Insti-News is published by the Institute of Municipal Assessors with assistance from the Communications Services Committee, chaired by Justin Graham, A.I.M.A.
Any opinions or recommendations expressed in this issue are those of the contributors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IMA.
Submissions
Interested in submitting an article? Have a great idea for a hot topic? Make your submission to: communications@theima.ca
Be sure to put “Insti-News Submission” in the subject line or contact the IMA office by phone to discuss.
Reprints
Written permission must be obtained before reproduction or use of any content.
Graphic Design
Harvey Visuals harveyvisuals.ca
Stay Connected
Contact
Institute of Municipal Assessors 16 Industrial Parkway South Aurora, Ontario, L4G 0R4
905-884-1959
1-877-877-8703 info@theima.ca
Photo credit: Ekyrima Nuryaganda
President’s Report
As we move into 2026, I want to begin by welcoming you to a new year and thanking you for your continued commitment to the Institute and to the municipal property assessment and taxation profession. The past year has been a busy and meaningful one for the IMA, marked by strong collaboration and a continued focus on accreditation and lifelong learning.
Education and collaboration remained front and centre as we closed out 2025. In November, the IMA worked closely with our sister organizations from across Canada to deliver the first-ever online pan-Canadian assessment symposium. Bringing together voices from coast to coast for a truly national conversation was a significant milestone for our profession, with more than 200 participants joining from jurisdictions across the country.
Building on that momentum, we partnered once again with the International Property Tax Institute (IPTI) in January to deliver our second annual International Innovation Symposium. With over 240 participants from around the world, the symposium explored how innovation is showing up differently across jurisdictions — from AI-supported modelling and automated workflows to new approaches in data analysis and quality control. What works well in one region may look quite different in another, shaped by legislation, available data, and local practice. But the through-line is the same: regardless of the tool, our obligations as professionals remain unchanged. The assessor’s judgment, transparency, and accountability must always stay at the centre of the work.
As we approach the end of the current CPD cycle on March 31, I encourage all members to take a moment to review their CPD status and ensure they are up to date. The IMA Learning Centre continues to offer accessible webinars, recordings, and learning resources designed to fit into busy schedules. Staying current with CPD is one of the ways we collectively support professional competence and confidence.
This issue of Insti News highlights many of the ways our members continue to contribute, lead, and engage. You’ll also find timely reading on two issues shaping assessment work across the country. First, a recap of our national discussion on critical minerals and what assessors should be watching as development expands and impacts communities and infrastructure. Second, a piece on fairness and equity in assessment and taxation, intended to support professional reflection and dialogue as members navigate complex issues within their own legislative and policy environments.
You’ll read about District 1’s in-person meeting, where members came together to discuss topics such as affordable housing and ethics, and where a new District Executive was elected. I want to congratulate the incoming executive and extend sincere thanks to Jane Sokol-Kennedy, A.I.M.A., for her years of dedicated
Drew Samuels
M.I.M.A. President
Institute of Municipal Assessors
service as District Director. Her reflections speak to the value of volunteer leadership and the strong sense of community within the IMA.
This issue also introduces Accredited to Lead, a new series spotlighting how the M.I.M.A. Accreditation supports leadership, confidence, and professional growth. The experiences shared by Janice Hunter-Desjarlais, M.I.M.A., and Don Hearn, M.I.M.A., ICD.D underscore how accreditation strengthens judgment and supports members as they take on complex responsibilities.
You’ll also find practical guidance for members working toward accreditation, including tips for completing a successful Expert Valuation Report (EVR), with advice on planning, property selection, clarity of analysis, and approaching the EVR as a professional expert report.
We’re also pleased to share updates on the IMA Conference 2026, taking place June 7–9 in Windsor, Ontario, with early-bird registration now open. This year’s program is being designed with a strong focus on applied learning, peer exchange, and support for emerging professionals, including first-time attendee pricing and built-in mentorship opportunities.
Finally, this issue recognizes members who have recently been newly accredited or elevated, marking important milestones in their professional journeys. These achievements reflect the dedication, discipline, and commitment that define our profession.
As we move forward together, I am continually inspired by the professionalism, thoughtfulness, and generosity of this community. Whether through education, volunteer leadership, or daily practice, IMA members play a critical role in supporting trusted assessment systems across Canada.
Thank you for the work you do and for the standards you uphold. I look forward to the year ahead — and to continuing this work together.
Drew Samuels, M.I.M.A. IMA President
Industry Pulse: Conversations that Matter Fairness and Equity in Property Taxation in Ontario
As part of the IMA’s commitment to amplifying diverse voices across the municipal property assessment profession, we continue our article series featuring insights and perspectives from members and stakeholders working in assessment and property taxation. The views and opinions expressed in featured articles are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IMA.
Sharing a range of viewpoints helps deepen understanding and strengthen professional dialogue across jurisdictions and roles. If you have insights to share, we invite you to connect with the IMA Team and be considered for a future feature.
Introduction
This paper will present the view that fairness and equity in property taxation in Ontario is more important than correctness and it will illustrate how the legislation and Courts have decided on this issue to support the opinions being presented.
Notwithstanding the belief that correctness is subordinate to fairness and equity, this paper does not assert that correctness ought not be sought. Rather, it is acknowledged that real property is not homogenous and consequently mass appraisal systems have yet to be developed in a manner that produce correct values for all of the properties all of the time. Consequently, there needs to be checks and balances in place to address the shortcomings of a mass appraisal system.
Having reference to a variety of important Court decisions, the paper is presented with the goal of seeking consensus on the importance of fairness and equity and to stimulate dialogue amongst stakeholders ensuring the significance of the goal is realized in Ontario.
The success of any form of taxation is that the taxpayer must believe that the system is fair. With regard for property taxation in Ontario (and most jurisdictions), citizens have accepted that tax burdens should be allocated based upon their real estate wealth.
The upshot is there is a positive relationship between real estate wealth and the ability and/or responsibility to pay property taxes. The Latin term for this form of taxation is ‘ad valorem’.
If the assessed values for all properties are correctly derived the corresponding tax burdens will be fair and the system will be fair and equitable.
It is instructive in Ontario that Section 19 of the Assessment Act 1 directs the assessor to derive the assessed values for all properties as of a prescribed date without any explicit commentary pertaining to fairness and equity. The implication is that complete accuracy will produce complete fairness and equity in property taxation throughout the province.
Any effective taxation system will afford a taxpayer the right of appeal if they believe that they are being unfairly taxed. That right encompasses not only consideration of the correct determination of the assessed value, but also consideration as to whether the property is being inequitably assessed.
History
Sub-section 15, of Section 64 of The Assessment Amendment Act, 1892 stated that “the court may, in determining the value at which any land shall be assessed, have reference to the value at which similar land in the vicinity is assessed”. There may be even earlier legislation stating the importance of fairness and equity; however, it goes back over 130 years, and the durability of the premise illustrates its importance.
The earliest decision dates back to 1922. Dreyfus v. Royds2 involved the assessment of land in an unsettled part of Canada where there were few transactions available to derive a value. In the absence of market data, at paragraph 35 of the decision, “the board bases its finding on the oral evidence and appeals to the assessed value of adjacent lands under s. 69 (16) merely for confirmation of its conclusion”.
Moving forward 46 years to 1968, there is the seminal decision involving Re Empire Realty Co. Ltd. and Assessment Commissioner for Metropolitan Toronto et al. (“Empire Realty”), 3 whereby the following two paragraphs (6 to 7 from the decision) state the following:
3. Re Empire Realty Co. Ltd. and Assessment Commissioner for Metropolitan Toronto et al., 1968 CanLII 183 (ON CA) [“Empire Realty”]
6. A prime objective of municipal taxation is the equitable distribution of the burden according to the value of the property possessed by each ratepayer; in the system prevailing in Ontario, the tax levied on the ratepayer is determined by the application of a uniform mill rate upon the assessed value of the ratepayer’s taxable property set down in the assessment roll. If equity in taxation is to be achieved, it must result from equity in assessment.
7. It is inherent in this process that the result of the assessor’s work must satisfy him that equity will be thereby accomplished, but it is equally, if not more important, that it must also demonstrate to the ratepayer, objectively, that equity has been accomplished.4
The primary use for assessed values is for the distribution of property taxes amongst the members of a community, and most assessments are derived on an ‘ad valorem’ basis. Accordingly, the members of the community have accepted that their responsibility to pay property taxes is commensurate with their real estate wealth.
Therefore, if all properties are assessed at their actual value there is equity in assessment and consequently equity in taxation amongst all members of the community. However, given the scale of most assessment jurisdictions and the complexities associated with deriving assessed values for a wide array of properties, the goal of assessing all properties at their actual values has proven to be elusive. This reality was addressed in paragraph 35 of the Empire Realty decision, which is presented below.
35. …The Assessment Act, s. 86 (2), gives to each of the tribunals exercising appellate jurisdiction under the Act (save the Court of Revision), power to consider the value at which similar lands in the vicinity are assessed. The testing of the fairness to the ratepayer of the assessment of his property by looking at what has been done with comparable properties is too well established to need any defense; even an assessment made at the actual value of lands and buildings in compliance with the provisions of s. 35 (1) would be an unequitable assessment if all similar lands in the vicinity were assessed at some percentage of actual value substantially less than one hundred; where, as here, there has been no attempt to assess at actual value, the relationship of any particular assessment to the assessed value of similar lands becomes the only standard by which fairness to the ratepayer may be established. 5
The Court was not concerned with how the value was derived, rather its concern rested with the accuracy of the outcome and how that outcome compared to the assessed values of similar lands in the vicinity.
In 1975 there was a decision involving Regional Assessment Commissioner v. Ontario Steel Products, 6 in which the Supreme Court of Canada citing Empire Realty reinforced the principle of equity and fairness as a fundamental right of appeal as noted in paragraph 19:
19. I think it important to stress that s.90 does not diminish the protection afforded to the taxpayer through his rights of appeal prior to its enactment. If it were the case that prior to the enactment of s. 90 a taxpayer could complain only if he was assessed in excess of market value, there would be small consolation in s. 90 giving the taxpayer a right to complain of inequity of assessment as compared with the assessment of similar real property in the vicinity. The fact is, however, as underlined by the judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Re Empire Realty Co. Ltd. and Assessment Commissioner for Metropolitan Toronto 3 , that a taxpayer was entitled to be assessed on an equitable basis with other taxpayers owning land in the vicinity; and the fact that an assessment was at actual or market value would not preclude a successful appeal where it could be shown that similar lands in the vicinity were assessed at substantially less than actual or market value. Review power to this end was vested in the range of appellate tribunals (other than the court of revision, now known as the assessment review court) by s. 86 (2) of The Assessment Act. R.S.O. 1960, c. 23.7
The importance of equity and fairness was emphasised in several cases in Courts and Tribunals for decades. The cases include:
7. Regional Assessment Commissioner v. Ontario Steel Products, 1975 CanLII 34 (SCC), [1976] 2 SCR 721 at para. 19
Current Legislation
In Ontario, appeals are made to the Assessment Review Board (“Board”), and the Assessment Act states the following:
For 2009 and subsequent taxation years, in determining the value at which any land shall be assessed, the Board shall, (a) determine the current value of the land; and (b) have reference to the value at which similar lands in the vicinity are assessed and adjust the assessment of the land to make it equitable with that of similar lands in the vicinity if such an adjustment would result in a reduction of the assessment of the land. 8
As can be observed, in contrast the single objective provided to the assessor, the Assessment Act provides two objectives to the Board: determine if the Current Value is correct and ensure that the resulting Current Value Assessment it is equitable. The legislation permits an adjustment to be made only to reduce the Current Value Assessment (e.g. it’s a one-way street) and this nuance will be addressed later in the paper.
Section 44 (3) (b) of the Assessment Act 9 is intended to prevent the unfair scenario of a property owner paying taxes based upon a higher percentage of property value while the property owners of similar properties in the vicinity pay taxes based upon a lower percentage of property value.
Correct and Unfair?
The question becomes — how can a correct value be unfair and inequitable? The answer can be found at paragraph 35 of the decision in Empire Realty where the Ontario Court of Appeal stated:
35. The Assessment Act, s. 86 (2), gives to each of the tribunals exercising appellate jurisdiction under the Act (save the Court of Revision), power to consider the value at which similar lands in the vicinity are assessed. The testing of the fairness to the ratepayer of the assessment of his property by looking at what has been done with comparable properties is too well established to need any defense; even an assessment made at the actual value of lands and buildings in compliance with the provisions of s. 35 (1) would be an unequitable assessment if all similar lands in the vicinity were assessed at some percentage of actual value substantially less than one hundred; where, as here, there has been no attempt to assess at actual value, the relationship of any particular assessment to the assessed value of similar lands becomes the only standard by which fairness to the ratepayer may be established.10
The basis of the Court’s statement is that a correctly assessed taxpayer will pay a disproportionate share of the tax burden
8. Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, s. 19
9. Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, s. 44(3)(b)
10. Empire Realty at para. 35
11. Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, s. 44(3)(b)
if other taxpayers are incorrectly underassessed and that outcome would be unfair and inequitable to the correctly assessed taxpayer.
The determination of a correct value for any particular property is beyond the scope of this paper. Rather, this paper focuses on the determination of fairness and equity in assessment and consequently in taxation.
Section 44 (3) (b) mandates that the Assessment Review Board shall: have reference to the value at which similar lands in the vicinity are assessed and adjust the assessment of the land to make it equitable with that of similar lands in the vicinity if such an adjustment would result in a reduction of the assessment of the land.11
As can be observed, the Board must identify what constitutes similar lands as well as what is an appropriate vicinity.
Similar Lands
The selection of similar lands will necessarily be an amorphous process as it is dependent on the nature of the subject property. In essence, the process for homogenous properties (i.e., houses) will differ from the process for heterogenous properties (i.e., special-purpose properties).
The simple definition of similar from Oxford is ‘resembling without being identical’ which suggests that a comparison must be made to properties (e.g., lands) that have qualities and features in common with the subject property. For homogenous properties, like houses, the selection of similar lands would generally be other houses (i.e., common use to subject property) where there will normally be a sufficient number of properties that share the qualities and features of the subject property.
Conversely, for heterogenous properties there will typically be a need to expand the search to find properties with as many common qualities and features as possible when compared to the subject property. The use of a property will generally impact the qualities and features of a property; however, the use ought not be the sole basis for selecting similar lands as there are other points of comparison that must be considered.
This matter has been decided by the Courts over the years, and a few decisions are presented for context. In considering whether properties are homogenous or heterogenous, it is important to note that similarity is not limited to a consideration of physical characteristics but encompasses many more and other points of comparison.
In a decision in 2017, the Ontario Divisional Court in Loblaws considered the concept of similar lands in light of the Downtown
Oshawa and Trizec decisions at paragraphs 20 and 25:
[20] What is readily apparent from the plain wording of ss. 44(2) & 44(3)(b) is that, once the Board has determined the current value of the property, it is then mandated to “adjust” the assessed value to make it equitable with “similar lands in the vicinity”. The Assessment Act is, therefore, clear that any adjustment to the current value is to be based on similar lands. What then does the expression “similar lands” mean?
[25] In my view, the proper approach to be taken to determining what are “similar lands in the vicinity” is that set out by Saunders J. in Trizec, that is, that all points of comparison must be considered. I also agree with the point that he made, and which is of some importance to this case, that a single point of similarity, such as use, is not necessarily determinative of the issue.12
In a decision in 2024, the Ontario Divisional Court in Bell Canada upholding the decisions associated with Trizec and Loblaws and noted in the following excerpt:
[17] The Board, at para. 65, reproduced the following statement in Trizec, at para. 9, which was adopted by the court in Loblaw, at para. 23: All points of comparison must be considered. The Board must make a factual finding based on such a consideration. One point of similarity such as use may be, but is not necessarily, determinative. Some similarities may be overridden by other characteristics and some differences may be subordinated 13
The Court decisions each state that all points of comparison must be made and that the use of a property is only one of many possible aspects of a property as a basis for comparison. The matter to be resolved is what are the relevant points of comparison and how should they be weighted.
Vicinity
The identification of vicinity is also an amorphous course of action that will vary based upon the characteristics of the subject property. In general, a smaller the vicinity is preferred on the basis that the (typically significant) impact that location has on value will be best reflected in the assessed values of the similar lands and the subject property. Not surprisingly, a smaller vicinity is generally realized for homogenous types of properties due to their abundance. Conversely, a larger vicinity is often required for more specialized properties to find properties with characteristics that are common to the subject property.
The size of the vicinity must expand as far as is required to identify similar lands and the search will expand as the subject
property becomes more unique. For example, the vicinity for a house may be limited to the same city block whereas for a specialized factory it may be as large as the entire province. The far-reaching provincial vicinity may be considered inappropriate by some on the basis that property taxation is levied by municipal governments and that the vicinity be limited to the same municipality; however, the Court has decided on that issue.
In a decision in 2012, the Ontario Divisional Court in Chrysler Canada Inc. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp. (“Chrysler Canada”) considered the concept of vicinity at paragraph 26:
[26] It is overtly reasonable that similar properties bear a similar level of municipal taxes and that inequities in assessment be reduced to the lesser. This result is within s. 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act. However, in my view, s. 44(3)(b) is broader. It speaks of inequity of assessment with the scope of the assessment mandate extra-municipal. That mandate being all similar properties are to bear similar current values – subject to adjustment every 4 years. So that on those rare occasions when sufficient similar properties cannot be found, to the satisfaction of the Board, within the appellants’ municipality, the comparison is, as here, extra-municipal.14
As can be observed, the Court found that a vicinity may expand beyond municipal boundaries. A case-by-case analysis is required to determine how far beyond municipal boundaries is appropriate. Additionally, the test for equity may depend on the type of property and the number of similar lands considered to be sufficient for comparison.
Practical Application of Determining Fairness and Equity
In addition to deciding what constitutes similar lands and vicinity, there are other issues to be resolved.
• How many similar lands in the vicinity are enough to establish an inequity?
• What method(s) should be relied on to prove an inequity? Not surprisingly, there are no clear answers to either of the questions.
How Many Similar Lands to Consider
In the Bell Canada decision, the Court stated:
[19] At para. 70, the Board identified another Bell Canada switching station on Simcoe Street in downtown Toronto as providing “a good point of reference when compared to the [Asquith] property” for determining the amount of the equitable adjustment to the Asquith property’s current value under s. 44(3)(b). The Board found at paras. 70-73: [70] One property in evidence provides a good point of
12. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation v Loblaw Properties Limited, 2017 ONSC 1299 (CanLII) at paras. 20 and 25
13. Municipal Property Assessment Corp. v. Bell Canada, 2024 ONSC 3670 (CanLII) at para. 17
14. Chrysler Canada Inc. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp., 2012 ONSC 2129 at para. 26
reference when compared to the subject property. That property is 220 Simcoe Street (“220 Simcoe”); also located in downtown Toronto. It is owned by Bell Canada and has the same restrictions placed on it in accordance with the BCA. What makes 220 Simcoe more similar than all other properties in evidence is that it provides the same telecommunications switching function for its customers and the customers of co-locators, as the subject property does.15
In the Chrysler Canada decision, the Court states:
[12] The second question the Board puts to itself; “is it is equitable to use similar properties from a different tax regime to demonstrate inequity?” The Board in answering this question characterizes Subsection 44(3)(b) of the Act, as the search for similar properties to that of the Appellants’ properties that are assessed at below their current value. The response by the Board is the acceptance of 4 properties within the City of Toronto and 9 properties in the Region of York, a total of 13 similar properties to determine current value. The appellants seek the application of s. 44(3)(b) to all 13 properties. The respondent, MPAC, persuaded the Board that the law limits vicinity to the comparables within the municipality of Toronto.16
Method(s) to be Relied On
In 2016, the Ontario Divisional Court decided in Schumacher the following:
[18] Section 44(3)(b) does not specify any particular methodology. We cannot say that at any step of the analysis, the Board erred in law or behaved unreasonably in determining the issues advanced on appeal, even though other possible determinations or methods were available to it and urged upon us by the Appellant.17
Additionally, in the Bell Canada decision, the Court stated:
[15] At paras. 63-64, the Board described the use of an ASR study as “a common means of determining whether a reduction in the current value determined is necessary and if so, by how much”, but went on to state: However, an ASR study is not the only means of deciding whether a current value should be reduced to reflect equitable assessment. The Board has applied many different approaches in its consideration of downward adjustments to current values. To select the best approach the Board is guided by past decisions of this Board and the Courts.
[43] As the Board correctly stated, at para. 64, however, “an ASR study is not the only means of deciding whether a current value should be reduced to reflect equitable assessment.” Given the unusual nature of telecommunication centres (including the statutory restriction on alienation), there
would be no sales data to develop an ASR study for such properties . 18
As can be observed, there is no method endorsed by the Courts; however, it is clear that there are more ways than simply comparing assessed values to sale prices. This is important because there are many types of properties that seldom trade necessitating the need for alternative methods to test the equity of an assessed value. Furthermore, the sales of income producing properties often reflect the value of a leased fee interest where the assessed values ought to reflect the value of the fee simple interest which compromises the comparison.
1-Way Street
In the Assessment Act, any adjustment for inequity may only be applied if it results in a reduction to the Current Value Assessment. This is a highly unusual statutory provision direct solely to protect the taxpayer.
The taxpayer is entitled to the lower of the correct value or the ‘equity-adjusted’ value. This is in contrast to a 1983 decision made by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Campeau. In the Campeau decision it was found that while the assessed value was incorrectly too high, it was equally incorrect in relation to similar lands in the vicinity and consequently did not place an inequitable tax burden on the taxpayer.
Excerpts from the decision are provided below: It has long been recognized that it is not particularly important that an assessment be individually correct, provided that all properties are assessed at the same proportion of their true values, so that each bears its fair share of the tax burden. By s. 90(1) the amount of any assessment is not to be altered unless the Assessment Review Court, judge, board or court is satisfied that the assessment is inequitable with respect to the assessment for similar real property in the vicinity. That section puts the onus of showing inequity squarely on the appellants.
This is not a case where the assessor has made no attempt to follow the provisions of the Act as occurred in Re Empire Realty Co. Ltd. and Assessment Com’r for Metropolitan Toronto et al., [1968] 2 O.R. 388, 69 D.L.R. (2d) 387 (C.A.), and Regional Assessment Com’r, Region No. 2 et al. v. Ontario Steel Products Co. Ltd., [1976] 2 S.C.R. 721, 61 D.L.R. (3d) 468, 5 N.R. 491. Here, the assessor has attempted to follow the Act. Notwithstanding that his capitalization rate may have been wrong, it has not been shown that it was out of proportion to the rate used in calculating the value of the other shopping centres, and therefore inequitable with respect to the assessment of similar real property in the vicinity 19
15. Municipal Property Assessment Corp. v. Bell Canada, 2024 ONSC 3670 (CanLII) at para. 19
16. Chrysler Canada Inc. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp., 2012 ONSC 2129 at para. 12
17. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation v Schumacher et al., 2016 ONSC 3239 at para. 18
18. Municipal Property Assessment Corp. v. Bell Canada, 2024 ONSC 3670 (CanLII) at paras. 15 and 43
19. Re Campeau Developments Ltd. et al. and Regional Assessment Commissioner, Region No. 29 et al., 1983 CanLII 1892 (ON CA)
Summary
It is inarguable that fairness and equity in property assessment is the foundation for a fair and equitable property taxation system in Ontario. As stakeholders, we have guidance from the Courts that we can use to provide more direction and oversight in the pursuit of fairness and equity.
There are ample literature and support available to property assessors and stakeholders in relation to deriving correct values and this has led to fewer disputes in relation to appropriate assessment methodologies. Conversely, there is very little guidance available to assessors and stakeholders as it pertains to the practical application of ensuring that the assessment methodologies produce fair and equitable assessments and corresponding property tax burdens.
This paper is intended to initiate a discussion about an important topic that may not be fully understood by assessors
and stakeholders; however, it is noted that this paper does not provide any guidance in relation to how the necessary outcome of fairness and equity can be realized.
It is anticipated that there will be an upcoming paper that introduces best practices for assessors and stakeholders to begin the process of establishing practical application(s) toward realizing a fair and equitable property assessment and property tax system.
The authors of this paper hold the view that a variety of perspectives will lead to best practices that are more likely to be adopted by assessors and stakeholders. Accordingly, we welcome the opportunity for collaboration amongst our peers as we prepare to compose the next paper in this series. If you wish to participate in the process, please connect with us to discuss how we can work together.
About the Authors
Richard Poole
Richard is a Legacy Partner of Nixon Poole Lackie LLP. Richard has been practicing in the field of municipal assessment and property tax law since 1973. As a Legacy Partner Richard continues to offer clients and team members his invaluable breadth of knowledge and strategic advice. Richard’s experience encompasses a wide variety of assessment and property taxation matters for private and public sector clients.
Since being called to the bar in 1973, Richard has appeared as counsel before all levels of Ontario courts and in several other Canadian jurisdictions. Richard’s deep understanding of municipal assessment, the Assessment Act, and tribunal processes was strengthened early in his career when he provided counsel to Ontario’s Regional Assessment Commissioners on retainer to the Ministry of Revenue.
Karina Wong
Karina is an associate at Nixon Poole Lackie LLP. Since joining Nixon Poole Lackie LLP in 2021, Karina’s practice has included all aspects of assessment and property tax law. She has represented our clients before the Assessment Review Board and all levels of Ontario
courts in a wide variety of valuation disputes. Prior to joining Nixon Poole Lackie LLP, Karina maintained a broad litigation practice at boutique law firms in Toronto.
Malcolm Stadig
Malcolm is a Director, Tax with Pricewaterhouse Coopers LLP (“PwC”) in Ottawa, Ontario. In his role at PwC, he provides real property consulting services with a focus on property assessment throughout Canada to taxpayers and assessment agencies with a focus on complex owner-occupied properties.
Along with more than 25 years of experience, Malcolm offers a unique perspective as both an accredited appraiser and a certified assessor, along with having held senior positions with both public-sector property assessment entities and private-sector tax consulting firms.
Malcolm holds accreditations with the Institute of Municipal Assessors (MIMA), Appraisal Institute of Canada (AACI, P. App), the International Association of Assessing Officers (CAE), the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (MRICS), and the American Society of Appraisers (ASA).
Top Tips for a Successful Expert Valuation Report (EVR)
Anthony DiFonzo BComm, M.I.M.A.
Writing your Expert Valuation Report (EVR) can feel overwhelming, and that is completely normal. As the capstone of the M.I.M.A. Accreditation, the EVR brings together everything you have learned and asks you to demonstrate your professional judgment as an expert valuator. With the right approach, it is a manageable and rewarding process.
Here are proven tips to help set you up for success.
1. Choose the Right Property — Strategically
Your property choice shapes your entire EVR experience. While a standard residential property is often recommended for its simplicity, the best choice is one that aligns with your strengths and experience.
Key considerations include:
•Confirm owner permission and access to key information early
• Ensure zoning and official plan details are available
• Note that the subject property must be at least 10 years old and the property must have sufficient market data to complete the approaches to value
• Select a property you understand well, as confidence matters as much as complexity
The goal is not to choose the easiest property. It is to choose one that allows you to clearly demonstrate valuation theory and sound reasoning.
2.Start Early and Plan Ahead
Time management is the single biggest success factor. Data collection, verification, and analysis take longer than expected.
Before writing:
•Conduct a thorough site inspection
•Gather zoning, planning, and legal land-use information
•Outline your report structure and required sections
Planning first will save you significant time later.
3.Be Resourceful with Data and Transparent About Gaps
Publicly available data, listing platforms, market reports, and government databases can all support your analysis. Data gaps are common, and what matters is how you address them.
Best practices include:
•Using multiple sources to support assumptions
• Clearly explaining substitutes when direct data is unavailable
•Documenting and citing all sources and providing sales listings relied upon
•Transparency and logic are more important than perfect data
4.Apply Theory Clearly and Consistently
Your EVR is not just about arriving at a value. It is about showing how you got there:
•Apply the appropriate valuation approaches thoughtfully
•Explain assumptions as if the reader has no prior valuation knowledge
•Ensure your analysis flows logically from start to finish
Clear communication is a core professional skill being assessed.
5.Understand the Marking Criteria
The grading matrix tells you exactly what EVR Graders are looking for. Review it early and revisit it often.
Graders assess:
•Application of valuation theory
•Strength of analysis and logic
•Professional objectivity and clarity
Treat the criteria as a roadmap rather than an afterthought.
6.Embrace Grader Feedback
Feedback is one of the most valuable parts of the EVR process. Even a passing report often includes detailed comments, and that is a good thing.
•View feedback as professional mentoring
•Seek clarification when needed
•Apply lessons learned beyond the report itself
This process mirrors real-world expert reporting, where scrutiny and refinement are expected.
7.Write Like a Professional Expert
Assume your report may one day be read by a tribunal, court, or review panel.
•Write clearly, objectively, and confidently
•Double-check calculations, spelling, grammar and assumptions
•Use appendices to support—not clutter—your analysis
•Source all material referenced
Your report should reflect your credibility, integrity, care and professionalism.
Final
Takeaway
The EVR is not just about passing. It is about stepping into your role as a trusted valuation professional. Start early, choose wisely, stay organized, and approach the process with confidence. Every challenge you work through strengthens the skills you will rely on throughout your career.
You have already done the hard work by getting this far. The Expert Valuation Report (EVR) is your opportunity to show it.
AI Ethics in Assessment
Applying the Code We Already Have
In collaboration with IPTI, in early January, the IMA offered our second annual international symposium, focused on artificial intelligence and innovation in assessment. With over 240 participants from around the globe, the level of engagement reflected how quickly these tools are becoming part of our day-to-day work.
Alongside discussions of innovation, the symposium also created space for a focused conversation about ethics. Led by Drew Samuels, M.I.M.A., IMA President, the session addressed professional responsibility in an environment where these new tools are evolving rapidly. The presentation examined how ethical obligations apply as AI becomes more embedded in assessment practice.
Ultimately, we tried to address the following question - Do we need new ethics to govern the use of AI?
Grounded in the IMA’s Code of Ethics and Practice Standards, the answer is a simple no. What is required is a disciplined and consistent application of the ethical framework that already guides professional practice.
Professional responsibility does not change with technology
The IMA Code of Ethics was designed to be principle based. It does not attempt to regulate specific tools or techniques.
Instead, it governs professional conduct in service of accurate and defensible assessment. These principles apply regardless of whether an assessor is working in a spreadsheet, a statistical model, or an AI enabled system.
Professional responsibility has always rested with the member. That continues to be the case as tools become more complex or automated. The assessment professional remains accountable for the analysis performed, the conclusions reached, and the way those conclusions are explained and defended.
AI
as simply a professional tool
A key distinction in discussions about AI is that it remains a professional tool. It can support judgment, but it does not replace it.
This aligns well with long standing expectations around due care and competence. Members are expected to understand the tools they use, recognize their limitations, and apply professional judgment throughout the assessment process. An AI generated output does not remove responsibility any more than a poorly understood model or an inappropriate comparable would.
The C.O.N.D.U.C.T. framework and AI
One practical way to think about ethical AI in assessment is through the IMA’s ethical framework, captured in the
C.O.N.D.U.C.T. acronym. It serves as a reminder that the principles guiding professional behaviour can translate directly to emerging technologies.
C Confidentiality and Candour
AI tools must protect confidential information and respect privacy obligations. Members remain responsible for data use and safeguards.
O Objectivity and Neutrality
Professional judgment must not be overridden by automated outputs or system pressure.
N No Conflict of Interest
AI use does not diminish the obligation to act independently and in the public interest.
D Disclosure
Ethical practice requires transparency about how AI informed tools contribute to analysis, including assumptions and limitations.
U Unbiased and Understandable
Results must be explainable and defensible to taxpayers, tribunals, and the public.
C Competence
Members must understand the tools they use and recognize when they are not appropriate.
T Truthful
Conclusions must be honest, complete and supported by evidence.
The key message is straightforward. While AI is introducing new tools, it does not change the clear ethical lens needed for their responsible use.
Supporting members through change
As technology evolves, there can be pressure to develop new ethical rules. The risk in doing so is the implication that ethical responsibility is dependent on technology specific guidance. The strength of professional ethics lies in their consistency.
The IMA’s role in this case is to support members as they apply them. Through education, guidance, and dialogue, the Institute can help ensure that innovation in assessment remains aligned with professional responsibility and public trust.
As AI continues to develop, the IMA Code of Ethics and Practice Standards remains a valuable framework. The work ahead is not about inventing new ethical values, but applying established ones with care and consistency.
Ethics and Accountability
The IMA Code of Ethics is supported by a formal compliance process. When concerns arise regarding a member’s conduct, the IMA has an established protocol for receiving and addressing complaints in the public interest. This process reinforces professional accountability and supports confidence in the profession.
Learn more about the compliance protocol here: https://theima.ca/page/ComplianceProtocol
Critical Minerals and the Assessment Profession Key Takeaways from Valuing Canada’s Future
Speakers
Andrew Workman , CAE, RES, LAAS, MAAS Director – Technical Standards and Policy Saskatchewan Assessment Management Agency (SAMA)
John Shepherd , CPM, P. App., AACI Director – Valuation, Research and Advisory Services Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC)
In November, the Institute of Municipal Assessors (IMA) was proud to co-host Valuing Canada’s Future, the first symposium to bring together Canadian assessment associations from across the country for a national conversation about the future of assessment.
Nearly 200 attendees joined online, representing jurisdictions and organizations from coast to coast. Participants had the opportunity to hear from speakers on a wide range of topics, including:
• Economic Shifts
• Technology
• Climate Impacts on Assessment and
• Digital Economy Shifts
One of the sessions that generated strong interest focused on critical minerals, as part of the symposium stream on Canada’s Digital and Resource Economies. The discussion explored why critical minerals have become such a national priority, what is driving growth in the sector, and what assessors should be watching for as development expands across Canada.
What are “critical minerals” and why does the definition matter?
The session opened with a practical reminder that “critical minerals” is not a scientific category found on the periodic table. It is a policy and economic term that gained traction around 2020, particularly as Canada began accelerating efforts tied to electrification, clean energy, and digital infrastructure.
Federally, minerals are generally considered “critical” when supply chains are under pressure or uncertain, the mineral can realistically be produced in Canada, and it supports strategic priorities such as economic security, geopolitical stability, or national security.
A key point raised during the session was that the list can look different depending on where you are in the country. What is considered “critical” is often connected to what is relevant in your jurisdiction, and what role your region plays in the broader economy.
Saskatchewan’s reality: minerals are a major economic driver Andrew brought a Saskatchewan perspective and highlighted just how significant mineral development already is for the province’s economy.
A few points that stood out:
• In Saskatchewan, Minerals and Oil and Gas now account for roughly double that of agriculture
• The province is aware of 27 of Canada’s 34 critical minerals
• Saskatchewan released a critical minerals strategy in 2023 with goals tied to expanding production, increasing exploration, and developing rare earth elements
Andrew also noted that growth is pushing into less developed areas, and in some cases into municipalities that may be dealing with large industrial development for the first time.
These projects move slowly, and they do not always move in a straight line. John emphasized something assessors should keep in mind early on: the timeline. From exploration to extraction, the development cycle for a new mine is often 10 to 15 years, and it can be longer. Projects can pause or shift depending on factors like commodity prices, interest rates, financing, or changes in technology.
That long runway creates challenges, but it also gives assessors time to learn the industry, understand how a project is developing, and prepare before it becomes a live valuation issue in their jurisdiction.
Andrew shared an example of a potash mine that broke ground around 2011 or 2012 and is only expected to reach production in 2027. It was a helpful reminder that these are long-term projects, even when the public expectation is that development happens quickly.
Why this connects to the digital economy
A major theme of the session was that critical minerals are tied to parts of the economy that do not “look” like mining at first glance. Data centres, artificial intelligence growth, grid expansion, electrification, and newer energy technologies
all rely on inputs like uranium, lithium, copper, and rare earth elements. Even if assessment work in a particular jurisdiction is not directly linked to mining, the ripple effects may still be relevant.
John also noted that increased critical mineral production does not automatically translate into local manufacturing or processing. These industries are not always vertically integrated, and the local impacts can vary significantly depending on where a jurisdiction sits in the broader value chain.
What this means for assessors
The practical takeaway from both speakers was that assessors need to stay informed and be ready for change, especially in areas where new development is coming into regions that have not dealt with it before.
Some considerations highlighted during the session included:
• Understanding what stage a project is in, since exploration, construction, and production can affect valuation differently
• Watching for land use shifts and housing impacts, since workforce demand can drive rapid change
• Paying attention to infrastructure requirements such as rail, roads, transmission, and power supply
• Expecting operational change over time, since industrial processes and technology evolve quickly
• Keeping an eye on older or idle sites, since improved technology can make previously inactive operations viable again
Andrew also emphasized that assessors can play a role in supporting municipalities by helping them understand what large industrial development may mean from an assessment and taxation perspective.
Learn more
Recordings from this session, along with the full Valuing Canada’s Future symposium program, are available through the IMA Learning Centre: https://learningcentre.theima.ca/courses/valuing-canadas-future
District News
District 1
District 1 held its in-person meeting on Wednesday, November 19, 2025, at Hidden Hills Golf and Country Club. District members gathered to discuss key topics, including affordable housing and ethics.
The meeting also included the District 1 executive election. We are pleased to share the newly elected District 1 Executive for the upcoming term.
• Chair: Ben McBride, M.I.M.A. (Life)
• Vice Chair: Jay Holmes , M.I.M.A.
• Treasurer/Secretary: Eddy Fayad , M.I.M.A.
• Member at Large: Ashley Hands , A.I.M.A.
• District Director: Toban Edmunds , M.I.M.A.
We extend our sincere thanks to Jane Sokol-Kennedy, A.I.M.A., for generously volunteering her time and expertise as District Director over the last few years. Her leadership and commitment have made a positive and lasting impact on the District. We are truly grateful for her contributions.
Jane put together a few words to share with all the District 1 members.
“I wanted to take a few moments and thank everyone who has been involved in District 1 over the past 8 + years that I have been on the executive. I have held numerous positions on this executive and always found that it was comprised of individuals who worked as a team to provide quality content for the members.”
“Those who work at the IMA office have also been a very valuable resource in helping to promote the benefits of accreditation along with being a constant support for all questions we may have had. I look forward to what is in store for District 1 in the coming years and have no doubt that the new executive that was recently elected will ensure that its members are engaged and excited about future meetings and events that are planned.”
As a membership-based association, we value your input. We encourage all members to reach out to the district executive with ideas, questions, or to explore opportunities to get involved. Your voice helps shape the direction of the IMA and ensures our work remains grounded in the needs of our members.
Accredited to Lead
We’re proud to launch Accredited to Lead — a new IMA series spotlighting leaders from across Canada’s assessment and taxation community. Each story highlights how the M.I.M.A. Accreditation supports confident decision-making, strengthens professional judgment, and enables career-long growth.
Interested in advancing your own leadership journey? Learn more about the M.I.M.A. Accreditation at the IMA Website.
How has earning your accreditation transformed your approach to leadership?
Earning my M.I.M.A. Accreditation strengthened my confidence as an assessor and motivated me to take on greater responsibilities, including a lead role within the commercial valuation team. That renewed confidence helped me recognize that I was capable of more, and when a managerial opportunity arose, I applied and was awarded the position.
I truly believe that without the validation and professional credibility that came with achieving my M.I.M.A., I may not have considered pursuing leadership at all. The accreditation has given me a stronger strategic perspective and reinforced the importance of aligning decisions with industry standards, organizational goals, and professional integrity.
Can you share a moment when your accreditation made a difference in a leadership decision?
There was a situation where I was defending a valuation in the Supreme Court, a circumstance that would previously have felt overwhelming, especially when presenting alongside accredited appraisers. However, earning my M.I.M.A. Accreditation provided a level of validation and confidence
Don Hearn M.I.M.A., ICD.D Executive Director /CEO MAA
that allowed me to approach the proceeding with assurance in my expertise. When questioned on my valuation approach, I felt supported by the standards, knowledge, and professional judgment reinforced through the designation. That experience demonstrated how the accreditation not only strengthens technical credibility but also empowers confident and effective decision-making in high-pressure leadership situations.
How would you describe the impact of accreditation on your professional growth?
Similar to how my designation transformed my approach to leadership, the M.I.M.A. Accreditation has had a significant impact on my professional growth, opening doors to opportunities I may not have pursued — or been awarded — otherwise. It has elevated my credibility, encouraged continuous learning, and positioned me to contribute more meaningfully to our organization.
Beyond the technical foundation, the accreditation strengthened my leadership identity, motivating me to mentor others, engage in broader discussions, and hold myself and those I lead to higher professional standards. It has truly been a catalyst for advancement and has played a key role in shaping the leader I am today.
Janice Hunter-Desjarlais M.I.M.A. Past President IMA Valuation Analyst Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
How has earning your accreditation transformed your approach to leadership?
Early in my evaluation career, I obtained my designation, and soon after, I started volunteering for the association. I wanted to feel more comfortable using the methods to add value. I gained knowledge and novel approaches from the training sessions that I could use at work. I gained knowledge, expertise, and strategies from the course materials and learning modules that enabled me to evaluate increasingly difficult property kinds and equipped me for more difficult assignments.
Opportunities for networking and the drive to work effectively, successfully, and morally led to years of learning for both myself and those who had difficulties along the way. My motto was to study and impart what I learned so that others could do better work today.
Can you share a moment when your accreditation made a difference in a leadership decision?
The goal of accreditation is to open doors for you. A Professional Development designation equips you for a career that progresses with support in a dynamic setting. Having the title while volunteering to promote new topics for discussion made it possible for me to be flexible in situations when I didn’t have
Accredited to Lead
assistance and put me in touch with experts who made me feel supported while bringing about change.
In addition to building credibility in the sector and offering those suggestions, it has encouraged organizational change for my employer. I’ve had the chance to work with numerous teams over the years to improve procedures and productivity, opening the door for a more contemporary approach to the Assessment Space. These lessons and insights changed the benchmarks for quality evaluations.
How would you describe the impact of accreditation on your professional growth?
My designation is special because it has connected me with people in this sector both domestically and abroad and has guided me on a 23-year volunteer route that has given me a lifetime of organizational experience. My volunteerism was at times a second job to my career in assessment, from volunteering locally to serving on committees, the board, and most positions within the organization.
I was able to grow there and found competent teams to work with. It enabled me to develop my abilities and self-assurance in novel and difficult ways. I was able to build on a fair and balanced system by interacting with others about our Canadian assessment and taxation experiences thanks to the Association. The potential to make changes and question the industry’s current quo, as well as pursue a better assessment for our stakeholders across Canada.
I consider myself fortunate to have had the opportunity to contribute to the organization’s transformation over these past years. The IMA helps grow the assessor experience and it’s a promise that you will as a designation holder.
Photo credit: Lisa Bourgeault
Member Elevations
The IMA would like to congratulate the recently elevated and newly appointed members!
M.I.M.A. Members
Name Company
Brooke Atkins MPAC Muskoka
Ju Hee Han MPAC Toronto
Farah Jashan MPAC Pickering
Pierre-Luc Pelletier Service New Brunswick
Connor Poulain MPAC Trenton
Michael Proietti MPAC Richmond Hill
Kendra Schell MPAC Muskoka
Jashen So Ryan ULC
Fei Wang MPAC Toronto
A.I.M.A. Members
Name Company
Joseph Anderlich MPAC Peterborough
Hongwon Choi MPAC Toronto
Sara Doherty MPAC Mississauga
Danny Eng MPAC Richmond Hill
Elizabeth Gray Ministry of Finance
Fang Guo MPAC Mississauga
Kirsten Johnstone MPAC Ottawa
Jina Lee MPAC Toronto
Holly Leeming County of Wellington
Joshua Lockhart MPAC Ottawa
Matison Montgomery MPAC London
James Parry MPAC Hamilton
Byungju Ra MPAC Toronto
Jeff Walsh MAA St. John’s
Bradley White City of Cambridge
Lindsy Wiseman MAA Gander
Kejia Yu MPAC Ottawa
Affiliate Members
Name Company
Elain Alexandre MPAC Pickering
Suman Bhatta MPAC North Bay
Brandon Bond PVSC
Abigail Boutilier PVSC
Billy Burle Woolpert, Tennessee
Joice Egbo Service New Brunswick
Hatice Fazli MPAC Barrie
Andrew Fleming City of St. John’s
Chris Harris Service New Brunswick
Brent Holwell MAA Gander
Mike Krim Tanmar Consulting Inc. AB
Clarissa Lobo MPAC Mississauga
Rick Macaulay PVSC
April Maclachlan PVSC
Ken Marsh Consultant
Shauna McCarthy MAA Corner Brook
Jessye Morin Service New Brunswick
Samantha O’Connor MPAC Gravenhurst
Bob Overbeck Larimer County
Celene Palmer PVSC
Mit Patel MPAC Trenton
Marc Serre MPAC Sudbury
Archie Shah MPAC Pickering
Aaqil Shaikh MPAC Pickering
Dylan Sweetland MAA St. John’s
Allison Vilardi Municipality of Leamington
A.I.M.A. Candidates
Name Company
Furong Hao MPAC Toronto
Shirin Nasirpour Yeoman and Company
IMA Conference 2026
June 7-9 in Windsor, Ontario – Registration now open
Early bird registration is now open for the IMA Conference 2026
June 7–9, in Windsor, Ontario! We’re looking forward to welcoming assessment and taxation professionals from across Canada for practical learning, big-picture conversations, and meaningful connections.
This year’s program is being designed with a clear focus on applied, in-person value—including interactive sessions, realworld case discussions, and opportunities to learn directly from peers across jurisdictions.
We’re also putting a special spotlight on emerging professionals, with built-in mentorship opportunities and facilitated roundtables to support early-career growth and confidence-building. To help make participation more accessible (especially for new attendees), we’re also introducing a First-Time Attendee rate for the 2026 conference.
And there’s no better setting for this work than Windsor, ON—a border city that reflects Canada’s resilience, adaptability, and economic connection, and a perfect backdrop for crossjurisdictional learning and national collaboration.
We’re opening registration earlier this year to support planning for attendees, employers, and teams—and to help you lock in the best pricing.
Visit our website for the latest conference news, room booking details, and agenda updates.
For Early Bird pricing, register before May 03!
Full Conference
Includes access to full conference sessions, the Welcome Reception and the President’s Dinner
Members: $805 + HST
Non-Members: $1,005 + HST Register – Full Conference
Two-Day Registration
Includes access to two days of conference sessions
Members: $625 + HST
Non-Members: $825 + HST Register – Two-Day
One-Day Registration
Includes access to one day of conference sessions
Members: $475 + HST
Non-Members: $675 + HST Register – One-Day
President’s Dinner
Includes access to the President’s Dinner only
Rate: $175 + HST
Register – President’s Dinner
Welcome Reception
Includes access to the Welcome Reception only
Rate: $195 + HST Register – Welcome Reception
continued next page
Photo credit: WMrapids
IMA Conference 2026
June 7-9 in Windsor, Ontario – Registration now open
First-Time Attendee (Special Pricing)
Attending your first IMA Conference? We’re offering special first-timer pricing to welcome new attendees.
Members & Non-Members: $755 + HST
Register – First-Time Rate
Eligibility: Available to individuals who have not previously attended an IMA Annual Conference. The IMA reserves the right to verify eligibility and adjust registrations if criteria are not met.
Refund Policy
• On or before May 29: Refunds are available, less a $50 administrative fee.
• After May 29: No refunds will be issued due to hotel and event commitments.
All cancellation requests must be submitted in writing.
Substitutions may be permitted; please contact the IMA office for details.
