Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: November 3, 2014 FILE NO.: WR C2014M1
Assessed Person(s): 575 Garrison Road Inc (David Kompson) Appellant(s): Town of Fort Erie Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 18 Respondent(s): Town of Fort Erie
Property Location(s): 575 Garrison Road Municipality(ies): Town of Fort Erie Roll Number(s): 2703-020-019-03900-0000 Appeal Number(s): 2925970 and 2935870 Taxation Year(s): 2012 Hearing Event No. 542062
Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended
APPEARANCES:
Parties Counsel+/Representative
575 Garrison Road Inc (David Kompson) R. Ford-King
Town of Fort Erie V. Gowans, H. Chamberlain and G. Corney
MPAC J. Mercier
HEARING EVENT INFORMATION:
Hearing: Held in Fort Erie, Ontario on August 7, 2013
DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY PAUL MULDOON
1The appeals in this matter came before the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) on August 7, 2013 in the Town of Fort Erie. The Board issued its decision on September 13, 2013 (“Board’s Decision”).
2At paragraph 12 of the Board’s Decision, the Board decided that the assessment is reduced from $1,173,000 to $525,000 for the 2012 taxation year. The background to the matter, including the evidence presented and specific findings made by the Board, can be found in the Board’s Decision.
3At paragraphs 13 and 14 of the Board’s Decision, the Board stated as follows:
Mr. Ford-King made an application for an award of costs in favour of the property owner/assessed person and against the Municipality. The Board finds that the actions of the Municipality were either unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith as required by Rule 133 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”) effective April 2, 2013.
Should the property owner/assessed wish to pursue costs, the Board will receive written submissions in regard to an appropriate award in accordance with the Rules 133 to 139 inclusive.
4At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board notes in its decision that Mr. Ford-King did make a request for costs in this matter.
5Paragraphs 66 to 69 of the Board’s Decision deals with the Board’s analysis with respect to costs issue. The Board stated:
The position of the Municipality, in the Board’s view, amounts to an abuse of the power vested in it by s. 39.1 of the Act. When power of this nature is vested in any public body, the expectation must be that the power will be reasonably exercised; yet the Municipality’s intransigence was not supported by any reliable evidence to support its position.
By taking, and steadfastly maintaining, its position, the Municipality has put itself, the assessed person and MPAC to the significant costs of this hearing. Moreover, the Municipality has placed itself in position of receiving a lower tax revenue for taxation year 2012 than the taxes based upon an assessment of $630,000, which (the Board infers) was an acceptable assessment to the other parties.
The Board agrees with Mr. Ford-King that these actions are sufficient to constitute grounds for an award of costs against the Municipality in favour of the assessed person/ appellant. During her testimony, Ms. Chamberlain mentioned that she felt she had been misled by an MPAC official who was not present. Had it been significant, the Municipality could have requested a summons from the Board to require the attendance of that person at the hearing. The Municipality did not do so. In the Board’s view, it is inappropriate to punish the assessed person because someone feels misled by a person at MPAC.
The Board is mindful of Mr. Kompson’s desire for a continued strong relationship with the Municipality and its officials, and his hope that this issue not have a deleterious effect on that relationship. The Board will entertain Mr. Ford-King’s application for costs only after he consults with his client, receives appropriate instructions and files written submissions.
6On October 9, 2013, the Appellant filed an application for costs outlining its statement of costs and disbursements. The Appellant is requesting $6,405.34 which includes professional fees and disbursements.
7On September 2, 2014, the Board wrote to the Town of Fort Erie asking whether it had, or intends, to respond to the Appellant application for costs. To date, no submissions by the Town of Fort Erie have been received.
Analysis and Conclusion
8Rule 133 of the Board’s Rules state:
- Application, Scope of Costs Awards and Procedure for Request for Costs – Where a party believes that another party in the proceeding before the Board has acted unreasonably, frivolously, vexatiously, or in bad faith, that party may make a request to the Board for costs at the end of a hearing event.
9The Board’s Decision made an award of costs against the Town of Fort Erie on the condition that the Appellant submits an application for costs. An application, with supporting documentation, was filed requesting the amount of $6,403.34.
10The Town of Fort Erie has not filed submissions contesting the quantum of costs filed by the Appellant.
11The Board has no reason to question the appropriateness of the costs request in this regard and therefore grants an award of costs in favour of the Appellant as against the Town of Fort Erie in the amount of $6,403.34.
CONCLUSION
12The Appellant’s application for costs against the Town of Fort Erie