Tribunals Ontario
Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario
Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE:
June 08, 2026
FILE NO.:
WR 190493
Assessed Person(s):
Andrew Embury
Appellant(s):
Andrew Embury
Respondent(s):
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 05
Respondent(s):
City of Kingston
Property Location(s):
973 Auden Park Dr
Municipality(ies):
City of Kingston
Roll Number(s):
1011-080-121-14300-0000
Appeal Number(s):
3539072 and 3548732
Taxation Year(s):
2025 and 2026
Hearing Event No.:
791366
Legislative Authority:
Sections 36 and 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel/Representative
Andrew Embury
Self-represented
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
Amber Walsh
City of Kingston
No one appeared
HEARD:
April 7, 2026 by video conference
ADJUDICATOR(S):
Rema El-Tawil, Member Hayleigh Cudmore, Member
DECISION
OVERVIEW
Background
1Andrew Embury (the “Appellant”) believes the $503,000 current value of 973 Auden Park Dr. (the “Subject Property”) contained on the assessment roll for the 2025 taxation year is too high. For that reason, the Appellant appealed the assessment to the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) pursuant to s. 40 of the Assessment Act R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”). The Appellant has asked the Board to reduce the current value to $340,000. 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 Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) is responding to this appeal. MPAC also believes the current value of $503,000 is too high and asks the Board to decrease it to $468,000. This is the result of a discount applied by MPAC for the repairs and renovations ongoing as of January 1, 2025 on the Subject Property.
3The City of Kingston (the “City”) is a statutory party to these appeals but did not participate in the hearing.
Areas of Agreement
4The parties agree that the Subject Property should be valued using the Direct Comparison Approach, where the value of a property is determined by considering the amount at which comparable properties in the area have sold. The parties are also in agreement that the Subject Property is appropriately classified in the residential property class.
Issues for the Hearing
5At issue in this proceeding is:
- What is the correct current value of the Subject Property as of the statutory valuation day of January 1, 2016?
a) State and Condition
b) Comparable Properties
- Is a reduction to the current value required for the purpose of equitable assessment and, if so, how much?
Result
6For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that the current value of the Subject Property as of January 1, 2016 and applicable to the 2025 and deemed 2026 assessment is $491,000 (rounded).
7The Board finds that no equitable reduction is required.
ANALYSIS
Description of Subject Property
8The Subject Property is an improved single family detached (Not on Water) residential dwelling built in 1988 to a construction quality of 7. The Subject Property has a site area of 0.16 acres and the residence has a total building area of 2,749 square feet (“sq. ft.”). The Subject Property has four bedrooms and an attached garage. The Subject Property is located in the west end of the City. The Subject Property is a subdivision home on the west side of Auden Park Drive, just north of Henderson Boulevard.
Issue 1 - What is the correct current value of the Subject Property as of the statutory valuation day of January 1, 2016?
Sub Issue 1 a): Should the Board reduce the current value of the Subject Property due to its ‘state and condition’ as of January 1, 2025?
Evidence and Submissions
MPAC
9In response to the Board’s enquiry regarding the legislative authority for the $35,000 reduction applied to the Subject Property’s assessed current value, MPAC’s witness responded the Subject Property’s ‘state and condition’ as of January 1, 2025.
10MPAC’s witness testified that the Subject Property has been assessed at a current value of $503,000 for the entire assessment cycle. The current appeal was triggered when, upon purchase of the Subject Property in 2024, the Appellant filed a Request for Reconsideration (“RFR”).
11MPAC’s witness testified that MPAC does not typically adjust the current value assessment of properties in the middle of renovations, but through the RFR process MPAC became aware of the ongoing renovations, and they were willing to do a downward adjustment on this property as it made its way to the appeal stage.
12MPAC’s witness testified that, as determined by the photos within the appraisal report provided by the Appellant, the ‘state and condition’ of the Subject Property as of January 1, 2025, required a $35,000 downward adjustment to account for the unfinished areas of the home, which brings the current value to $468,000.
Appellant
13The Appellant’s witness testified that the Appellant had a home inspection done after his purchasing the property in 2024. This inspection report was relied on by the Appellant’s witness when completing his valuation report.
14The home inspection highlighted many problems with the Subject Property including moisture damage, carpenter ants and pet stains. At the time of the Appellant’s witness’s own inspection of the Subject Property it was under extensive renovations. There was no confirmation given that the renovations have been completed, or a timeline for the completion of renovations.
15The Appellant was also asked the legislative authority to reduce the current value of the Subject Property due to the repairs and renovations. The Appellant spoke to the various deficiencies in the Subject Property, as highlighted in the home inspection report, but did not cite any legislative authority.
Findings on Issue 1a)
16The ‘state and condition’ paradigm has been thoroughly rejected by the Board. The Act specifically provides for the date as of which land is valued, which is not consistent with an annual redetermination of current value based on the annual “state and condition” of a property. (Amazon v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 19, 2025 CanLII 85047 (ON ARB) para 33 and 34). There are limited provisions of the Act that permit a redetermination of value in certain circumstances. In the current case, neither party argued there has been an error or omission, so the only legislative authority under which the Board could change the value of the property on an annual basis is s. 34.
17Section 34(1)(a) permits MPAC to make the further assessment that may be necessary to reflect only an increase in value which results from the improvement of a building or any portion thereof that commences to be used for any purpose.
18There is no corresponding provision in the Act for a reduction in the value of the property. Therefore, when a property such as the Subject Property is under renovations the eventual increase in the value will be captured, but not the interim decrease in value when the building is under repair. There are relief provisions for taxpayers, for instance, under the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, for buildings undergoing repairs and renovations. This, however, is not subject of the current appeal.
19The Board finds that the Subject Property was not under renovation in 2016.
20There was no evidence presented that the Subject Property was under renovations as of the valuation date. The Appellant’s valuation report contained the statement that “As per the owner (Andrew Embury) and his contractor (Giro Gucciadri), the subject dwelling would have been in a similar overall state of repair in January 1, 2016 compared to what it was at the time of purchase (October 10, 2024).” The Subject Property does not appear to have been under renovation at the time of purchase, as evidenced by the listing photos provided by the Appellant.
21The only way the Board could make a downward adjustment on the Subject Property would be if the underlying conditions (water damage etc.) existed, but were missed, on January 1, 2016. The Board did not receive evidence as to whether the underlying problems existed as of January 1, 2016. In the absence of such evidence, the Board cannot assume when water damage and other problems referred to started to accumulate, and at what stage they would have been at, in 2016.
22Further, the Appellant did not provide submissions that the Subject Property was inferior vis a vis the comparable properties provided because of any underlying issues as of the valuation date. In summary, the Board has no way of knowing what damage found in the 2024 inspection report was present at the Subject Property on January 1, 2016, and therefore the Board finds that it cannot make a downward adjustment on this basis.
23The Board finds that MPAC has no authority to adjust the current value of the Subject Property downward because of its ‘state and condition’ on January 1, 2025, and therefore the Board does not accept that any downward adjustment is required for the repairs and renovations underway on January 1, 2025.
Sub Issue b): What is the current value of the Subject Property based on Comparable Properties?
Evidence and Submissions
MPAC
24MPAC provided evidence of six sold properties that they propose are comparable to the Subject Property for the purpose of determining current value. MPAC performed a time adjustment to reflect what these proposed comparable properties would have sold for on January 1, 2016.
MPAC’s Proposed Comparable Properties and Sales Information
Property Address
Subject Property
989 Auden Park Dr
435 Tanglewood Dr
361 Brimley Crt
393 Bernice Dr
899 Brodie Ave
547 Sackville Cres
Sale Date
October 2016
April 2015
July 2016
August 2015
August 2015
July 2015
Time Adjusted Sale Amount
$567,191
$530,522
$499,144
$486,868
$491,737
$520,341
Effective Year Built
1988
1986
1989
1986
1975
1978
1999
Site Area Acres
0.16
0.17
0.21
0.19
0.17
0.17
0.38
Building Area Sq. Ft.
2749
2027
2428
2847
2092
2715
2118
Finished Basement Area
824
1044
1044
564
1436
Quality of Construction
7.0
6.5
7
7
7
7
6.5
Secondary Structures
Attached garage
Attached Garage, Outdoor Pool
Attached Garage
Attached Garage
Attached Garage
Attached Garage, Outdoor Pool
Attached Garage, Outdoor Pool
25MPAC entered evidence regarding the six proposed comparables as follows:
Property 1 is located 0.14 kilometres (“kms”) from the Subject Property and built in 1986. It is 2027 sq. ft. with an attached garage of 538 sq. ft. and a lot size of 0.17 acres. MPAC considered it equivalent to the Subject Property.
Property 2 is located 0.41 kms from the Subject Property and built in 1989. It is 2428 sq. ft. with an attached garage of 480 sq. ft. and a lot size of 0.21 acres. MPAC considered it equivalent to the Subject Property.
Property 3 is located 0.18 kms from the Subject Property and built in 1986. It is 2847 square ft. with an attached garage of 480 sq. ft. and a lot size of 0.17 acres. MPAC considered it equivalent to the Subject Property.
Property 4 is located 0.30 kms from the Subject Property and built in 1975. It is 2092 sq. feet with an attached garage of 564 sq. ft and a lot size of 0.17 acres. MPAC considered it inferior to the Subject Property.
Property 5 is located 0.97 kms from the Subject Property and built in 1978. It is 2715 sq. ft with an attached garage of 480 sq. ft. and a lot size of 0.17 acres. MPAC considered it equivalent to the Subject Property.
Property 6 is located 1.2 kms from the Subject Property and built in 1999. It is 2118 sq. ft with an attached garage of 480 sq. ft and a lot size of 0.38 acres. MPAC considered it equivalent to the Subject Property.
26The Appellant was provided an opportunity to ask MPAC’s witness questions guided by the Appellant’s witness regarding MPAC’s proposed comparable properties. Questions were raised regarding the differences between the proposed comparable properties and the reasons for their use.
27With respect to Property 1, MPAC’s witness provided that it has a slightly larger lot, a pool, and a basement, it was considered a comparable sale within the applicable shoulder years, and the sale price was time‑adjusted accordingly. The lot size difference was minimal, the dwelling was slightly older, with a slightly smaller gross living area, and it had an inferior building quality compared to the Subject Propoerty, all of which were accounted for in the analysis. The contributory value of the pool was also considered, making the sale comparable overall.
28With respect to Property 4, MPAC’s witness provided that despite being a private sale, it was relied upon as it reflects a transaction between a willing buyer and a willing seller and, therefore, constituted a valid sale and valid market evidence.
29With respect to Property 6, it was located approximately 1.28 kms from the Subject Property, MPAC’s witness provided that that it was considered a tight and reasonable radius, and its use as a comparable property is not unreasonable.
30With respect to Properties 1, 5, and 6 which included pools, MPAC’s witness provided that they were used and not disregarded as they represented good comparison points. MPAC’s witness explained that pools generally do not contribute significant value and that the these proposed comparable properties relied upon are smaller in size than the Subject Property. Therefore, the contributory value of the pools made these sales more comparable to the Subject Property.
31MPAC provided evidence that the Subject Property was sold in an open market sale on October 10, 2024 for $773,000.
32MPAC position is that the current value of the Subject Property to be $468,000 (2016 current value assessment $503,000 - $35,000 to account for repairs and renovations). MPAC’s evidence was that the median time-adjusted sale amount of their comparable properties is $509,743. MPAC’s witness provided that $503,000 is “pretty much spot on,” this median and a “fair value for the property,” but for the repairs and renovations. Therefore, it is MPAC’s position that the correct current value of the Subject Property is $468,000.
Appellant
33The Appellant provided evidence of 4 sold properties that he proposes are comparable to the Subject Property for the purpose of determining current value. The Appellant relies on dates that the agreement of purchase and sale was signed as the as the sale dates, as opposed to the closing dates, for the comparable properties.
Appellant’s Proposed Comparable Properties and Sales Information
LAND VALUE AS IF VACANT: X N/A $ n/a SOURCE OF DATA: n/a COMMENT: n/a
Existing Use: Residential Single Family
HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF THE LAND AS IF VACANT: X Residential Other
HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF THE LAND AS IMPROVED: X Existing Residential Use Other
HBU COMMENTS PERMITTED/DISCRETIONARY USES:
Considering the location, size, shape and topography of the site, quality and nature of the improvements and the other relevant data, and given the scope of our mandate, it is our opinion that the Highest and Best Use of the subject site is its current use as a single family dwelling.
DEFINITION OF HIGHEST AND BEST USE: The reasonably probable use of real property, that is physically possible, legally permissible, financially feasible, maximally productive and that results in the highest value. (CUSPAP)
SUBJECT
COMPARABLE NO. 1
COMPARABLE NO. 2
COMPARABLE NO. 3
Description
Adjustment
Description
Adjustment
Description
Adjustment
973 Auden Park Drive Kingston
932 Auden Park Drive Kingston
925 Auden Park Drive Kingston
405 Bernice Drive Kingston
DATA SOURCE
Inspection/MLS
MLS#X9142323
MLS#X9141586
MLS#X9207514
DATE OF SALE
09/18/2024
12/01/2015
11/23/2015
09/14/2015
SALE PRICE
$ n/a
$ 320,000
$ 350,000
$ 315,000
DAYS ON MARKET
55
28
75
19
LIST PRICE
$ 815,000
$ 319,800
$ 365,000
$ 324,900
APPROX KMs from SUBJECT
~ 0.34 kms
~ 0.4 kms
~ 0.35 kms
LOCATION
Auden Park Dr
Same Street
Same Street/Inferior
upward
Similar
SITE DIMENSIONS LOT SIZE
55' x 127.04' 6,997 sf
65' x 150' 9752 sf
downward
60' x 127.50' 7642 sf
downward
60' x 126' 7578 sf
downward
PROPERTY TYPE
Detached
Detached
Detached
Detached
DESIGN/STYLE
1.75 Storey
2 Storey
2 Storey
Split Level
AGE/CONDITION
1988 Avg.
1972
Avg.
1972
Avg.+
downward
1974
Avg.
FLOOR AREA
2516 SqFt
1984 Sq.Ft.+/-
upward
2307 Sq.Ft.+/-
upward
2215 Sq.Ft.+/-
upward
ROOM COUNT
Total Rooms
Bedrooms
Total Rooms
Bedrooms
Total Rooms
Bedrooms
Total Rooms
Bedrooms
8
4
Unk
4
9
5
8
4
BATHROOMS
2 F 1 P
1F 1H
upward
2F 1H
2F 1H
BASEMENT
Min. Finish
Part Finished
downward
Finished
downward
Unfinished
upward
PARKING FACILITIES
2 Car Attached
1 Car Attached
upward
2 Car Detached
2 Car Built-In
Extras
AC, Vac, Fpl, etc
Similar
Similar
Inferior
upward
Assessment
$503,000
$346,000
$381,000
$381,000
$ Per Sq.Ft.
n/a
$161.29
$151.71
$142.21
Time Adjustment
n/a
$320,640
TAF(1.002)
$352,450
TAF(1.007)
$319,725
TAF(1.015)
OVERALL
n/a
INFERIOR
SUPERIOR
INFERIOR
ADJUSTMENTS (Gross %, Net $)
0.0
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
ADJUSTED VALUES
$ 320,000
$ 350,000
$ 315,000
SUBJECT
COMPARABLE NO. 4
COMPARABLE NO. 5
COMPARABLE NO. 6
Description
Adjustment
Description
Adjustment
Description
Adjustment
973 Auden Park Drive Kingston
977 Auden Park Drive Kingston
DATA SOURCE
Inspection/MLS
MLS#X9141953
DATE OF SALE
09/18/2024
08/06/2015
SALE PRICE
$ n/a
$ 375,000
DAYS ON MARKET
55
53
LIST PRICE
$ 815,000
$ 379,900
APPROX KMs from SUBJECT
~ 0.04 kms
LOCATION
Auden Park Dr
Same Street
SITE DIMENSIONS LOT SIZE
55' x 127.04' 6,997 sf
60' x 126.79' 7621 sf
downward
PROPERTY TYPE
Detached
Detached
DESIGN/STYLE
1.75 Storey
2 Storey
AGE/CONDITION
1988 Avg.
1986
Avg.++
downward+
FLOOR AREA
2516 SqFt
1988 Sq.Ft.+/-
upward
ROOM COUNT
Total Rooms
Bedrooms
Total Rooms
Bedrooms
Total Rooms
Bedrooms
Total Rooms
Bedrooms
8
4
Unk
3+1
BATHROOMS
2 F 1 P
2F 1H
BASEMENT
Min. Finish
Part Finished
downward
PARKING FACILITIES
2 Car Attached
2 Car Attached
Extras
AC, Vac, Fpl, etc
Similar
Assessment
$503,000
$364,000
$ Per Sq.Ft.
n/a
$188.63
Time Adjustment
n/a
$382,125
TAF(1.019)
OVERALL
n/a
SUPERIOR +
ADJUSTMENTS (Gross %, Net $)
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
ADJUSTED VALUES
$ 375,000
$ 0
$ 0
34The Appellant’s witness testified that he measured the exterior and the interior of the Subject Property on January 8, 2025. He testified that the Subject Property is the only property that was given interior measurement considerations. The Appellant’s witness testified that he is relying on MPAC’s measurements for Properties 1 and 4. For Properties 2 and 3, the Appellant’s witness indicated that there were no interior considerations, and only exterior measurements were considered. The Appellant’s evidence is that the square footage of the Subject Property is 2516 sq. ft.
35The Appellant’s witness testified that he is relying on information from MLS listings, home inspection report and information provided by the Appellant and contractor with respect to the proposed comparable properties. Regarding the four proposed comparable property sales, he testified as follows:
Property 1 is located on the same street as the Subject Property, it is a larger lot with more frontage and depth but it is a smaller home. The Appellant’s witness did not know how many rooms it has as he was relying on MLS information, however, he considered it to be inferior to the Subject Property based primarily on its smaller dwelling size, one less full bathroom and smaller garage.
Property 2 is located on the same street as the Subject Property; it is inferior location due to the fact that it backs onto a busier thorough street. It is a larger lot with more frontage. The Appellant’s witness testified that it is superior in overall condition as it has been remodelled and has a fully finished basement, and that although it is a smaller home, he considers it to be superior to the Subject Property.
Property 3 is the current residence of the Appellant’s witness. It is a larger lot with more frontage. The Appellant’s witness testified that it is a smaller home based on personal measurements and has a partial basement. The Appellant’s witness’s opinion is that it is inferior because of its size and partial basement, he considers it to be inferior to the Subject Property overall.
Property 4 is located on the same street as the Subject Property. The Appellant’s witness indicated that it is a custom-built home and has been redone. Although it is a smaller home with a partially finished basement, the Appellant’s witness testified that it is in highly superior condition. The Appellant’s witness’s overall conclusion was that it is superior to the Subject Property.
36The Appellant’s position is that based on the four comparable properties, using MPAC’s Time Adjusted Factors, the current value of the Subject Property is $340,000.
Findings on Issue 1b)
37With respect to the square footage of the Subject Property, the Board finds that MPAC’s figure of 2749 is the appropriate value to use for its analysis. The Board will not use the Appellant’s square footage for the Subject Property, given that no other property submitted by the Appellant was given the same consideration, and all of MPAC’s proposed comparables properties, as well as the Subject Property, were listed with exterior measurements.
38In the absence of a consistent measurement methodology the comparison runs the risk of inaccuracy. Accordingly, the Board accepts MPAC’s measurements and square footage calculations for the Subject Property.
39By using the internal measurement of the Subject Property only, the Appellant was discounting the square footage of the Subject Property by over 200 sq. ft (2749-2516). Because of this inconsistency, the Board does not accept the conclusions (in terms of superiority/inferiority) submitted by the Appellant regarding its other comparable properties in relation to the Subject Property.
40The Board acknowledges the Appellant’s witness’s testimony that portions of the Subject Property may be unusable due to the house’s configuration. However, this discount should only be applied to adjust the Subject Property’s value downwards once a uniform set of data has been established, not to adjust the square footage in a way that makes it difficult to compare it to the other properties.
41With respect to sale dates selected by the Appellant, the Board finds that relying on the date of the agreement-of-purchase-and-sale as opposed to the recorded sale dates, again creates uniformity issues for the Board’s analysis. In other words, if the Appellant’s sale dates were used, the Time Adjustment Factor would have to be applied to bring them in line with MPAC’s proposed comparable properties.
42The Appellant’s comparable property sales have been recorded as of the date of the agreement (an earlier date). The Board notes that closing periods typically range from 1-6 months. The Board has no way of knowing what closing period applied to each of the Appellant’s comparable properties, or if any of these sales fell through, were adjusted before closing due to conditions, etc.
43If the Appellant’s comparable properties were included in MPAC’s data set, they would have been recorded 1-6 months later. While this discrepancy would likely create lower time adjusted sale values of the Appellant’s proposed comparable properties, the Board has no way of determining what that adjustment would be, so the Board accepts the time adjusted sale values as presented by the Appellant.
44MPAC did not take issue with the Appellant’s proposed comparable properties, other than the inconsistent measurements, which has been addressed above. The Board does not accept the Appellant’s Properties 2 and 4. The square footage of the Subject Property is 2749 sq. ft., which is much larger than Properties 2 and 4, both of which are under 2000 sq. ft. (1984 sq. ft. and 1988 sq. ft., respectively).
45All of MPAC’s proposed comparable properties are over 2000 sq. ft. However, the Board acknowledges that MPAC's Properties 1 and 4 are only slightly over that mark, for this reason, they are also not good comparables for the over 2700 square foot Subject Property.
46MPAC’s Property 6 is furthest from the Subject Property at 1.28 kms away while all of MPAC’s other proposed comparable properties are within a kilometre. Further, this property is 11 years newer than the Subject Property and its lot size is about double the size of MPAC’s other proposed comparable properties. For these reasons, the Board will not rely on Property 6. In summary, the Board finds that MPAC's Properties 2, 3 and 5 are comparable to the Subject Property and will be relying on them for the Board’s current value analysis.
47Based on the above analysis, the Board finds that the Appellant’s Properties 2 and 3 and MPAC’s Properties 2,3 and 5 are sufficiently comparable to the Subject Property. Their time adjusted sale prices are listed in the chart below.
Time adjusted Sale Value
MPAC 2
$530,522
MPAC 3
$499,144
MPAC 5
$491,737
Appellant 2
$352,450
Appellant 3
$319,725
48Based on the time adjusted sale prices, the Median value is $491,737.
49Accordingly, the Board finds that the current value of the Subject Property is $491,000 (rounded).
Issue 2 - Is a reduction to the current value required for the purpose of equitable assessment and, if so, how much?
Evidence and Submissions
MPAC
50MPAC did not provide an equity study. MPAC’s witness provided in oral testimony that, “when we pull the time adjusted sale value it’s 0.98” which is “pretty much spot on with regards to equity”, so MPAC did not “pull an equity study” for this appeal. It was not entirely clear where the 0.98 figure came from and whether it was submitted as the assessment to sales ratio (“ASR”).
51MPAC’s comparable properties chart provides the Time Adjusted Sale Ratios of MPAC’s comparable properties. The median of these values, as shown in MPAC’s comparable chart, is 0.9865.
Appellant
52The Appellant did not raise equity as an issue and did not provide any submissions.
Findings on Issue 2
53Although neither party raised the requirement of an equitable adjustment as an issue in this appeal proceeding, the Board is required by s. 44(3)(b) to consider whether a reduction to the current value is required for the purpose of equitable assessment.
54The Board finds that, although MPAC’s evidence regarding equity and ASR is not completely clear, 0.98 was submitted by MPAC as the ASR in this appeal and that this is the best evidence before the Board to determine whether an equitable adjustment is required.
55It is well established in Board decisions that an ASR between 0.95 and 1.05 indicates that equitable adjustment not required, so the Board finds that an equitable adjustment is not required in the current appeal.
CONCLUSION
56The Board has found that the correct value of the Subject Property is $491,000 and no reduction of this value is required pursuant to s. 44(3) (b) of the Act.
57Therefore, the Board finds that the current value of the Subject Property for the taxation years 2025 and deemed 2026 is $491,000.
ORDER
58The current value of the Subject Property for the taxation years 2025 and deemed 2026 is $491,000.
"Rema El-Tawil"
REMA EL-TAWIL
MEMBER
"Hayleigh Cudmore"
HAYLEIGH CUDMORE
MEMBER
Assessment Review Board
Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb