Tribunals Ontario

Assessment Review Board

ISSUE DATE: March 03, 2026 FILE NO.: WR 189342

Assessed Person(s): Fauzi Wehbe Appellant(s): Fauzi Wehbe Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 03 Respondent(s): City of Ottawa

Property Location(s): 3867 Albion Road South Municipality(ies): City of Ottawa Roll Number(s): 0614-600-060-00110-0000 Appeal Number(s): 3522170, 3524718 and 3534453 Taxation Year(s): 2023, 2024 and 2025 Hearing Event No.: 787982

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

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel/Representative
Fauzi Wehbe	Robert Baranowski
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation	Mohammad El Dali
City of Ottawa	No one appeared

HEARD: June 17, 2025 by video conference

ADJUDICATOR(S): Anita Lovrich

DECISION

OVERVIEW

Background

1Fauzi Wehbe (the "Appellant") is the owner of 3867 Albion Road (the "Subject Property") in the City of Ottawa (the "City"). The Appellant appeals the assessment of the Subject Property for the 2023 taxation year, and a further appeal was deemed for the 2024 and 2025 taxation years pursuant to section 40(26) of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the "Act").

2The current value assessment for the 2023, 2024 and 2025 taxation years was returned at $813,000.

3The Appellant's basis of appeal is that the current assessed value of the Subject Property for the taxation years in question is incorrect and too high.

4The Appellant's opinion as to the correct current value of the Subject Property is between $505,000 and $646,000.

5The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation ("MPAC") takes the position that the current assessed value of the Subject Property is $1,057,962 for 2023 and $1,077,318 for 2024 and 2025.

6The City is a statutory party to the appeals but did not attend the hearing or provide submissions to the Assessment Review Board (the "Board").

Description of the Subject Property

7The Subject Property is a commercial property in the City. The business at the Subject Property is a restaurant and food market. It operates as Ozzy's Shawarma/Ozzy Food Market.

Areas of Agreement

8The parties agreed that the current use of the Subject Property is commercial.

9The parties agreed that the current use represented the highest and best use of the Subject Property.

Issues for the Hearing

10At issue in this proceeding is:

1. What is the current value of the Subject Property?
2. Is an equitable adjustment required pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act?

Result

11For the reasons that follow, the Board finds:

1. The current value of the Subject Property is $1,057,962 for 2023 taxation year and $1,077,318 for 2024 and 2025 taxation years.
2. An equitable adjustment is not required, resulting in a final determination of value of $1,057,000 (rounded) for the 2023 taxation year and $1,077,000 (rounded) for the 2024 and 2025 taxation years.

PRELIMINARY MATTERS

Preliminary Matter 1: Request by Appellant's representative to be a fact witness

Introduction

12The Appellant's representative requested to be a fact witness, which MPAC objected to.

Applicable Law

13Rule 14 of the Board's Rules states:

Representative as Advocate and Witness

A representative who is licensed by the Law Society of Ontario as a paralegal or lawyer may appear at a hearing event as both an advocate and a witness:

a) in a summary proceeding before the Board; or

b) in a general proceeding with leave of the Board.

Submissions of the Parties

MPAC

14MPAC objected to the Appellant's request on the basis that an Expedited Board Directions Form ("EBDF") is required and a request was never filed.

Appellant

15The Appellant's representative's position is that the request was made as a part of the witness statement and submitted that there is no prejudice to MPAC. He submits that he intends to provide evidence regarding the factual information on which the Appellant relies in its analysis, and not opinion evidence.

Findings on Preliminary Issue 1

16The Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure ("Rules") recognize there may be situations where it is appropriate for a representative to appear at a hearing event as both an advocate and a witness. The Appellant has stated that it is seeking the Board's permission for the Appellant's representative to act as a fact witness, not an expert witness, and that the proposed witness intends to provide evidence regarding the factual information on which the Appellant relies in its analysis, not opinion evidence. In such circumstances, the Board finds it is appropriate to grant leave to the Appellant for his representative to act as both an advocate and a fact witness and to testify as to factual evidence, but not to provide an opinion on those facts.

Preliminary Issue 2: Should MPAC be permitted to seek a higher value pursuant to Rule 28?

Introduction

17The Appellant objected to MPAC seeking a higher value that the returned assessed value as it has not provided the requisite notice as per the Rules.

Applicable Law

18Rule 28 of the Board's Rules provides:

28. A party is deemed to have given notice of its intention to seek a higher assessment or higher tax rate property class where:

a. the party has included its request in its Statement of Issues or Statement of Response; or

b. the party delivers a separate written notice of its request, which is served on all parties and filed with the Board at any time prior to the due date in the Schedule of Events for serving its Statement of Issues or Response.

Appellant

19The Appellant submits that MPAC has not provided the requisite notice as per Rule 28. The Appellant states that there is a critical distinction between simply taking the position that a property's correct current value is higher than its originally returned assessment, and asking the Board to increase that originally returned assessment in the context of a taxpayer's appeal. It argues that there are many cases where MPAC has taken the position that a property's originally returned assessment was understated, without taking the additional step of seeking a higher assessment; and the Board has affirmed that property owners are entitled to specific written notice in cases where MPAC intends to take that additional step.

20The Appellant argues that Rule 43(g) of the Rules states that, if a party intends to seek a higher assessment, its pleadings must clearly set out:

1. the basis on which a higher assessment is sought; and
2. a list of all facts, legal grounds and documents that the party relies on in support of its position.

MPAC

21MPAC submits that its Statement of Response and Amended Statement of Response reference the higher value sought and the fact that the higher value is an issue that has been raised throughout the appeal by MPAC within all the documents filed. MPAC submits that a party is deemed to request a higher current value as per Rule 28(a) if it is referenced in its pleadings.

22MPAC submits that the following conclusion of current value analysis was included in the initial Statement of Response that was filed with the Board:

CONCLUSION OF CURRENT VALUE ANALYSIS

23. Following the analysis outlined and described above, the Responded pleads that the assessment for the 2016 CVA should be adjusted as follows:

2016 CVA	Proposed 2023 Value	Proposed 2024 Value
$813,000 COM C8 Land Value: $595,274 Building Value: $218,321	$1,057,961 COM C8 LV: $860,526 BV: $197,435	$1,077,318 C8 LV: $860,526 VB: $216,792

23According to MPAC, this "exact same position is either directly stated or referred to within MPAC's Amended Statement of Response, MPAC's Equity Report, MPAC's Amended Statement of Response, MPAC's Market Grid Analysis and MPAC's Expert Report. All of which are within the Board's possession and can be easily referenced to. The Appellant has been provided more than ample notice of MPAC's intention of seeking a higher assessment."

24MPAC submits that this specific issue and matter was discussed and resolved by the Divisional Court in the case of Merivale-Gilmour Manor Ltd. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp. Region No. 3, [2021] O.J. No. 4827, specifically the Court stated at paragraph 32 that:

I further find that the ARB Rules are not ambiguous. ARB Rule 38 provides that statements of issues and responses must contain, if the issue is a higher assessment, the basis on which a higher assessment is sought and the facts, legal grounds, and documents that the party relies on in support of its position. MPAC and Ottawa's statements of response each included this information. The Board found that this was sufficient to constitute notice as required by s. 72 of the Assessment Act. I have no reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's decision in this regard.

25MPAC asserts that the Court found that the Rules are not ambiguous and threshold of providing notice to the participating parties is by ensuring that the higher assessed value is both pled and the arguments behind said position are provided.

Findings on Preliminary Issue 2

26In Merivale-Gilmour Manor Ltd. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region No. 3 et al, 2021 ONSC 6240, the Divisional Court held at paragraph 29 that:

The ARB Rules do not define the precise form in which such notice must be provided in general proceedings. The Board determined that the notice provided by MPAC and Ottawa in their statements of response was sufficient for the purpose of ARB Rule 72. I have no reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's decision in this regard.

27As per Rule 28 of the Board's current Rules, a party is deemed to have given notice of its intention to seek a higher assessment where the party has included its request in its Statement of Issues or Statement of Response. Here, MPAC raised the issue of the higher value that it was seeking in its initial Statement of Response and the Amended Statement of Response, which referred to the valuation report with respect to current value, did not negate the fact that it was raised by MPAC in its pleadings. As a result, the Board finds that MPAC has met the requirement to given notice of its intention to seek a higher assessment.

Preliminary Issue 3: Should the Board restrict the MPAC's Proposed Expert from Providing Expert Evidence in these Appeals?

28MPAC sought to tender its expert witness as an expert in property appraisal and valuation in Ontario.

29The Appellant challenged the qualifications of MPAC's proposed expert witness.

Applicable Law

30In the Board decision, 1324782 Ontario Limited v Kingston (City), 2023 CanLII 56782 (ON ARB), the Board summarized the law relating to evidence from expert witnesses and the admissibility of expert opinion evidence:

[14] To be considered "properly qualified", an expert witness must i) be aware of their duty to provide the court with "fair, objective and non-partisan" evidence, and ii) be able and willing to carry out that duty: see White Burgess at paragraph 46. In the event a proposed expert witness is not able, or is unwilling, to fulfil that obligation, they do not meet the qualifications of an expert for the purpose of providing opinion evidence in a proceeding and their evidence should be excluded: White Burgess at paragraphs 23 and 46.

[16] The process for challenging a proposed expert's qualifications on the basis that the expert is unable or unwilling to provide fair, objective and non-partisan evidence was outlined in White Burgess as follows:

a) Once an expert attests or testifies an oath that they are able and willing to perform their duty to be fair, objective and non-partisan – for instance, signing an AED – there is a burden on the party that opposes admitting the expert evidence to show that there is a "realistic concern that the expert's evidence should not be received because the expert is unable and/or unwilling to comply with that duty": see White Burgess at paragraph 48.

b) The burden to establish that the expert is qualified remains on the party proposing to call the evidence: see White Burgess at paragraph 48.

c) The trier of fact must then consider both the circumstances of the proposed expert, and the substance of their proposed evidence to ascertain whether they are able and willing to provide evidence that is fair, objective and non-partisan. When considering the relationship between a proposed expert and a party, "the question is not whether a reasonable observer would think that the expert is not independent. The question is whether the relationship or interest results in the expert being unable or unwilling to carry out his or her primary duty to the court to provide fair, non-partisan and objective assistance": White Burgess at paragraph 50.

Qualification of MPAC's Expert Witness

Evidence and Submissions from the Parties

MPAC

31MPAC pointed to MPAC's expert witness's executed Acknowledgement of Expert's Duty ("AED") Form and asked him questions regarding his education and experience as highlighted in his curriculum vitae. MPAC's expert witness testified that he has property valuation analyst experience and experience with appraising properties. He testified that he has experience with conducting valuations in Ontario for almost 29 years. He stated that he has experience with dealing with residential, commercial and industrial properties. He testified that he has been working with commercial properties valued on the cost approach since 1997. He stated that he has dealt with hundreds of appeals of this nature. He stated that he has 28 years of experience as a valuator for commercial properties and that he has completed two courses from the Associate Member Institute of Municipal Assessors ("AIMA") along with his certifications attained. One being a Bachelor degree of Social Sciences from University of Ottawa and Certification in Real Property Assessment from the University of British Columbia. MPAC's expert witness testified that although he is employed by MPAC, he does not have a vested interest in the appeals, his duty is to the Board, and he is independent from MPAC.

Appellant

32The Appellant argued that MPAC's proposed expert witness's employment at MPAC means that he is not an independent expert witness and that he is biased. In addition, the Appellant submits that MPAC's expert witness was in attendance at the mandatory meeting and the settlement conference.

Findings of the Board on Preliminary Issue 3

33MPAC's expert executed an AED in which they attested to i) a duty to provide opinion evidence that is fair, objective, non-partisan, and related only to matters within his area of expertise; and ii) that this duty prevails over any obligation to any party by whom or on whose behalf they are engaged.

34The Board considered whether there is a "realistic concern that the expert's evidence should not be received because the expert is unable and/or unwilling to comply with that duty" to be fair, objective and non-partisan and found that there is no indication of such a concern. The Board finds that this is not a case where the proposed expert is unable to provide the Board with fair, objective and non-partisan evidence.

35With respect to the question of the proposed expert witness's employment relationship at MPAC, in White Burgess Langille Inman v. Abbott and Haliburton Co., 2015 SCC 23, [2015] 2 SCR at paragraph 49, the Supreme Court held that:

[49] This threshold requirement is not particularly onerous and it will likely be quite rare that a proposed expert's evidence would be ruled inadmissible for failing to meet it. The trial judge must determine, having regard to both the particular circumstances of the proposed expert and the substance of the proposed evidence, whether the expert is able and willing to carry out his or her primary duty to the court. For example, it is the nature and extent of the interest or connection with the litigation or a party thereto which matters, not the mere fact of the interest or connection; the existence of some interest or a relationship does not automatically render the evidence of the proposed expert inadmissible. In most cases, a mere employment relationship with the party calling the evidence will be insufficient to do so. On the other hand, a direct financial interest in the outcome of the litigation will be of more concern.

36The Board considered MPAC's proposed expert witness' combination of education, experience, training, and qualifications and determines that the proposed expert witnesses was able and willing to provide evidence that is fair, objective, and non-partisan. The Board does not accept the Appellant's submission that the Appellant's witness failed to meet the standards of his expert duty to the Board.

37The Board qualified MPAC's proposed expert witness to give expert evidence on property valuations in Ontario.

ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - What is the current value of the Subject Property?

Applicable Law

38In 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." Section 19.2(1) of the Act states that the valuation day for the taxation years under appeal is January 1, 2016.

MPAC's Evidence

(a) Cost Approach

39MPAC valued the Subject Property using the cost approach.

40MPAC's cost approach includes the two customary components: 1. the cost to acquire a site as though vacant and of similar utility to the Subject Property, and 2. the replacement cost new to construct the building, structures and other improvements on the site, less total depreciation (physical deterioration, functional obsolescence, and external obsolescence).

Site Valuation

41To determine a land value for the Subject Property, MPAC analyzed market sales and made adjustments for inferior or superior property characteristics in relation to the Subject Property.

42MPAC identified sales to obtain a residual land rate per square foot (see Appendix A).

43MPAC testified as follows:

• Sale 1 (2817 Riverside Drive): The gross building area (3,595 square feet ("sq. ft.")) is larger than that of the Subject Property (2,383 sq. ft.), and the weighted structure height (12 feet) is lower than for the Subject Property (14 feet). The site area is 20,857.87 sq. ft., compared to 12,279.20 sq. ft. for the Subject Property. The property is considered to be similar to the Subject Property, based primarily on the site area of the sold property.
• Sale 2 (680 Brookfield Road): The gross building area (3,770 sq. ft.) is larger than that of the Subject Property (2,383 sq. ft.), and the weighted structure height (15.4 feet) is higher than for the Subject Property (14 feet). The site area is 8,929.75 sq. ft. compared to 12,279.20 sq. ft. for the Subject Property. The property is considered to be similar to the Subject Property, based primarily on the site area of the sold property.
• Sale 3 (1676 Bank Street): The gross building area (4,330 sq. ft.) is larger than that of the Subject Property (2,383 sq. ft.), and the weighted structure height (9.3 feet) is lower than for the Subject Property (14 feet). The site area is 7,027.54 sq. ft., compared to 12,279.20 sq. ft. for the Subject Property. The property is considered to be inferior to the Subject Property, based primarily on the site area of the sold property.
• Sale 4 (1677 Bank Street): The gross building area (1,424 sq. ft.) is smaller than that of the Subject Property (2,383 sq. ft.), and the weighted structure height (11 feet) is lower than for the Subject Property (14 feet). The site area is 8,909.70 sq. ft., compared to 12,279.20 sq. ft. for the Subject Property. The property is considered to be similar to the Subject Property, based primarily on the site area of the sold property.
• Sale 5 (1947-1949 Bank Street): The gross building area (4,628 sq.ft.) is larger than that of the Subject Property (2,383 sq. ft.), and the weighted structure height (11.2 feet) is lower than for the Subject Property (14 feet). The site area is 15,021.49 sq. ft., compared to 12,279.20 sq. ft. for the Subject Property. The property is considered to be similar to the Subject Property, based primarily on the site area of the sold property.
• Sale 6 (1493 Sieveright Avenue): The gross building area (4,900 sq. ft.) is larger than that of the Subject Property (2,383 sq. ft.), and the weighted structure height (21 feet) is higher than for the Subject Property (14 feet). The site area is 53,368.00 sq. ft., compared to 12,279.20 sq. ft. for the Subject Property. The property is considered to be superior to the Subject Property, based primarily on the site area of the sold property.
• Sale 7 (2919 Bank Street): The gross building area (2,082 sq. ft.) is smaller than that of the Subject Property (2,383 sq. ft.), and the weighted structure height (9.5 feet) is higher than for the Subject Property (14 feet). The site area is 21,932.54 sq. ft., compared to 12,279.20 sq. ft. for the Subject Property. The property is considered to be similar to the Subject Property, based primarily on the site area of the sold property.
• Sale 8 (1108 Cadboro Road): The gross building area (3,661 sq. ft.) is larger than that of the Subject Property (2,383 sq. ft.), and the weighted structure height (15 feet) is higher than for the Subject Property (14 feet). The site area is 13,385.61 sq. ft., compared to 12,279.20 sq. ft. for the Subject Property. The property is considered to be similar to the Subject Property, based primarily on the site area of the sold property.

44MPAC testified that, based on its analysis, the value of the site for the Subject Property is $860,526.34.

45MPAC submits that the value of improvements and land of the Subject Property, as per the cost approach, is as follows:

For 2023 taxation year:

• Improvements
• Total Cost New: $387,129
• Total Depreciation: ($189,693)
• Total Cost Less Depreciation: $197,436
• Land value $860,526
• Estimate of value using cost approach $1,057,962

For 2024 taxation year:

• Improvements
• Total Cost New: $387,129
• Total Depreciation: ($170,336)
• Total Cost Less Depreciation: $216,793
• Land value $860,526
• Estimate of value using cost approach $1,077,318

46Taking into account the net value of the improvements, per MPAC's cost analysis, and adding them to MPAC's determined land value of $860,526, MPAC testified that this results in a total value for the Subject Property of $1,057,962 for 2023 and $1,077,318 for 2024 and 2025.

Appellant's Evidence

[47] The Board will not consider evidence of current value that was not filed in accordance with the Rules and that was submitted in closing submissions. The only market evidence of current value that was properly filed and adduced at the hearing by the Appellant was the July 2016 sale of 1585 Bank Street, which "sold on the open market at a rate of $236 per square foot." It was built in 1954, had 2,117 square feet and had a site area of 0.07 acres. Applying the $236 per square foot sale price for that property to the Subject Property would yield a current value of $562,000, as follows:

• $236 (July 2016 sale price per sf of total building area for 1585 Bank St) x 2,383 square feet (Subject Property total building area) = $562,388 ($562,000 rounded).

MPAC's Submissions

48MPAC submits that MPAC not only provided the most up-to-date ACS costing breakdown of the Subject Property but of all comparables relied on as well. Further to this, an interior and exterior inspection was conducted by the assessor and a breakdown of each of the changes were both provided in the report but also within the testimony provided along with photographic evidence.

Appellant's Submissions

49The Appellant takes issue with MPAC's use of costed structure values, derived from its ACS system, to determine current value for the Subject Property. In the case 2049098 Ontario Inc v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 15, 2016 CanLII 48797 (ON ARB) the Board rejected MPAC's use of assessed structure values—derived from MPAC's ACS system—in its land residual analysis, on the grounds that MPAC had presented "no evidence of what data went into the model for it to return the values presented16". The Appellant submits that, for the same reasons, the Board should similarly reject MPAC's use of ACS to determine current value in the subject case.

50The Appellant submits Land v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 32, 2020 CanLII 24879 (ON ARB) as support that the cost approach "is normally the approach of last resort when attempting to establish the market value of a property," where "the Board normally prefers market driven approaches to establish the current value."

Findings on Issue 1

51The Appellant's single proposed comparable property is significantly older than the Subject Property and has a smaller lot size compared to the Subject Property. The Board finds that this property is unlikely to be a reliable indicator of the Subject Property's market value In the absence of reliable market evidence of current value by way of comparable properties that sold or near the valuation day, the Board finds that the best evidence of current value before the Board is MPAC's cost approach analysis.

52Based on the above analysis and evidence submitted, the Board finds that the Subject Property's current value is of $1,057,962 for 2023 and $1,077,318 for 2024 and 2025.

Issue 2: Is an equitable adjustment required pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act?

Applicable Law

53Section 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 Equity

MPAC

54MPAC identified 29 properties similar to the Subject Property with sale dates between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2017, within 14 kilometres of the Subject Property, with the following property codes:

1. Property Code 411: Restaurant – Conventional;
2. Property Code 400: Small Office Building (Generally Single Tenant Or Owner Occupied Under 7,500 S.F.);
3. Property Code 401: Small Medical/Dental Building (Generally Single Tenant Or Owner Occupied Under 7,500 S.F.);
4. Property Code 405: Office Use Converted From House;
5. Property Code 406: Retail Use Converted From House;
6. Property Code 410: Retail - One Storey, Generally Under 10,000 S.F.;
7. Property Code 412: Restaurant - Fast Food , Property Code 413: Restaurant - Conventional, National Chain;
8. Property Code 414: Restaurant - Fast Food, National Chain;
9. Property Code 420: Automotive Fuel Station With Or Without Service Facilities;
10. Property Code 421: Specialty Automotive Shop/Auto Repair/ Collision Service/Car Or Truck Wash;
11. Property Code 471: Retail Or Office With Residential Unit(S) Above Or Behind - Less Than 10,000 S.F. Gross Building Area (Gba), Street Or Onsite Parking, With 6 Or Less Apartments, Older Downtown Core;
12. Property Code 477: Retail With Office(S) - Less Than 10,000 S.F., Gba With Offices Above; and
13. Property Code 735: Assembly Hall, Community Hall.

55MPAC 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.

56MPAC states that its ASR of 0.96 which means that similar properties in the vicinity have been assessed at or near their current values and an equity adjustment is not required.

Appellant

57The Appellant's witness testified that the Subject Property's assessment is inequitable as per Section 44(3)(b) with reference to the assessment of similar lands or comparables.

58The Appellant states that the Subject Property has an overall rate of assessment of $341 per square foot, while the below noted similar properties in the immediate vicinity have been assessed at a median rate of $251 per square foot. The Appellant chose the proposed comparable properties below on the basis that they share the same property code as the Subject Property and are located in the immediate vicinity within the same city block:

Address	Municipality	Roll Number (15 digit)	PC	Assessment	Sale	Sale Date	Land Size (A0.28C)	Year Built	Height	Total Floor Area (SF)	CVA/SF	Sale/SF
3867 ALBION RD S	OTTAWA	061460006000110	411	$813,000			0.28	1987	14	2383	$341
1340 BANK ST	OTTAWA	061410600105600	411	$1,542,000			0.29	1890-1948	9 TO 12	6,383	$242
2679 BANK ST	OTTAWA	061460005505100	411	$1,361,000			0.86	1966	8 TO 12	5,424	$251
1585 BANK ST	OTTAWA	061410590302900	411	$598,000	$500,000	2016-07-21	0.07	1954	8 TO 10	2,117	$282	$236
Median											$251

59The Appellant sought an equitable rate of assessment no higher than $251 per sq. ft. for the Subject Property, based on the median rate of assessment for the Appellant's proposed comparable properties. This would yield an equitable assessed value of $598,000, as follows: Applying the median square foot of $251 of the assessed values to the Subject Property sq. ft. of 2,383 sq. ft. amounts to $598,133 ($598,000 rounded).

Findings on Issue 2

60The Board prefers MPAC's sample set of 29 properties to the Appellant's four proposed properties. The Board prefers the evidence of MPAC because the ASR from a reasonable sample of sold properties is usually the best indicator for determining whether an equitable adjustment is required. The Board finds that the sales on which MPAC relies represent similar lands in the vicinity.

61Accordingly, the Board finds MPAC's evidence is the best evidence on equitable adjustment and accepts that no equitable adjustment is required.

CONCLUSION

62The Board finds:

1. The current value of the Subject Property is $1,057,962 for 2023 and $1,077,318 for 2024 and 2025.
2. An equitable adjustment is not required, resulting in a final determination of value of $1,057,000 (rounded) for the 2023 taxation year and $1,077,000 for the 2024 and 2025 taxation years.

ORDER

63The Board orders that the current assessed value of the Subject Property is $1,057,000 (rounded) for the 2023 taxation year and $1,077,000 for the 2024 and 2025 taxation years.

"Anita Lovrich"

ANITA LOVRICH MEMBER Assessment Review Board Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb

Appendix A

ROLL NUMBER	MUNICIPAL ADDRESS	CURRENT VALUE	SALE DATE	SALE AMOUNT	RDNLD	RESIDUAL LAND VALUE (SALE-RCNLD)	RESIDUAL LAND RATE PER SQ.FT.	TIME ADJUSTED SALE PRICE	TIME ADJ. RESIDUAL LAND VALUE	RESIDUAL LAND RATE PER SQFT	LOT SIZE (SQFT)	FRTG	DEPTH	BUILDING AREA (SQFT)	WEIGHTED HEIGHT	RETURNED LAND VALUE	RETURNED LAND RATE PER SQFT	PC	ZONING	H/Nbhd
061460006000110	3867 ALBION RD. S	$813,000	#NA	#NA	$218,321	#NA	#NA				12,279.20	101.18	121.36	2.383	14.0	$595,274	$48.48	411	LC6	Q60
061411620105000	2817 RIVERSIDE DR	$1,558,000	2015-07-31	$1,475,000	$111,540	$1,363,460	$65.37	$1,534,000	$1,422,460	$68.20	20,857.87	77.28	269.90	3,595	12.0	$1,446,960	$69.37	401	GMI F (1.0)	S12
061411620107800	680 BROOKFIELD RD	$1,078,000	2015-01-16	$830,000	$97,331	$732,669	$82.05	$888,100	$790,769	$88.55	8,929.75	40.12	193.62	3,770	15.4	$981,553	$109.92	411	GMI F (1.0)	S12
061411630158400	1676 BANK ST	$925,000	2014-01-31	$1,100,000	$194,233	$905,767	$128.89	$1,265,000	$1,070,767	$152.37	7,027.54	60.01	117.11	4,330	9.3	$730,952	$104.01	477	AM1 (1913)	R54
061411630161300	1677 BANK ST	$800,000	2019-08-28	$967,600	$74,827	$892,373	$100.19	$715,950	$641,123	$71.96	8,909.70	101.00	88.00	1,424	11.0	$725,173	$81.39	414	AM1 (1913)	R54
061411650178000	1947-1949 BANK ST	$1,493,000	2016-02-16	$1,637,500	$343,427	$1,294,073	$86.15	$1,621,125	$1,277,698	$85.06	15,021.49	118.70	126.55	4,628	11.2	$1,150,348	$76.58	400	AM1 (1913)	R54
061460005501000	1493 SIEVERIGHT AVE	$1,071,000	2014-09-30	$1,100,000	$97,304	$1,002,696	$18.79	$1,210,000	$1,112,696	$20.85	53,368.00	140.00	381.20	4,900	21.0	$974,338	$18.26	410	AMH(30)	Q65
061460000601000	2919 BANK ST	$918,000	2014-10-29	$1,167,600	$152,018	$1,015,582	$46.30	$1,272,684	$1,120,666	$51.10	21,932.54	139.76	156.93	2,082	9.5	$766,115	$34.93	414	AMIH(30)	Q60
061460015935300	1108 CADBORO RD	$654,000	2018-08-03	$1,100,000	$173,461	$926,539	$69.22	$891,000	$717,539	$53.61	13,385.61	14.53	93.26	3,661	15.0	$480,544	$35.90	421	AM10	Q50

SUBJECT- ROLL RETURNED VALUES

• LAND VALUE: $595,274
• RATE PER SQFT.: $48.48
• RCNLD: $218,321
• CURRENT CVA: $813,000

SUBJECT RECOMMENDED CVA-2024 TAX YEAR

• AVERAGE: $73.96
• REVISED LAND VALUE: $860,526
• MEDIAN: $70.08
• REVISED RATE PER SQFT.: $70.08
• REVISED RCNLD: $197,435
• MINIMUM: $20.85 (7,027.54 sqft)
• MAXIMUM: $152.37 (53,368.00 sqft)
• REVISED CURRENT CVA: $1,057,961 ($1,057,000 rounded)
• EQUITY ADJUSTMENT: 1.00 (REFER TO EQUITY ANALYSIS)
• 2016 CVA CONCLUSION: $1,057,000

MPAC COMMENTS The subject property has a site area of 12,279.20 square feet, which is in the mid-range of the site area of the comparables. The most comparable properties on this list are: 2817 Riverside Dr., 680 Brookfield Rd., 1677 Bank St., 1947 Bank St., 2919 Bank St., and 1108 Cadboro Rd. The time-adjusted residual land rate per sq. ft. of these comparables is $70.08/sq. ft. Applied to the subject property, the land value is revised from $595,274 to $883,611. This revises the 2016CVA for the 2023 taxation year (with structure value revisions) from $813,000 (LV: 595,274/ BV: 218,321) to $1,057,961 ($1,057,000 rounded) (LV: 860,526/BV: 197,435). This revises the 2016CVA for the 2024 taxation year (with structure value revisions) from $813,000 (LV: 595,274/ BV: 218,321) to $1,077,318 ($1,077,000 rounded) (LV: 860,536/BV: 216,792).

SUBJECT ROLL RETURNED VALUES

• LAND VALUE: $595,274
• RATE PER SQFT: $48.48
• RCNLD: $218,321
• CURRENT CVA: $813,000

SUBJECT RECOMMENDED CVA-2024 TAX YEAR

• REVISED LAND VALUE: $860,526
• REVISED RATE PER SQFT: $70.08
• REVISED RCNLD: $216,792
• REVISED CURRENT CVA: $1,077,318 (1,077,000 rounded)
• EQUITY ADJUSTMENT: 1.00
• 2016 CVA CONCLUSION: $1,077,000