Tribunals Ontario
Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario
Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE:
April 20, 2026
FILE NO.:
WR 190092
Assessed Person(s):
Laurelle Pierrette Gagnon; Ronald Gagnon
Appellant(s):
Laurelle Gagnon; Ron Gagnon
Respondent(s):
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 28
Respondent(s):
Papineau-Cameron Township
Property Location(s):
Highway 17
Municipality(ies):
Papineau-Cameron Township
Roll Number(s):
4816-020-001-12002-0000
Appeal Number(s):
3538291 and 3550447
Taxation Year(s):
2025 and 2026
Hearing Event No.:
790668
Legislative Authority:
Sections 36 and 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel/Representative
Laurelle Pierrette Gagnon; Ronald Gagnon
Self-represented
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
Michael Denley
Papineau-Cameron Township
No one appeared
HEARD:
March 3, 2026 by video conference
ADJUDICATOR(S):
Letizia Filippazzo, Member Rema El-Tawil, Member
DECISION
OVERVIEW
1Laurelle Gagnon (the “Appellant) is the owner of the property located at Highway 17 (the “Subject Property”) in the Papineau-Cameron Township (“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 the deeming provision under s.40(28) of the Act, appeals have been deemed for the 2026 taxation year.
2The Subject Property is classified as 110, Vacant Residential/Recreational Land on Water located at Highway 17 E, measuring 74.13 acres, with the Ottawa River to the north and Highway 17 E to the south. The Subject Property is a rectangular shaped parcel with large acreages stretching from the highway to the river. Ontario Power Generation (“OPG”) owns the northern portion of land fronting the water.
3The Subject Property is a rectangular parcel of land. Its southern boundary faces Highway 17 E. Its northern boundary abuts property owned by Ontario Power Generation (“OPG”) (“the OPG Property”). The OPG Property is situated between the Subject Property and the Ottawa River. Therefore, the Subject Property’s southern boundary does not abut the waterfront property line of the Ottawa River.
4Municipal Property Assessment Corporation ("MPAC") has classified the Subject Property as Vacant Residential/Residential Land. This classification is not in dispute. However, MPAC’s position is that the Appellant has a right of way over the OPG Property, so the Subject Property can be characterized as having access to the Ottawa River. As such, MPAC maintains that the Subject Property can be described as “land on water”. This distinction is important, because it is not disputed that residential land with a right of access to water generally has a higher value than similar land which does not have a right of access to water.
5The Appellant maintains that she does not have a right of way over the OPG Property to access the Ottawa River waterfront. Therefore, the Appellant’s position is that the Subject Property cannot be characterized as “land on water”.
6In this case, MPAC’s position is that, because the Subject Property can be characterized as land on water, its correct current value of the Subject Property is $127,000.
7However, at the hearing, MPAC ‘s appraisal evidence included an analysis of sale values of properties not on water in the area, which showed that the average sale price per square foot is $686.81. When the price per square foot is applied to the lot area of the Subject Property, its total value would be $50,913. The Appellant agrees with this value. Consequently, there is no dispute respecting the correct current value of the Subject Property, if it is characterized as land is not on water.
8The Municipality is a party to these appeals but did not participate in the hearing.
ISSUES
9At issue in this proceeding is:
Does the Subject Property qualify as land on water?
What is the correct current value of the Subject Property?
Is an equitable reduction of the current value required?