Assessment Review Board

Tribunals Ontario

Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

April 9, 2026

FILE NO.:

WR 189842

Assessed Person(s):

Joseph Conlin Marostica

Appellant(s):

Joseph Marostica

Respondent(s):

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 32

Respondent(s):

Municipality of Shuniah

Property Location(s):

1457 Silver Harbour Drive

Municipality(ies):

Municipality of Shuniah

Roll Number(s):

5828-010-004-33500-0000

Appeal Number(s):

3538090, 3538091 and 3550503

Taxation Year(s):

2024, 2025 and 2026

Hearing Event No.:

790964

Legislative Authority:

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

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel/Representative

Joseph Conlin Marostica

Ron Marostica

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation

Jenna Hodder

Municipality of Shuniah

No one appeared

HEARD:

February 2, 2026 by video conference

ADJUDICATOR(S):

Rema El-Tawil, Member Letizia Filippazzo, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1Joseph Marostica (the “Appellant) is the owner of the property located at 1457 Silver Harbour Drive, (the “Subject Property”) in the Municipality of Shuniah (the “Municipality”) and filed appeals for the 2024 and 2025 taxation years pursuant to s. 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, (the “Act”). Pursuant to s. 40(26) of the Act, the Appellant is deemed to have brought the same appeal in respect of the 2026 taxation year.

2The Subject Property is a two-storey waterfront single family detached dwelling constructed in 2024. It totals 2396 square feet above grade with 3 bedrooms and 4 bathrooms with a partial basement of 710 sq.ft and a quality of construction of 7.5. It is situated on a site that totals 0.7 acres. The Subject Property is located on Silver Harbour Drive, a road leading to mostly waterfront properties along Lake Superior within Municipality.

3The Appellant’s basis for this appeal is that the current value assessment made by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) of the Subject Property is too high. The Appellant asks the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) to reduce the assessment to $474,000.

4MPAC is responding to these appeals and submits that it has the authority to make a supplementary assessment pursuant to s. 34 of the Act. MPAC’s position is that the correct current value is $702,000.

5The Municipality is a party to these appeals but did not participate in the hearing.

ISSUES

6At issue in this proceeding is:

What is the correct current value of the Subject Property?
Whether an equitable reduction in the current value should be made?

Result

7The Board finds that the correct current value of the property is $687,747, and that an adjustment for equity is not required.

APPLICABLE LAW

8Section 34 of the Act provides for supplementary assessments in certain circumstances:

34 (1) 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; …

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. (emphasis added)

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 2025 taxation year is January 1, 2016.

11The best evidence the Board can receive of current value is an arm’s length and market-tested sale of the Subject Property on or close to the valuation day. If no such transaction took place, the next best measure of current value is an 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.

Issue 1 – What is the Correct Current Value?

MPAC Evidence and Submissions

12MPAC submits that the valuation date for determining the increase in value resulting from an improvement pursuant to s. 34 is January 1, 2016. MPAC stated that the valuation day for the increase in value resulting from an improvement pursuant to s. 34 is September 26, 2024 which is the day that the improvement commenced to be used.

13MPAC provided evidence regarding four properties. MPAC performed a time adjustment to reflect what these properties would have sold for on January 1, 2016.

Subject Property

Property #1

Property #2

Property#3

Property #4

Roll Number

582801000433500

582801000454500

582801000519018

582801000423500

582801000301700

Address

1457 SILVER HARBOUR DR

2063 SUNNYSIDE BEACH AVE

2619 BIRCH BEACH RD

1941 CRYSTAL BEACH AVE

951 BLIND CREEK DR

Neighbourhood

T40 – 482

T38 – 482

T29 – 482

T38 - 482

T22 – 482

Property Code & Desc.

(313) Single Family Detached On Water

(391) Seasonal/Recreational Dwelling – First Tier On Water

(313) Single Family Detached On Water

Distance in km

6.7483

12.1234

5.2939

4.3065

Sale

Sale Date

20150715

20160229

20160823

20160630

Sale Amount

$600,000

$644,000

$850,000

$510,000

Instrument Number

TY199803

TY211775

TY220683

TY217863

Time Adjusted Sale Amount

$617,002

$639,014

$820,083

$496,451

Time Adjusted Sale Ratio

0.9481

1.1361

0.9792

1.0112

Time Adjustment Factor

1.0283

0.9923

0.9648

0.9734

Site

Effective Frontage (F)

66.54

147.6

146.76

110

Actual Frontage

58.5

147.6

146.76

110

Effective Depth (F)

519.74

210

513.42

286.37

360.36

Actual Depth

210

Effective Site Area (Acres)

0.7

0.36

1.74

0.96

0.91

Actual Site Area (Acres)

0.7

0.36

1.48

0.96

0.91

Access

Year Round Road Access

Waterfront Variable(s)

(D) Shoreline - Rocky, (A) Waterfront - Lake, (M) Exposure - South

(D) Shoreline - Rocky,

(G) Shoreline - Shallow, (A) Waterfront - Lake

(M) Exposure - South, (D) Shoreline - Rocky, (A) Waterfront - Lake

(A) Waterfront -Lake, (C) Shoreline - Sandy

(A) Waterfront -Lake, (D) Shoreline - Rocky

Water Service Code

Private Well

Sanitary

Septic Bed

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

2024

1988

1999

1955

1982

Effective Year Built

2024

1988

1999

1990

1987

Structure Variable(s)

(B) Basement Walkout

Structure Condition Code

Average

Quality of Construction

7.5

5.5

Full Storeys

2 Storeys

1 Storeys

2 Storeys

Bedrooms

Baths

4.5

Fire Places

Air Conditioning

Heating Type

Force Air

Hot Water (Boiler)

Force Air

Building Total Are (SF)

2,396

2,196

2,180

3,267

2,256

First Floor Area (SF)

1217

1076

2180

2214

1458

Second Floor Area (SF)

1179

1120

1053

798

Upper Floor Area (3^rd and above) (SF)

Basement Type

Finished Basement – Average Quality

Basement Area (SF)

710

2,180

2,214

Finished Basement Area (SF)

184

1,200

Basement Height

Secondary Structure(s)

Structure Description

(101) Detached Garage

(116) Attached Garage

(102) Shed

(116) Attached Garage

Year Built

1983

1999

1988

1982

Building Total Area (SF)

384

604

308

750

Quality of Construction

Structure Description

(127) Outdoor Sauna/Hot Tub

(101) Detached Garage

Year Built

2005

1999

1986

Building Total Area (SF)

166

820

940

Quality of Construction

14MPAC submits that:

Property # 1 – 2063 Sunnyside Beach Avenue: This proposed comparable property is located approximately 6 kilometers East of the Subject Property. MPAC submits that it is comparable to the Subject Property in regard to location, Official Plan, and Zoning designation. It is inferior in regard to lot size, however, it is comparable in building area. It is inferior in regard to year built as it is built in 1983.
Property # 2 – 2619 Birch Beach Road: This comparable is located approximately 12 kilometers East of the Subject Property in the Municipality. MPAC submits that it is comparable to the Subject Property in regard to location, Official Plan, and Zoning designation. It is most comparable to the Subject Property in regard to quality of construction and overall square footage, however inferior as it is a 1999 year built. Overall, this sale is most comparable to the Subject Property according to MPAC.
Property # 3 – 1941 Crystal Beach Ave: This proposed comparable is located approximately 5 kilometers East of the Subject Property in the Municipality. It is comparable in location, zoning, and waterfront designation. It is inferior in the year build as it was built in 1955. MPAC submits that it is superior to the Subject Property as it is much larger in scale of approximately 1000 square feet.
Property # 4 – 951 Blind Creek Drive: This proposed comparable is located approximately 4 kilometers West of the Subject Property in the Municipality and waterfront location. It is Built in 1982. MPAC stated that it is lower quality of construction and overall inferior.

15MPAC submits that comparable properties identified by the Appellant have not had any recent sales or any market sales analysis and therefore cannot be used to determine current value of Subject Property.

16MPAC further submits that the best indicator of current value is the time adjusted sale of the proposed comparable Property #2 of $293.12 per square foot.

17MPAC therefore submits that $702,000 is the current value of the Subject Property.

Appellant Evidence and Submissions

18The Appellant submits that the Subject Property is a simply constructed property with drywall on the walls and ceiling, recessed lighting, vinyl flooring, unfinished basement, outside siding, stucco and faux stone, but nowhere near the caliber of some of the superb homes that MPAC proposes as comparable properties.

19The Appellant provided evidence regarding eight proposed comparable properties by entering pictures of properties, narrative details submitted into evidence and viva voce evidence based on speaking to the owners of those properties.

20The Appellant submits that:

Property # 1 – 1423 Silver Harbor Drive: The Appellant submits that MPAC valued the property at $779,000, at 2164 square feet. It is twice the size of the Subject Property. The Appellant argues properties of this caliber are assessed at a value in the range of $600,000 to $800,000. The Appellant submits that this property has brick on the outside, nice wood and nice decks. The Appellant also submits that the Subject Property would not sell today for $850,000 and did not cost that much to build.
Property # 2 – 1443 Silver Harbour Drive: This property is superior in that it is mostly “flat”, allowing for full utilization of the property. It is a 2-storey house, with a 2-car garage, and is valued by MPAC at $560,000 and shown to be 1,767 square feet.
Property # 3 – 1319 Grandview Beach Rd.: This property is superior to the Subject Property, and includes 2 garages, is shown to be 2,765 square feet and is valued by MPAC at $575,000.
Property # 4 – 1323 Grandview Beach Rd.: This property is ‘flat’ and completely usable and includes a 2 car garage. It is superior to the Subject Property. It is valued by MPAC at $525,000 and shown as 2,032 square feet.
Property # 5 – 1351 Silver Harbour Drive: This property is listed shown to be 1,449 square feet and has a detached garage. It is on “flat” land with a beautiful sandy beach. It is valued by MPAC at $521,000.
Property # 6 – 1203 Sunrise Beach Drive: This property is superior to the Subject Property as it includes a 2 car garage. It is on “flat” land that has been beautifully landscaped. It is valued by MPAC at $517,000.
Property # 7 – 1207 Sunrise Beach: This property includes a 2 car garage and is 2-storey. It is shown to be 1,468 square feet and valued by MPAC at $447,000.
Property # 8 – The following 3 properties are what the Appellant would call “peers”. They are adjacent to the Subject Property and comparable in size. They face the same dilemma in that they have a very steep hill in front of the property that limits the waterfront use.1463, which is bigger than Subject Property and valued by MPAC at $526,000; 1461 which is valued by MPAC at $444,000; and 1459, which is valued by MPAC at $452,000. The Appellant submits that the average of these properties is $474,000 which he submits is the fair assessed value for the Subject Property.
The Appellant submits that properties that are superior to the Subject Property are valued at just over $500,000 and equivalent properties are in the high $400,000’s range.

21The Appellant provided MLS listings for MPAC’s proposed comparable Property #2, #3 and #4 as well as an additional Appellant proposed comparable property MLS Listing – 2061 Sunnyside Beach, Thunder Bay. Property #2 as proposed by MPAC (2619 Birch Beach Road) is far superb to the Subject Property as there is complete use of the land, it is ranch style home, paved driveway, and goes down to the beach. The Appellant would categorize this along with MPAC’s proposed comparable Property # 3 (1423 Silver Harbour Drive). MPAC proposed comparable Property #1 (2063 Sunnyside Beach Ave) has 2 garages and 2 buildings, a sandy beach, valued by MPAC at $585,000. The Appellant submits that if a deduction of $50,000 for the garage and a deduction of $50,000 for the poor lot is applied it would result in a value of $480,000. The Appellant provided the figures as an example of trying to get to where he believes the value should be as he submits most of the land for the Subject Property is unusable because of boulders and because there is no garage. He indicated that MPAC can use these figures as justification for fair value.

22The Appellant submits that MPAC’s proposed comparable #3 (951 Blind Creek Drive) has twice the frontage on the lake with a garage. He submits that MPAC values it at $502,000 and if $50,000 was deduced for the garage it would come closer to where the Subject Property should be valued. The Appellant’s position is that it would be unfair to place a value of $850,000, when the neighbours are not valued at anywhere near that. The Appellant’s proposed current value of $474,000 as of 2016 would put it in line with the comparators in the surrounding areas. This property is agreed to by the Appellant as the most comparable.

23The Appellant took the position that none of the property sales relied upon by MPAC are comparable to the Subject Property because, not only are they superior to Subject property, they are “superb”. The Appellant submits that, of all MPAC’s proposed comparable properties, the only property considered to be equivalent is 951 Blind Creek Drive, as it is a two- storey home. Although, the Appellant considers it to be superior in certain features such as the brick and garage.

24The Appellant objects to MPAC’s assessment based on a number of concerns, including the quality of construction of MPAC’s proposed comparable properties, interior features of these properties, garages, landscaping and slope, thereby, in the Appellant’s opining, making MPAC’s proposed comparable properties to the Subject Property.

Findings on Issue 1

25The Board finds that the Appellant provided insufficient evidence with respect to his proposed comparable properties’ sales information. The Board does not accept the evidence of the Appellant. The Board does not accept the Appellant’s proposed comparable properties because they are assessed values, not sale values. The Appellant failed to provide any property sales.

26The Board accepts that each of the proposed comparable properties submitted by MPAC are comparable to the Subject Property. For the following reasons, the Board finds that MPAC’s proposed comparable Property #1 located at 2063 Sunnyside Beach Road and proposed comparable Property #2 located at 2619 Birch Beach Road are both equivalent to the Subject Property. These properties are in the Municipality, they are comparable to the Subject Property in regard to location, Official Plan, and Zoning designation. They are also comparable to the Subject Property in regard to quality of construction and overall square footage. They are inferior, only in that they are a 1988 and 1999 year built. However, overall, these proposed comparable properties are the most equivalent to the Subject Property. The Board finds that they provide the best based on location to the Subject Property, quality of construction, size and square footage.

27The Board does not accept: (i) MPAC’s proposed comparable Property #3 located at 1941 Crystal Beach as it is significantly superior to the Subject Property in size; and (ii) MPAC’s proposed comparable Property #4 located at 951 Blind Creek Drive, as it is inferior to the Subject Property in quality of construction. The Board found these to be outliers for the reasons stated.

28The sale dates provided for MPAC’s two proposed comparable Property #1 and #2 are close to the valuation date. The sale prices are also time adjusted sale values of $617,002 and $639,014. The Board finds that the most comparable sales are the sales for MPAC’s comparable Property #1 and #2 and that this is the best evidence of the current value of the Subject Property.

29The Board finds that the median sale value per square foot for the comparable properties is $280.96 and $293.12 per square foot for an average of $287.04 per square foot. Applying this amount to the building area of the Subject Property which is 2396 square feet results in a current value of $687,747. The Board finds that this is the best evidence of the correct current value of the Subject Property.

30Therefore, based on the best evidence, the Board finds that the current value of the Subject Property is $687,747.

Issue 2 - Whether an equitable reduction in the current value should be made?

MPAC’s Evidence and Submissions

31MPAC provided an equity analysis detailing the sales of 30 properties with the same classification located within 200 kilometers of the Subject Property, occurring between December 31, 2014 and December 31, 2016. MPAC’s analysis reflected a median Assessment to Sale Ratio (“ASR”) of 1.05. MPAC submits that the median ASR falls within the range which demonstrates that properties have been assessed appropriately to their current value and an adjustment is not required for the purpose of equitable assessment. MPAC submits that therefore, an equity adjustment is not required.

Appellant’s Evidence and Submissions

32The Appellant did not provide evidence of an equity analysis. The Appellant disagreed with using the sales prices from 2016 and disagreed with MPAC’s assessment and stated that there must be fairness in taxation.

Findings on Issue 2

33The 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 are similar lands in the vicinity.

34Therefore, the Board finds that an equity adjustment is not required.

CONCLUSION

35MPAC’s assessment pursuant to s. 40 of the Act for each of the taxation years 2024 and 2025 has reported $850,000 as the current value of the Subject Property.

36The Board has found that the correct current value of the Subject Property is $687,747 and that no reduction of this value is required pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act.

37Therefore, the Board finds that the correct current value of the Subject Property for the taxation years 2024, 2025 and the deemed 2026 is $687,747.

ORDER

38The current value of the Subject Property for the taxation years 2024, 2025 and the deemed 2026 is $687,747.

"Rema El-Tawil"

REMA EL-TAWIL

MEMBER

"Letizia Filippazzo"

LETIZIA FILIPPAZZO

MEMBER

Assessment Review Board

Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb

Joseph Marostica v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 32, 2026 CanLII 32983

Case Summary

Assessment Review Board

DECISION

OVERVIEW

ISSUES

Result

APPLICABLE LAW

Issue 1 – What is the Correct Current Value?

MPAC Evidence and Submissions

Appellant Evidence and Submissions

Findings on Issue 1

Issue 2 - Whether an equitable reduction in the current value should be made?

MPAC’s Evidence and Submissions

Appellant’s Evidence and Submissions

Findings on Issue 2

CONCLUSION

ORDER