction of the actual uses on Subject Property as of the date of the Omitted Assessment would therefore be $542,000 (rounded down) as of January 1, 2023.

84The Board finds that the addition of a residential valuation in the supplementary assessment, for the 2023 taxation year, effective June 9, 2023, is incorrect and, instead, the s. 34 assessment should be revised to show the first residential use on the property being added as of June 21, 2024.

85The Board finds that the pool was in use for the summer of 2024, and a s. 34 Supplementary Assessment shall be issued to add a residential classification in the amount of $67,800 (rounded down) as of June 21, 2024, for a current value assessment of $610,000 (rounded down).

86The Board finds the full value of $619,200 for the residential classification on the Subject Property should be included as of January 1, 2025. Because the house was not in use, as of the date of the return to roll for the 2025 taxation year, the Board finds that a s. 34 Supplementary Assessment be issued to reflect the residential improvements.

87The Board notes that the description of the 22 acres of land, not including the one acre classified as commercial, are defined as “Other Taxable” in the evidence provided by MPAC. There is no such classification listed in Reg. 282/98. Prior to a residential use being added to the Subject Property, those lands should have been classified as “Vacant Land” and, after the residential addition, as “Residential Taxable”. The Board heard no disputes regarding the apportionment or valuation, per acre, of the lands on the Subject Property.

88Table 3 below summarizes the Board’s findings on the current value of the Subject Property:

Table 3

Class.

January 1, 2023 Omitted Assessment

January 1, 2024 Return to Roll

June 21, 2024 Supp. Assessment (new date for June 9, 2023 MPAC s.34)

January 1, 2025 Supp. Assessment

Assessment Category

s.33

s.36

s.34

s.34

Residential Improvements and Land

Residential (Pool and Pool House)

RT

67,800

Residential (Pool, Pool House and Residence)

(House)

RT

$597,239

Land Value (reclassified from “Other Taxable” to “Vacant Land” then “Residential Taxable”

OT/RT

22,482 VL

22,482 VL

22,482 RT

22,482 RT

Total Residential

RT

22,300 (rounded)

22,300 (rounded)

90,300 (rounded)

619,200 (rounded)

Commercial Improvements and Land

Commercial (Building)

CT

370,359

$370,359

370,359

370,359

Commercial (Land)

CT

$1,021

$1,021

$1,021

$1,021

Total Commercial

CT

371,300 (rounded)

371,300 (rounded)

371,300 (rounded)

371,300 (rounded)

Managed Forest

Managed Forest

TT

148,400

148,400

148,400

212,500 (rounded)

Total

542,262

542,262

610,062

1,203,666

Final Current Value (Rounded)

542,000

542,000

610,000

1,203,000

Issue 2 – What is the correct classification of the portion of Subject Property used for the machine shop?

Submissions

89The Appellant and his witnesses spent a considerable amount of time on the issue of whether the workshop building and the land on which is situated should be classified as commercial or residential.

90All parties agree that the Appellant is operating a “home industry”, namely a machine shop, on the Subject Property with the Appellant conceding there were “industrial aspects” to the business operations, though very limited ones. The Appellant argued that the workshop building and land should be classified as residential because the municipality allows a “home industry” as a permitted use within the RU (Rural Zone) but places limitations on that use. The Appellant submitted that because the home industry use is related to the residential building and in a rural location, the workshop should not be considered in the same light as an industrial operation within an urban area.

Findings on Issue 2

91For the Subject Property, the Municipality of Trent Lakes’ RU zoning classification permits the addition of a “home industry”.

92The Board notes that the Appellant’s arguments related to the nature of the work performed in that building, and the small-scale nature of the business, appear to have already been considered by MPAC. MPAC’s reconsideration of the 2024 assessment changed the classification of the workshop building and land from “industrial” to “commercial”.

93The Appellant’s own testimony is that commercial activities are undertaken in the workshop building. Aside from his belief that the workshop building and land should be classified as residential, he has supplied no authorities or evidence to support his claim that MPAC has erred in applying the “commercial” classification on that portion of the Subject Property that is clearly engaged in commercial operations.

94The Board finds that the “Commercial” is the correct classification for the portion of the Subject Property on which the 6,353 square foot machine shop is situated.

Issue 3 – Equity

95Neither party submitted evidence as to whether an equitable adjustment is required pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act. As such, the Board finds no reduction of current value is required.

CONCLUSION

96The Board has found that there was no basis for the s. 34 assessment issued for the 2023 taxation year because the property had not commenced to have a residential use and therefore the s. 34 assessment, effective June 9, 2023, is revoked, or, alternatively, the current value for this s. 34 assessment is zero.

97Instead, the date of the s. 34 assessment should be amended to June 24, 2024, to reflect the addition of the first residential uses on the property, namely the pool and pool house.

98The Boards determination and apportionment of the current value of the Subject Property, for the 2023, 2024 and 2025 taxation years, is set out in the Order below.

99The Board finds that no reduction of these values are required pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act.

100The Board finds that “Commercial” is the correct classification for the portion of the Subject Property on which the machine shop is situated.

ORDER

101For the 2023 taxation year the correct current value of the Subject Property is $542,000, and is apportioned as follows: Commercial Taxable $371,300, Vacant Land $22,300, Managed Forest $148,400.

102For the 2024 taxation year, for the period from January 1, 2024 to June 20, 2024, the correct current value of the Subject Property is $542,000, and is apportioned as follows: Commercial Taxable $371,300, Vacant Land $22,300, Managed Forest $148,400.

For the 2024 taxation year, the correct current value of the Subject Property is $610,000, for the period from June 21, 2024 to December 31, 2024 and is apportioned as follows: Commercial Taxable $371,300, Residential Taxable $90,300, Managed Forest $148,400.

103For the 2025 taxation year, the correct current value of the Subject Property is $1,203,000, and is apportioned as follows: Commercial Taxable $371,300, Residential Taxable $619,200, Managed Forest $212,500.