Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: May 25, 2015
Assessed Person: Envirobusiness Directions Inc.
Appellants: Envirobusiness Directions Inc. and Susan Antler
Respondent(s): Township of Essa
Property Location: 8396 6th Line
Municipality: Township of Essa
Roll Number: 4321-010-008-04100-0000
Appeal Number: 3049453
Taxation Year: 2008
Hearing Event No. 578546
Legislative Authority: Section 331 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, as amended
Heard: February 11, 2015 in Essa, Ontario
APPEARANCES:
Parties Representative
Envirobusiness Directions Inc. Susan Antler
Township of Essa Vera Vieira
DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY LESLIE FLEMMING
INTRODUCTION
1This appeal came before the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) on February 11, 2015, at the Township of Essa.
PRELIMINARY ISSUES
2Vera Vieira, Tax Collector for the Township of Essa, raised the preliminary issue as to whether or not an appeal under s. 331 of the Municipal Act, 2001 (“Act”) would provide a form of relief to the Appellant which was being sought. Ms. Vieira was concerned that the relief Susan Antler was seeking on behalf of the Appellant was a reduction in the assessed value of the subject property, which is not available in this type of an appeal.
3Ms. Antler conceded that an appeal of her 2008 assessment in a timely manner may have been a more suitable avenue for her to have pursued, but believes she was misdirected to file a s. 331 appeal following her receipt of a letter from the Township of Essa dated December 24, 2008, respecting comparable properties selected by the Township. In any event, Ms. Antler elected to proceed to hearing. She indicated that the appeal has been dismissed twice when she failed to attend hearings (either in-person hearing or a telephone conference call) because she did not receive notice. This explains the lengthy delay in reaching today’s hearing of the appeal filed in 2009. Having devoted a great deal of time and energy to the matter, Ms. Antler wished to proceed.
4A second preliminary issue was raised by Ms. Vieira: neither party had served any documentary evidence on the Township as is required by Rule 45(2) of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. After a brief discussion, both parties agreed that they had seen any of the relevant documents relating to this matter, and a brief recess, if necessary, could be requested by either party during the hearing in order to review any new evidence presented.
ISSUE
5The subject property is described as the Utopia Community Hall. Ms. Antler described the building as an old building built in the 1950’s and offered for sale by the Township after it had stopped being used as a community centre. As Ms. Antler described it, the building was derelict by the time she purchased it in 2006 and lacked any common amenities such as washrooms or accessibility to disabled persons. Ms. Antler purchased the building herself in 2006 through the corporation which she owned, Envirobusiness Directions Inc.
6In December 2008, Ms. Antler received a letter from the Township of Essa advising her that her property had been identified by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) as “New Construction/New to Class” and as such it was eligible for review under s. 331 of the Act. Attached to the letter were particulars of one comparable property, identified as 5626 10th Sideroad. Both the subject property and the comparable were assessed in the commercial property class.
7Ms. Antler filed a review of the comparable property on March 17, 2009, on the ground that it was not a community hall and was therefore not comparable. She proposed two other properties, described in her letter as Ivy Community Hall and Baxter Community Hall. After many discussions between the parties and two dismissals and reinstatements of this proceeding, the appeal proceeded.
8Section 331 of the Act provides the property owner an opportunity to complain to the Board respecting the municipality’s choice of comparable properties, and to require that up to six alternative properties be used as comparable properties.
DECISION
9The Board finds that the only comparable property proposed by either MPAC or the Appellant in 2008 is the property municipally known as 5626 10th Sideroad (Roll Number 4321-010-002-05501-0000). This property was, at the relative time, listed in the commercial property class as was the subject property. It had formerly been a community hall known as “Egbert Community Hall”.
10The Board finds that the following properties were not comparable properties in 2008:
(a) 5085 – 20th Sideroad (Ivy Community Lodge), Township of Essa – in the residential property class;
(b) 8390 – 6th Line (St. George’s Anglican Church) – in the residential property class;
(c) 380 Mill Street – Lions’ Club – in the residential property class.
LEGISLATION
Municipal Act, 2001 – S.O. 2001, c. 25
11The purpose of s. 331 of the Act is set out in subsection (1):
(1) Taxes on eligible properties. – The purpose of this section is to ensure that eligible properties are taxed at the same level as comparable properties.
12The following subsections are those relevant to the subject property and serve to set out the procedure:
(6) Comparable Properties Identified. – The assessment corporation shall identify six comparable properties with respect to an eligible property for the purposes of this section or, if there are fewer than six comparable properties, as many comparable properties as there are.
(8) List provided to municipality. – The assessment corporation shall provide a list of the comparable properties under subsection (6) or (7) with respect to an eligible property to the local municipality as soon as is practicable,
(a) after the return of the assessment roll of eligible properties that are on the assessment roll, or
(b) after the mailing of the notice of the assessment of the eligible property under section 33 or 34 of the Assessment Act.
(9) List to be mailed to the owner. – The local municipality shall mail to the owner of each eligible property the list of the comparable properties and the determination made under subsection (2) with respect to that eligible property within 60 days after the date the list is received by the local municipality.
(11) Complaint. – The owner of an eligible property or the local municipality may, within 90 days of the mailing of information under subsection (9), complain to the Assessment Review Board in writing concerning the properties on the list and request that up to six alternative properties be used as comparable properties for the purpose of this section.
(13) Deemed appeal under s. 40 of Assessment Act. – Section 40 of the Assessment Act applies to an appeal under subsection (11) or (12) as if it were an appeal under subsection 40 of that Act.
(15) Authority of the Assessment Review Board. – In a complaint under this section, the Assessment Review Board shall,
(a) identify up to six comparable properties from among the comparable properties proposed by the complainant or by the assessment corporation; or
(b) determine that there are no comparable properties.
(20) Definitions. – In this section,
“comparable properties” means properties identified by the assessment corporation to be similar lands in the vicinity of the eligible property;
“eligible property” means a property,
(a) to which subsection 329(7) applies,
(b) that ceases to be exempt from taxation for 2001 or thereafter,
(c) that was subdivided or was subject to a severance,
(d) whose classification changes for 2001 or a later year, or
(e) that is prescribed by the Minister of Finance.
“vicinity” has the same meaning as under subsection 44(2) of the Assessment Act, except that the vicinity shall not exceed the boundaries of the single-tier or upper-tier municipality , as the case may be, in which the eligible property is located.
14In determining which comparable properties can be used for the purpose of s. 331 of the Act, regard must be had to the property classes in which the properties have been assessed. The subject property is clearly in the commercial class. However, the appellant in evidence referred to several properties which were part of the residential class pursuant to the following section of Ontario Regulation (“O. Reg.”) 282/98 to the Assessment Act: “Classes of Real Property”. The applicable sections follow:
(1) The residential property class consists of the following:
Land not used for residential purposes that is,
iii. land owned by a religious organization other than land occupied by a tenant and used for a commercial activity;
iv. land owned and occupied by a non-profit service organization, a non-profit private club, a non-profit cultural organization or a non-profit recreational sports club, other than land used as a golf course or ski resort
(2.1) In subparagraph 2 iv of subsection (1),
“service organization” means an organization whose primary function is to provide services to promote the welfare of the community and not only to benefit its members.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
15Evidence at the hearing was given was Ms. Antler, President of Envirobusiness Directions Inc., and by Ms. Vieira on behalf of the Township of Essa. Maryellen Loughran, a property valuation analyst employed by MPAC, was also affirmed to give evidence if necessary in order to clarify the selection of comparable properties by MPAC.
16Ms. Antler’s evidence disclosed that she purchased the subject property in 2006 for purely philanthropic reasons to benefit the tiny community of Utopia, which Ms. Antler describes as having a total population of approximately 100 citizens. When the unused Utopia Community Hall property came up for sale by the Municipality, Ms. Antler’s corporation Envirobusiness Directions purchased it for $128,000. She gave a history of the work on the building through the subsequent years, and provided the Board with 13 pages of photographs (Exhibit 1) of the work in progress. Exhibits 3 and 4 confirm the issuing of the building permit in March 2008, for the construction of a washroom and a barrier-free ramp. Exhibit 2 is a copy of a community invitation for the grand re-opening of the Utopia Community Hall on July 1, 2009.
17Ms. Antler managed the project as president of the corporate owner and also president of the not-for-profit group Visions of Utopia. She gave evidence about fundraising efforts for both the Community Hall and for the restoration of a local grist mill. Based on a negative experience with raising money for the grist mill, Ms. Antler decided to maintain ownership of the subject property in the corporation Envirobusiness Directions, rather than seeking to have ownership transferred to a not-for-profit corporation. As a consequence of this decision, the property classification for the subject property was changed from an exempt class as a property belonging to the Township of Essa to the commercial class in January 2007. It has remained in the commercial tax class since then.
18Ms. Antler’s evidence disclosed that she proposed the following properties as comparable properties:
(a) 5085 – 20th Sideroad (Ivy Community Lodge), Township of Essa;
(b) 8390 – 6th Line (St. George’s Anglican Church);
(c) 380 Mill Street – (Lions’ Club);
(d) 75 Denney Drive (Baxter Community Hall).
19She described all these properties as former community halls or churches that served the same purpose by providing meeting space for community groups.
20Ms. Vieira testified that the single comparable property provided to the municipality by MPAC was Roll Number 4321-010-002-05501-0000, municipally described as 5626 10th Sideroad. Ms. Vieira testified that, at the time of its purchase, the comparable property had also been assessed as an Assembly/Community Hall as had the subject property. However, in 2007 and 2008, the returned rolls placed the comparable property in the Commercial Tax Class, and, as such, in 2008 it was comparable to the subject property. She entered Exhibit 13, which contained a summary of the Township’s decision respecting a comparable property to the subject property, copies of certified copies of the assessment rolls for 2007 and 2008 respecting both the subject property and 5626 10th Sideroad, copies of the building permits for both properties issued in 2007 and 2008, and confirmation in the form of an email from Ms. Loughran of MPAC confirming property classes for four properties in theTownship including the subject and the comparable. Only the subject and the comparable were in the commercial property tax class. Despite the fact that the comparable property was changed into the residential property class at the end of 2008, it was at the time of assessment in the commercial tax class. The evidence confirmed that the properties proposed as comparable by the Appellant were in fact in the residential class.
21The Board is persuaded that the comparable property proposed by MPAC and submitted to Ms. Antler in December 2008, was a relevant comparable property for purposes of s. 331 of the Act. Ms. Antler’s evidence was unequivocal that the subject property has been placed in corporate ownership for the purpose of protecting its future and allowing her full control of the property. While her intentions are to make the property available as a Community Hall for use by the citizens of Utopia, it does not fall into the residential property class because it is not owned by a non-profit service organization or a non-profit private club, despite its current use for the benefit of the community as a whole. Therefore, only properties in the commercial tax class such as the subject property will be appropriate comparable properties for the purposes of s. 331 of the Act.
CONCLUSION
22The Board finds that, of the properties presented as potentially comparable properties, only 5626 10th Sideroad (Roll Number 4321-010-002-05510-0000) is a comparable property in 2008 for the purposes of s. 331 of the Act.
“Leslie Flemming”
LESLIE FLEMMING
MEMBER
Assessment Review Board
A constituent tribunal of Environment and Land Tribunals Ontario
Website: www.elto.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248```