Jin Yuan v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 09, 2026 CanLII 52470

Tribunals Ontario

Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

May 26, 2026

FILE NO.:

WR 190193

Assessed Person(s):

Jin Yuan; Runguo Chai

Appellant(s):

Jin Yuan

Respondent(s):

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 09

Respondent(s):

City of Toronto

Property Location(s):

137 Goulding Avenue

Municipality(ies):

City of Toronto

Roll Number(s):

1908-073-630-01500-0000

Appeal Number(s):

3537682 and 3548935

Taxation Year(s):

2025 and 2026

Hearing Event No.:

790966

Legislative Authority:

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

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel/Representative

Jin Yuan

Self-represented

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation

Laurie Safranka

City of Toronto

No one appeared

HEARD:

February 25, 2026 by video conference

ADJUDICATOR(S):

Letizia Filippazzo, Member Subuola Awoleri, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1Jin Yuan (the “Appellant) is the owner of the property located at 137 Goulding Avenue (the “Subject Property”) in the City of Toronto (“Municipality”) and filed an appeal for the 2025 taxation year pursuant to s. 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (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 had a previous dwelling on it that was demolished in 2019 and a new dwelling was constructed which is a two-storey single family detached dwelling constructed in 2022 with 4 bedrooms and 6.5 bathrooms. It totals 4,124 square feet and a quality of construction of 8.5. Lot is 50 frontage by 132 depth with a lot area of 0.15 acres.

3The Appellant’s grounds of 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 (the “Board”) to reduce the assessment to a previously reduced amount of $966,000 due to the Subject Property being incomplete. The Appellant did not dispute equity.

4MPAC is responding to this appeal and submits that they have the authority to make an assessment of the Subject Property based on an interior and exterior inspection conducted in October 2025 that construction is completed and the property is being used. MPAC submits that it has the authority to increase the assessment pursuant to s. 34 of the Act. MPAC asks the Board to reduce the returned assessment value from $2,364,000 to $2,296,000. MPAC submits that equity is not at issue.

5The Municipality is a party to this appeal 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 equity reduction in the current value should be made?

Result

7The Board finds the correct current value of the property to be $2,296,000.

8There is no adjustment for equity.

Applicable Law

9 Section 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)

10In 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.”

11Accordingly, 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.

12The 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

13MPAC submits that the valuation day for determining the increase in value resulting from an improvement pursuant to s. 34 is January 1, 2016.

14MPAC provided evidence regarding six proposed comparable properties using the direct comparison approach. 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

Property #5

Property #6

Roll Number

190807363001500

190807358000800

190807360002400

190807350001100

190807369000900

190807370002400

190807339001000

Address

137 Goulding Ave

101 Goulding Ave

180 Connaught Ave

101 Patricia Ave

187 Goulding Ave

328 Patricia Ave

247 Connaught Ave

Neighbourhood

B48-409

Property Code & Desc.

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

Distance in km

0.2636

0.2974

0.5503

0.3245

0.4585

0.3349

Valuation

Current Value Assessment

$2,364,000

$2,241,000

$2,235,000

$2,157,000

$2,169,000

$2,149,000

$2,192,000

Sale

Sale Date

20151028

20161028

20150409

20151222

20151126

20161114

Subject Property

Property #1

Property #2

Property #3

Property #4

Property #5

Property #6

Sale Amount

$2,175,000

$2,728,000

$2,050,000

$2,137,900

$2,146,000

$2,800,000

Time Adjusted Sale Amount

$2,301,150

$2,258,784

$2,519,450

$2,161,416

$2,218,964

$2,276,400

Site

Effective Frontage (F)

Effective Depth (F)

132

131

132

Effective Site Area (Acres)

0.15

Abuts Variable(s)

(K)Traffic Pattern - Light

Residential Structure

Year Built

2022

2015

2016

2015

2016

Effective Year Built

2022

2015

2016

2015

2016

Full Storeys

2 Storeys

Building Total Area (SF)

4,124

4,198

3,998

3,956

3,967

4,045

3,849

First Floor Area (SF)

2075

2118

2025

1996

2016

2033

1739

Second Floor Area (SF)

2049

2080

1973

1960

1951

2012

2110

Basement Area (SF)

2049

2172

2006

2009

2030

209

1760

Finished Basement Area (SF)

1398

1537

1381

1416

1394

1433

1496

Secondary Structure

Structure Description

(121) Basement Garage

(116) Attached Garage

Year Built

2022

2015

2016

2015

2016

Building Total Area (SF)

404

362

380

343

388

352

384

TAS/sf

548.15

564.98

636.87

544.85

548.57

591.41

Med (6) TAS/sf

556.77

CVA based on Med (6) TAS/sf

2,296,000

15MPAC submits that the six proposed comparable properties are two-storey single family detached houses within the same homogeneous neighbourhood, have the same lot sizes, have the same quality class of 8.5 and are newer homes but are inferior in age as they are 6-7 years older than the Subject Property and have depreciated more than the Subject Property that has no depreciation.

16MPAC submits that the best indicator of current value is the median time adjusted sale price per square foot of the six properties listed is $556.77 per square foot x the Subject Property square foot of 4,124.

17MPAC therefore submits that $2,296,000 is the current value of the Subject Property.

18MPAC submits that comparable properties identified by the Appellant cannot be used to determine current value of Subject Property.

19MPAC submits that the state and condition of the Subject Property in October 2025 based on the interior inspection of the Subject Property is what the Board should consider and that it doesn’t matter that the occupancy permit has not been issued.

Appellant Evidence and Submissions

20The Appellant submits that she noticed her property taxes had increased and owed $50,000 in 2024. She had surgeries and noticed the taxes had increased and contacted MPAC. In 2025, the Appellant testified that no one was living in the Subject Property but it was being used to store very old furniture.

21The Appellant submits that the Subject Property does not have an occupancy permit, the home is 50% complete, and it is not a legally habitable and should not be assessed as a fully completed luxury home. The Appellant submits that the assessment should reflect the assessment as of the valuation day. It also lacks insulation inspection approval, needs to have fire inspection approval, HVAC inspection (missing air returns on the wall which may need to be opened to complete) and has deficiencies. The Appellant submits that she may have to move a cabinet to open the drywall and redo the insulation to get the occupancy permit.

22The Appellant submits she sent MPAC proposed comparables for 2023 and 2024 19 new build sold homes in the same neighbourhood, C07, have not had major tax increase after 1-2 years.

23In 2026, the Appellant submits that four properties have not been assessed, and MPAC must assess equitably.

24The Appellant submits that the below “new build houses with occupancy permit- livable, move-in condition houses property tax remain the same as before they demolished the house”.

95 Jonston Ave, Toron

4+1 BEDS 5 BATHS Detached 2-Storey

$2.4M 119 DOM #C12477823

162 Cummer Ave, Toronto

4+2 BEDS 6 BATHA Detached 2-Storey

$2.65M 90 DOM #C12576482

492 Hounslow Ave, Toronto

4+1 BEDS 8 BATHS Detached 2-Storey

$3.088M 15 DOM #C12756658

207 Ellerslie Ave, Toronto

4+1 BEDS 7 BATHS Detached 2-Storey

$4.449M 128 DOM #C12459839

25The Appellant submits that she resides in Vancouver since 2020, started demolishing in 2019 and then in 2020 with COVID-19, most of the workers were sick and so construction stopped and in 2023 and 2024 she had some health issues and there was a delay in construction of the home. In 2022, the Appellant submits that MPAC reduced the assessment from $2,300,000 to $966,000, which she submits that MPAC realized that the house is incomplete. Similar houses in the same area did not have an increase in value until they completed and got an occupancy permit and listed the properties for sale but MPAC did not assess them. The Appellant submits that the annual assessments have continued to increase year after year despite the condition of the Subject Property; “2016 assessment was $580,000, 2017 assessment was $600,000, 2018 assessment was $800,000, 2019 assessment was $800,000, 2021 assessment was $990,000, 2023-2024 assessment was $2,300,000 increasing while under construction”.

26The Appellant has not moved into the property as it is not legally habitable due to outstanding permits. The Appellant also testified that her father, who helps look after the property does not reside in the Subject Property. The Appellant testified that the Subject Property is used to store furniture since 2020.

27The Appellant submits that she has not passed most of her inspections and that MPAC ignored the “building status and inspection stage and the valuation should reflect the actual condition” and the legal use. The Appellant submits that the old furniture from the house is being stored in the garage and needed to move the furniture in the house is being used for storage for the furniture. No one is living in the Subject Property, her father only attends the Subject Property to make sure it is safe.

28The Appellant submits that the assessment is over market value.

29The Appellant submits that MPAC reduced a prior assessment of $966,000 while the Subject Property was considered vacant land during the construction stage and that the assessment should remain at that assessment value.

30The Appellant believes the Subject Property should be assessed at $966,000.

Findings on Issue 1

31The Board finds that the Appellant provided insufficient evidence with respect to their proposed comparable properties’ sales information. The Board does not accept the evidence of the Appellant is not time adjusted to the valuation day of January 1, 2016. The Appellant failed to provide any valid sales in the evidence to consider therefore the Board is not able to accurately compare any sale prices as of January 1, 2016 to the assessed values.

32The Board finds that pursuant to s. 34 of the Act the Appellant has commenced to use the Subject Property for storage. Although the Subject Property is not complete in the eyes of the Appellant due to outstanding permits and interior construction deficiencies that need to be completed for inspection and permit, the Subject Property has nonetheless commenced to be used and satisfies the legal test under the Act, this authorizes MPAC to make a supplemental assessment of the property tax.

33The Board accepts the six proposed comparable properties submitted by MPAC. The properties are located within close proximity to the Subject Property, quality of construction and square footage.

34Therefore, based on the best evidence, the Board finds that the current value of the Subject Property is $2,296,000.

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

MPAC’s Evidence and Submissions

35MPAC provided an equity analysis detailing the sales of 10 properties with the same classification to identify sales of Property Code 301: Single-Family Detached (Not On Water) from 2015-01-01 to 2016-12-31 within 5.0 kilometers of the Subject Property. MPAC’s analysis reflected a median Assessment to Sales Ratio (“ASR”) of 0.97. 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

36The Appellant no equity analysis but did provide testimony and evidence of properties that have not been assessed equitably to hers since the properties were newly build and the taxes remained pre-construction assessments.

Findings on Issue 2

37The 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.

38Therefore, the Board finds that an equity adjustment is not required.

CONCLUSION

39MPAC’s assessment pursuant to s. 40 of the Act for the 2025 taxation year has reported $2,364,000 as the current value of the Subject Property.

40The Board has found that the correct current value of the Subject Property is $2,296,000 and that no reduction of this value is required pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act.

41Therefore, the Board finds that the correct current value of the Subject Property for the 2025 taxation year and the deemed 2026 taxation year is $2,296,000.

ORDER

42The current value of the Subject Property for the taxation year of 2025 and the deemed 2026 is $2,296,000.

"Letizia Filippazzo"

LETIZIA FILIPPAZZO

MEMBER

"Subuola Awoleri"

SUBUOLA AWOLERI

MEMBER

Assessment Review Board

Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb