Pollesel v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 30, 2026 CanLII 35656

Tribunals Ontario

Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

April 17, 2026

FILE NO.:

WR 190342

Assessed Person(s):

Sophia Mary Pollesel; Justin Corey Gareau; Theodore Gareau

Appellant(s):

Sophia Pollesel; Justin Gareau

Respondent(s):

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 30

Respondent(s):

City of Sudbury

Property Location(s):

1809 Skead Road

Municipality(ies):

City of Sudbury

Roll Number(s):

5307-210-012-23201-0000

Appeal Number(s):

3538162 and 3550464

Taxation Year(s):

2025 and 2026

Hearing Event No.:

790865

Legislative Authority:

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

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel/Representative

Sophia Pollesel; Justin Gareau

Self-represented

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation

Todd Carmichael

City of Sudbury

No one appeared

HEARD:

February 24, 2025 by video conference

ADJUDICATOR(S):

Letizia Filippazzo, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1Sophia Pollesel (the “Appellant) is the owner of the property located at 1809 Skead Rd. (the “Subject Property”), in the City of Sudbury (the “Municipality”) and filed an appeal for the 2025 taxation year 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 single- family detached not on water, custom built in 2007 with improvements completed in 2024. The single family dwelling is 3,035 square feet above grade, with an attached 458 square foot garage, a detached 574 square foot garage, and a secondary detached (“secondary garage”) of 3,563 square foot garage with a quality of construction of 4. The Subject Property sits on 98.42 acres of land with mixed wooded, rock and swamp area. The Subject Property has 5 bedrooms and 4.5 bathrooms, a quality of construction of 7.5.

3The improvements include a renovated custom kitchen with granite countertops, U shaped island, and custom seating. The 2024 addition has three bedrooms, two bedrooms share a Jack-and-Jill ensuite with a double vanity, tiled shower, and separate bathtub, the third bedroom has an ensuite with tiled shower and walk-in closet. The basement has 9 foot ceilings and over 1,800 square feet of finished area, the basement includes a full bathroom, a sauna, and an indoor pool.

4The Appellant’s ground of this appeal is that the current value assessment made by Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) of the Subject Property is too high. The Appellant does not dispute that the improvements have been made, however challenges the value of the assessment made by MPAC and asks the Board to reduce the assessment to $800,000 including the secondary garage.

5MPAC is responding to these appeals and submits that they have made a supplementary assessment pursuant to s.34 of the Act due to the improvements made to the Subject Property. The improvements include the addition of a detached secondary garage of 3563 square feet, that MPAC assessed at $185,000. MPAC confirms that its s. 34 assessment is based on the improvements referenced in a building permit issued by the Municipality. MPAC asks the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) to increase the returned assessment value from $1,019,000 to $1,197,000 to reflect the improvements including the secondary garage.

6The Municipality is a party to these appeals and attended the hearing but did not participate in the hearing.

ISSUES

7At issue in this proceeding is:

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

Result

8The Board finds the correct current value of the Subject Property is $793,092.

9An adjustment for equity is not required.

APPLICABLE LAW

10Section 34 of the Act provides for supplementary assessments in certain circumstances:

Supplementary assessments to be added to tax roll

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)

Issue 1 – What is the increased Current Value of the Subject Property?

MPAC Evidence and Submissions

11MPAC 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 increase in value resulting from an improvement pursuant to s. 34 is effective as of January 1, 2024.

12MPAC used the direct comparison approach. MPAC provided evidence regarding five properties. MPAC performed a time adjustment to reflect what these properties would have sold for on January 1, 2016. Although MPAC included the Subject Property, it was not used in the analysis as the sale date was too far from the valuation date.

Subject Property

Property #1

Property #2

Property #3

Property #4

Property #5

Property #6

Roll Number

530721001223201

530721000504040

530721000504808

530716001504904

530717000600500

530721001223201

1809 SKEAD RD

H04 - 3

(301) Single-Family Detached (Not On Water)

Address

1809 SKEAD RD

1491 O'NEIL DR W

40 GLENEDEN CRT

76 MONTEE ROULEAU

341 BODSON DR W

Neighbourhood

H04 - 3

H02 - 1

H37 - 57

H55 - 60

Property Code & Desc.

(301) Single-Family

Detached (Not On Water)

(301) Single-Family

Detached (Not On Water)

(301) Single-Family

Detached (Not On Water)

(301) Single-Family

Detached (Not On Water)

(301) Single-Family

Detached (Not On Water)

(301) Single-Family

Detached (Not On Water)

Distance in km

8.5815

8.5506

21.3022

10.1109

Valuation

Current Value Assessment

$1,019,000

$639,000

$790,000

$586,000

$642,000

$517,000

Sale

Sale Date

20150826

20150630

20161215

20150407

20150928

20181023

Sale Amount

$960,000

$1,200,000

$1,125,000

$630,000

$725,000

$675,000

Valid For Analysis

Analysis

Valid For Analysis

Time Adjusted Sale Amount

$964,800

$1,209,600

$1,109,250

$636,300

$727,900

Time Adjusted Sale Ratio

0.6623

0.6531

0.7122

0.9209

0.882

Site

Actual Site Area (Acres)

98.42

2.22

2.48

13.9

98.42

Year Round Road Access

(B) Abuts Industrial , (J) Traffic Pattern - Medium

(76) Offical Plan Designated - Residential ,

(F) Topography - Level ,

(84) Offical Plan Designated - Rural , (78) Offical Plan Designated - Employment , (M) No Sidewalk On Street Private Well

Septic Bed

Hydro Available

Access

Year Round Road Access

Abuts Variable(s)

(J) Traffic Pattern -

Medium

(G) Abuts Golf Course

(K) Traffic Pattern - Light

Proximity Variable(s)

On Site Variable(s)

(76) Offical Plan Designated - Residential ,

(84) Offical Plan Designated - Rural , (78) Offical Plan Designated - Employment , (M) No Sidewalk On Street , (F)

Topography - Level

(F) Topography - Level ,

(M) No Sidewalk On Street

, (K) No Curbs And Gutters

(K) No Curbs And Gutters ,

(B) Cul-De- Sac/Court/Dead End , (G) Topography - Slight Slope ,

(M) No Sidewalk On Street

(G) Topography - Slight Slope , (B) Cul-De- Sac/Court/Dead End , (M) No Sidewalk On Street , (K) No Curbs And Gutters

(F) Topography - Level ,

(M) No Sidewalk On Street

, (K) No Curbs And Gutters

(K) No Curbs And Gutters ,

(F) Topography - Level ,

(M) No Sidewalk On Street

Water Service Code

Private Well

Municipal

Private Well

Sanitary

Septic Bed

Hydro Code

Hydro Available

Residential Structure

Year Built

2007

2011

2004

2007

2013

2007

Average 7

1 Storey No Split 3

2.5

Forced Air

Effective Year Built

2011

2004

2007

2013

Structure Code Qualifier Code

Structure Variable(s)

(B) Basement Walkout

Foundation

Structure Condition Code

Average

Quality of Construction

7.5

Full Storeys

1 Storey

2 Storeys

Split level

No Split

Bedrooms

Baths

4.5

3.5

Fire Places

Air Conditioning

Heating Type

Forced Air

Hot Water (Boiler)

In-Floor Radiant (Coils)

Forced Air

Hot Water (Boiler)

Building Total Area (SF)

3,035

2,196

2,990

2,511

3,633

2,155

2155

Finished Basement - Average Quality

First Floor Area (SF)

3035

2196

1773

1539

1652

Second Floor Area (SF)

1217

972

1981

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

Basement Type

Finished Basement -

Average Quality

Finished Basement -

Average Quality

Finished Basement -

Average Quality

Finished Basement -

Average Quality

Finished Basement -

Average Quality

Basement Area (SF)

3,035

2,306

2,460

1,553

2,155

Finished Basement Area (SF)

1,842

1,868

1,448

1,214

1,842

Basement Height

8.5

7.5

Modifications

Addition, (Year) 2024,

(Area) 880.0

Secondary Structure(s)

Structure Description

(116) Attached Garage

Year Built

2007

2011

2004

2007

2013

2007

458

Building Total Area (SF)

458

904

756

768

329

Quality of Construction

Assessed Value of Structure

$22,242.00

$54,877.00

$45,892.00

$46,621.00

$19,971.00

Structure Description

(101) Detached Garage

(108) Outdoor Pool

(101) Detached Garage

Year Built

2007

2011

2010

2007

2013

2007

574

Building Total Area (SF)

574

500

512

811

1344

Quality of Construction

Assessed Value of Structure

$31,676.00

$22,074.00

$7,680.00

$35,804.00

$59,336.00

Structure Description

(106) Indoor Pool

(123) Pool House/Cabana

(106) Indoor Pool

Year Built

2007

2010

2007

252

Building Total Area (SF)

252

300

Quality of Construction

Assessed Value of Structure

$3,780.00

$78,052.00

Structure Description

(101) Detached Garage

Year Built

2024

Building Total Area (SF)

3563

Quality of Construction

Assessed Value of Structure

$222,033

Time Adjusted Sale Price/Sq.Ft.

Applied to Subject

$1,125,944.40

$439.34

$404.55

$370.99

$253.41

$200.36

$370.99

Median

$1,012,865.83

$333.73

Average

Add 3,563 Sq Ft Garage At Class 4

$185,027.00

$1,197,892.83

13MPAC submits the following about the proposed comparable properties:

Property # 1 – 1491 O'Neil Dr W: MPAC states that it is comparable/ slightly inferior in size to the Subject Property and has a quality of construction of 7. It sold on August 26th, 2015, with a time adjusted sale of $964,800. It is a residential lot bordering Cedar Green Golf Course, subdivisions setting, landscaping and proximity to Golf Course. 1491 O’Neil is half a quality class lower than the Subject Property, 839 square feet smaller and is 96.2 acres less. The structure is similar in nature in being a larger than average custom built 1 storey home with a larger than average 2.22 acre lot size, with a finished basement - the finished basement area is nearly the same as the subject property, it has 4 full baths compared to the Subject Property which has 4.5, both have a fireplace and basement walkouts and both have an effective year built of 2011. The exterior is composite wood siding with stone accents. The interior includes an open concept kitchen/living area with granite counter tops and custom kitchen, master bedroom with walk-in closet and ensuite. 1491 O’Neil features good quality workmanship with above average materials used. This home is situated in Garson approximately 8.5 kilometers away from the Subject Property.
Property # 2 – 40 Gleneden Crt: MPAC states that this property is slightly superior to the Subject Property and has a quality of construction of 8. It abuts the golf course and sold on June 30th, 2015 with a time adjusted sale amount of $1,209,600. 40 Gleneden is half a quality class higher than the subject property, only 45 square feet smaller and is 95.94 acres less than the Subject Property. The structure is 7 years older than the subject but is similar in nature in being a larger than average custom built home with above average materials and workmanship and is a larger than average 2.48 acre lot. The home features 5 full bathrooms, a custom kitchen with built in appliances, granite counter tops, good quality fenestration with views of the abutting golf course. Other bedrooms in the home also feature ensuite bathrooms and walk in closets. This home is also situated in Garson 8.5 kilometers away from the Subject Property. MPAC considers it comparable but slightly superior to the Subject Property.
Property # 3 – 40 Gleneden Crt: MPAC states that this property is slightly superior to the Subject Property and has a quality of construction of 8 and is located approximately 8.5 kilometers away from the Subject Property. It sold on December 12th, 2016 with a time adjusted sale price of $1,109,250
Property # 4 –76 Montee Rouleau: MPAC states that this proposed comparable is inferior to the Subject Property and has a quality of construction of 7 and is located in Azilda approximately 21.3 kilometers away from the Subject Property. It sold on April 7th, 2016 with a time adjusted sale amount of $636,300. 76 Montee Rouleau is half a quality class lower than the subject property, 524 square feet smaller and is 93.42 acres less. The structure is 4 years older than the subject property but is similar in nature in being a larger than average custom built home on a larger than average 5 acre lot. The home features 3.5 bathrooms, a custom kitchen with granite counter tops, a master bedroom with a full ensuite and walk-in closet, functional layout with above average materials and workmanship with a basement walk-out. MPAC considers it comparable but inferior to the Subject Property.
Property # 5 –341 Bodson Dr W: This proposed comparable is located approximately 10.1 kilometers away from the Subject Property. MPAC states that this proposed comparable is inferior to the Subject Property, has a quality of construction of 7, and sold on September 28th, 2015 with a time adjusted sale amount of $727,900. 341 Bodson Drive is half a quality class lower than the Subject Property and is 84.52 acres less. The home is approximately 600 square feet larger and 2 years newer than the Subject Property. It is a two storey slab-on-grade home with no basement. The property is similar in nature in being above 2,000 total square feet and sitting on a larger than average lot. The home has 3 full bathrooms. The kitchen and living room are open concept with a small kitchen island, the master bedroom has two small walk-in closets and a full bathroom ensuite, one other bedroom has an average closet with an ensuite, the other bedrooms have average closets with no ensuites. This home is located in Val-Caron. MPAC considers it somewhat comparable but inferior to the Subject Property.
Property #6 Subject Property – Sold on October 23rd, 2018 for $675,000. Including the sale of the Subject Property simply for reference. Not used in any calculations. The valid open market sale occurred nearly 34 months after the valuation date. After the sale of the property, the 880 square foot addition was added kitchen was renovated post sale, and the 3,563 square foot detached garage was constructed after the sale.

14MPAC submits that the proposed comparable properties all have detached and attached garages and therefore did not make any additional calculations for that and used the price per square foot of the building total area in the analysis. MPAC then added the value of the secondary garage of 3563 square feet separately with an assessed value of $185,000 or $51.92 per square foot.

15MPAC submits that comparable properties 1-5 were used in the calculation providing a bracket of the time adjusted sale price of the lowest proposed comparable number 4 at $253.41 per square foot x 3035 square feet of the Subject Property = $769,099.35. MPAC added $185,000 to this proposed time adjusted sale price of the property and arrived at $954,099.35, which is the lowest proposed amount the Subject Property would sell for. On the highest value in the time adjusted sale price used in MPAC’s calculation of the proposed comparable number 2, at $404.55 per square foot x 3035 square feet of the subject property = $1,227,809.25. MPAC added $185,000 to this proposed time adjusted sale price of the property and arrived at $1,412,809.25, which is the highest proposed amount the Subject Property would sell for. MPAC submits that the Subject property would sell in this range of $954,099.35-$1,412,809.25 with a midpoint of the range at $1,183,000. MPAC submits the average time adjusted price per square foot of $333.73 of their 5 proposed comparables multiplied by the Subject Property’s 3035 square feet totals $1,012,000. MPAC submits that amount is less than the current value assessment but it does not include the secondary garage of 3563 square feet which was valued at $185,000.

16MPAC therefore submits that the opinion of value is $1,197,000 of the Subject Property. MPAC is not seeking an increase for the January 1, 2016 valuation, and suggests the value returned in the amount of $1,019,000 is fair and reasonable.

Appellant Evidence and Submissions

17The Appellant submits that they request the Board to reduce the value of the Subject Property from $1,019,000 because it does not reflect what the house would have sold for in 2016. In 2018 the property was sold for $675,000. The Appellant submits that sale amount is materially lower than the $1,019,000 and that deserves weight.

18The Appellant submits that the Subject Property is not an executive subdivision property. The Subject Property is zoned rural, relies on private well and septic system, and directly abuts an M1 industrial zoning with trucking and mechanical operations. It is 3.6 km away from Sudbury Airport and directly below the flight path. The Appellant submits that these factors materially impact market appeal.

19The Appellant submits that MPAC’s proposed comparables are executive subdivision homes including properties boarding the golf course. The Appellant submits that in MPAC’s proposed comparables 1, 2 are estate lot in more of a subdivision setting and are not zoned rural as the Subject Property.

20The Appellant submits that approximately 4 acres of the 98 Subject Property’s acres are usable. Of the total 98.42 acres, approximately 94 acres are swamp, marsh, rock and sand.

21The Appellant also submits proposed comparables that are vacant land, as the Subject Property is unique and notes $47,000 to be contributory value to the property for nondevelopable land.

22The Appellant submits that based on her proposed comparables the market evidence supports a range of value of $172-216/ per square foot- including 341 Bodson Drive W which sold for $200 per square foot. MPAC’s analysis applies $333 per square foot and according to the Appellant that rate is not supported by 2015-2016 market evidence.

23The Appellant submits that MPAC’s $185,000 adjustment for a detached garage is not supported by other 2016 properties to support the value attributed by MPAC. The Appellant submits that the secondary garage has no heat, hydro, water, insulation and that it is a shell and is used for storage of machinery, vehicle, boat, engine, and hay. The Appellant submits that the structure is fully used for storage.

24The Appellant submits the following proposed comparable properties for the Board to consider:

Address

Year Built

Quality

Building Total Area

Current Assement

Sale Date

Sale Price

/ SQ FT

Acres

1809 Skead Road

2007

7.5

3,035

1,019,000

N/A

$336

98.42

Address

Year Built

Quality

Building Total Area

Sale Price

Sale Date

Sale Price

/ SQ FT

Acres

455 Montee Principale

1992

6.5

3,289

$565,000

Oct 2015

$172

51.42

2027 Greenwood Drive

2006

3,016

$523,000

May 2015

$173

0.325

341 Bodson Drive W

2013

3,633

$725,000

May 2015

$200

13.9

5 Columbia Terrace

2012

6.5

3,314

$715,000

Sep 2015

$216

0.182

4148 Mirage Boulevard

2004

7.5

3,512

$567,000

March 2013

$161

0.239

Property # 1 – 455 Montee Principle. It sold in October 2015 with a sale price of $565,000, and a size of 3,289 square feet/ $172 per square foot. This proposed comparable has 4 beds, 3 full baths, with a quality of construction of 6.5. The Appellant submits that this rural property sits on 51.42 acres and is zoned Agricultural, a designation that generally imposes greater restrictions than the Rural (RU) zoning of the Subject Property. Despite these limitations, the proposed comparable is larger and sold just before the valuation date for less than 55% of the Subject Property’s assessed value. Its $172 per square foot sale price underscores that large-acreage rural homes do not command premium valuations. The Appellant submits that this proposed comparable is not similar and is inferior to the Subject Property.
Property # 2 – 2027 Greenwood Drive- Sold in May 2015 with a sale price of $523,000, and a size of 3,016 sq ft/ $173 per square foot. It has a lot size of 0.325 acres and zoned as Low Density Residential One (R1). This proposed comparable has 4 beds, 3 full baths, 1 half bath, and a quality of construction of 7. The Appellant submits that although located in a fully serviced suburban area, this proposed comparable matches the Subject Property in size and quality. The Appellant submits the sale price of the proposed comparable to be as just over half of the Subject Property’s assessment, which she submits highlights the disconnect between market behavior and MPAC’s valuation, especially considering the location advantages of Geeenwood.
Property # 3 – 341 Bodson Drive W- Sold in May 2015, with a sale price of $725,000, and a size of 3,633 sq ft / $200 per square foot. It has a lot size of 13.9 acres and is zoned Rural (RU). It has 4 beds, 3 full baths, and a quality construction of 7. This proposed comparable is a newer, larger home and sits on a more usable rural lot and still sold for nearly $300,000 less than the Subject Property’s assessment. The Appellant submits that this proposed comparables $200 per square foot value contradicts the $336 per square foot value assigned by MPAC and further supports a reassessment.
Property # 4 – 5 Columbia Terrace- Sold in September 2015 with a sale price of $715,000 and a size of 3,314 square feet/ $216 per square foot. It has a lot size of 0.182 acres and is zoned as Low Density Residential One (R1). This proposed comparable has 5 beds, 3 full baths,1 half bath, and a quality of construction of 6.5. The Appellant submits that this urban property is in a fully serviced neighborhood and features similar finishes and more bedrooms than the Subject Property. The Appellant submits that despite its locational and servicing advantages, this proposed comparables sale price is significantly lower on a per square foot basis than the Subject Property assessed value.

25At the hearing, the Appellant submits that the Board should exclude proposed comparable 5 from consideration- 4148 Mirage Boulevard as it is too far from the valuation date.

26The Appellant submits that 341 Bodson Drive W is the closest proposed comparable which sold at $725,000 to the Subject Property for the Board to consider to arrive at the assessment value of the Subject Property as it was used by both the Appellant and MPAC. The Appellant acknowledges that the secondary garage used for storage will be considered, and submits that the Subject Property assessment should be in the range of $725,000- $800,000 (with considering the secondary garage) would be fair and in line with the market since the secondary garage is not finished, heated, does not have walls, drywall and is not used for anything other than a storage building.

Findings on Issue 1

27The Board has considered in detail all the evidence and submissions of the parties but for the purposes of this decision the Board will refer to the most salient submissions.

28The Board finds that the most comparable sale is 341 Bodson Drive W, this proposed comparable is agreed to by both parties and that this is the best evidence of the current value of the Subject Property.

29The Board does not accept MPAC’s proposed comparable properties 1-4 due to the location of neighbourhood. Proposed comparables1-3 abut the golf course and the Subject Property does not. Proposed comparables 2 and 3 have municipal services rather than a private well unlike the Subject Property. Proposed comparable 4 is 21.30 kilometers distance from the Subject Property and is too far to be relied on. The Board accepts the proposed comparable 5.

30The Board does not accept the Appellant’s proposed comparable property 1 because it does not have the same zoning as the Subject Property, it has a lower quality class and the age of the property is not comparable. Proposed comparable property 2 is not considered by the Board because it has one attached garage in a subdivision and does not have the same zoning as the Subject Property. Proposed comparable property 4 is excluded because of the zoning and that it is a lower quality class than the Subject Property. Proposed property 5 was not included in the Board’s analysis as the Appellant excluded it at the hearing.

31The time adjusted price per square foot for the comparable property 341 Bodson Drive W submitted by both MPAC (property 5 in their proposed comparables) and the Appellant (property 3 in her proposed comparables) is $200.36. Applying this amount to the building area of the Subject Property of 3035 square feet results in a current value of $608,092 not including the 3563 square foot secondary garage.

32The Board asked the Appellant to make submissions on the value of the secondary garage. The Appellant does not submit a value for the secondary garage itself but submits that she was not sure how the value of $185,000 was arrived at by MPAC. The Board therefore accepts MPAC submission on the value of the secondary garage at $185,000.

33Therefore, based on the best evidence, the Board finds that the increased current value of the Subject Property is $793,092.

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

MPAC Evidence and Submissions

34MPAC provided an equity analysis detailing the sales of 30 properties with the same classification of the Subject Property with a Property Code of 301: Single-Family Detached (Not On Water) from 2015-01-01 to 2016-12-31 within 25.0 kilometres of the Subject Property.

35MPAC’s analysis based on 30 sales reflected a median Assessment to Sale Ratio (“ASR”) of 0.96. 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. Based on similar properties in the vicinity assessed at or near their current values.

36MPAC submits that an equity adjustment is not required.

Appellant Evidence and Submissions

37The Appellant did not provide evidence of an equity analysis or make submissions on equity.

Findings on Issue 2

38The 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.

39Therefore, the Board finds that an equity adjustment is not required.

CONCLUSION

40The Board has found that the decreased correct current value of the Subject Property is $793,092 and that no reduction of this value is required pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act.

ORDER

41The current value of the Subject Property for the 2025 and the deemed 2026 taxation year is $793,092.

"Letizia Filippazzo"

LETIZIA FILIPPAZZO

MEMBER

Assessment Review Board

Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb