Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: June 22, 2015
FILE NO.: DM 132036
Moving Party(ies): Block 9A Developments Ltd.
Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 09
Respondent(s): City of Toronto
Property Location(s): 25 Lower Simcoe Street
Municipality(ies): City of Toronto
Roll Number(s): 1904-062-067-00102-0000
Appeal Number(s): 3044690
Taxation Year(s): 2012
Hearing Event No.: 585329
Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended
ARB Case Name: DM 132036
Heard: April 22, 2015 in Toronto, Ontario
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel⁺/Representative
Block 9A Developments Ltd.
Colin Francis
City of Toronto
Christopher Henderson⁺
MPAC
Don Mitchell⁺
DISPOSITION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY SCOTT McANSH
1Block 9A Developments Ltd. (“Block 9A”) moves to have the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) dismiss the reinstatement of the City of Toronto’s (the “City’s”) 2012 appeal of the assessment of the redevelopment site at 125 Lower Simcoe Street (the “Subject Property”). Block 9A claims that they are prejudiced by the reinstatement as they relied on the City’s withdrawal of the 2012 appeal to its detriment.
2The City takes the position that the application to dismiss should be treated as a request to review the Registrar’s decision to reinstate the appeal and that such an application is out of time. The City further argues that Block 9A is not prejudiced by the reinstatement and enjoyed a windfall through the City’s actions.
DISPOSITION OF MOTION
3For the reasons set out below the motion to dismiss the reinstatement of the 2012 appeal is denied.
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION OF MOTION
4Block 9A purchased the Subject Property and the adjacent property at 16 York Street (the “Neighbouring Property”) in 2007 and began the redevelopment process for those parcels in 2008.
5The City appealed the 2011 assessment of the Subject Property on the basis that the classification was incorrect and that the assessed value was too low. That appeal was outstanding on March 31, 2013 so the City had an appeal of the property deemed for the 2012 taxation year pursuant to s. 40.(26) of the Assessment Act (“Act”).
6The 2011 appeal was resolved by minutes of settlement, dated September 2013, with the classification of the property changed from Commercial Excess to Multi-Residential, and the assessment unchanged at $25,045,000. Immediately following that settlement the City withdrew the 2012 appeal, notifying the Board on September 17, 2013 of its intention, as the classification for the 2012 taxation year was in the Multi-Residential property class.
7On October 6, 2013, the assessor assigned to the Property and the Neighbouring Property, Richard Mauntah, sent minutes of settlement to the agent for Block 9A to settle their appeals of the assessed value on both properties. A month later, on November 2, 2013, Mr. Mauntah sent an email to the agent for Block 9A indicating that the City may wish to reinstate the 2012 appeal. Three weeks after that, on November 24, 2013, Mr. Mauntah sent an email to the City explaining that he had made an error in valuing the properties. That email stated that he had distributed the density incorrectly between the two properties and that the correct assessments would see the 2012 current value for the Neighbouring Property decrease nearly $40,000,000 from $70,245,000 to $32,190,000 while the 2012 current value of the Subject Property would increase nearly $10,000,000, from $