Hopper v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2015 CanLII 33606

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

June 12, 2015

FILE NO.:

DM 2015M1

Moving Party(ies):

Darlene Eva Hopper

Respondent(s):

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 15

Respondent(s):

City of Brampton

Property Location(s):

98 Braidwood Lake Road

Municipality(ies):

City of Brampton

Roll Number(s):

2110-070-011-23320-0000

Taxation Year(s):

2004 to 2011

Hearing Event No.:

577731

Legislative Authority:

Section 40.1 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended

Heard:

January 19, 2015 in Brampton, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Representative

D. E. Hopper

Self-represented

MPAC

Roger Leroux

City of Brampton

Aida Karreman

DISPOSITION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY CATHERINE ROBERTS

DISPOSITION OF MOTION

1Darlene Eva Hopper has brought this motion under s. 40.1 of the Assessment Act (“Act”), on the basis that there is a "palpable error” in the assessment roll in relation to her property. The subject property in issue is located at 98 Braidwood Lake Road in the City of Brampton.

2As the parties were advised at the conclusion of the hearing, the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) agrees that there is a palpable error in the roll. My reasons follow. The motion is granted and the time for bringing the appeals of the current value assessments (“CVAs”) of this property for each of the taxation years between 2004 and 2011 is hereby extended to a date 90 days from the release of these reasons. The Board further directs MPAC to be the Appellant in these appeals.

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION OF MOTION

3Ms. Hopper purchased the subject property in 2004. On October 1, 2014, Ms. Hopper discovered for the first time that her property had been incorrectly described, in that MPAC had overstated the square footage of the building.

4The building itself is two-storeys high, and has a square footage of 2,638 square feet (“sq. ft.”). On October 1, 2014, Ms. Hopper obtained a detailed description of her property from MPAC and learned for the first time that the two-storey building was described as having an area of 2,638 sq. ft. and the basement of the two-storey building was also described as having an area of 2,638 sq. ft. Ms. Hopper submits that it is impossible for the basement of a two-storey building to have the same square footage as that of the two-storeys above it, and that this constitutes a palpable error in the roll.

5Section 40.1 of the Act provides:

40.1 If it appears that there are palpable errors in the assessment roll,

(a) if no alteration of assessed values or classification of land is involved, the Board may correct the roll; and

(b) if alteration of assessed values or classification of land is involved, the Board may extend the time for bringing appeals and direct the assessment corporation to be the appellant.

6MPAC has acknowledged the error in the description of the property and has corrected it for the current tax year and the two preceding tax years. Ms. Hopper has now moved to have the same correction applied to each of the tax years since 2004, when she bought the property.

7MPAC has opposed Ms. Hopper's motion, on the basis that the square footage of the building does not appear on the tax roll, and thus, there is no palpable error in the tax roll.

8In support of this position, MPAC has submitted two cases, the decision of Member T. Walker in Scott v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region No. 15 [2013] O.A.R.B.D. No. 189, and the decision of Member Stabile in Finn v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region No. 16 [2014] O.A.R.B.D. No. 352.

9The City of Brampton appeared on the motion but did not submit any evidence. Aida Karreman advised the Board that the City supports MPAC's position.

10Neither Ms. Hopper nor the City provided the Board with any case law.

11In response to this motion, MPAC relies upon the decision of Member Walker in Scott, supra. However, both MPAC and the City advise that this decision has been set aside by the Board, and a rehearing was held on April 25, 2014. No decision has yet been released on the rehearing. As the decision of Member Walker has been set aside, the Board finds that it cannot now be relied upon as good or persuasive authority.

12MPAC also relies upon the decision of Member Stabile in Finn, supra. Member Stabile stated in paragraph 52:

Corrections of palpable errors under section 40.1 of the act are rare. It is not a section that is available to remedy a missed appeal period.

13In Finn, the Board declined to exercise its jurisdiction under s. 40.1 of the Act, in part, because the appellant delayed in bringing the appeals for the tax year in question. That is not the case in the matter before me. Ms. Hopper did not "miss" the appeal period. Ms. Hopper first learned of the error in the description of her property on October 1, 2014, and she acted promptly to request that the error be corrected. She gave evidence to the Board that she would have appealed her tax assessment in 2004 if she had known of the error then, and I accept her evidence in this regard.

14Ms. Hopper submits the error in the description of her property was not apparent to her because it does not appear on the annual tax assessment from the City of Brampton. She only discovered it in October of last year when she obtained a more detailed description of her property from MPAC. However, Ms. Hopper submits that it is clearly impossible for a two-storey building to have the same square footage as the basement of that building, that the error was immediately apparent when she obtained the detailed description of her property, and that the error is a palpable one which would have been apparent to MPAC all along.

15MPAC relies upon the definition of "palpable" contained in the Oxford Dictionary and submits that the word palpable means: "clear to the mind, plain to see."

16MPAC also submits that the assessment roll contents for the subject property do not include a description of the size of the building, and as such, there is no palpable error in the roll on its face.

17With respect, I do not agree. While the 2005 assessment roll does not show a square footage for the building, the 2008 assessment roll does. It lists the "Structure Information Building (square feet)" as 2,638 sq. ft.

18Moreover, both the 2005 and 2008 assessment rolls show the CVA of the property, and it is not disputed that this CVA is based on an incorrect description of the building. Indeed, MPAC has acknowledged the error and adjusted the building description, and the City of Brampton has issued a credit for the taxation year 2014, with further credits expected for years 2012 and 2013.

19As such, I find that the CVA listed on the assessment roll for this property contained a palpable error, as it is based on an incorrect property description, and that this error dates back to 2004 when Ms. Hopper purchased the property.

20I note In this regard, the decision of member Wyger in Sarnia (City) v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp., Region No. 26 [2011] O.A.R.B.D. No. 392 referred to in the Scott decision. Member Wyger stated at paragraph 17:

That there is also ample authority for the proposition that factually incorrect legal descriptions, classifications and values at the time of roll return have been considered plain and obvious enough to warrant being classified as "palpable".

21Accordingly, the motion is granted and the time for bringing appeals of the CVA for this property for each taxation year between 2004 and 2011 is hereby extended to the date 90 days from release of these reasons. The Board further directs MPAC to be the Appellant in these appeals.