Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE:
December 17, 2015
FILE NO.:
DM 136637
Moving Party(ies):
King Edward Realty Inc.
HMC AP Canada Inc.
Starwood Canada Corporation
Intercontinental Hotel Group
Respondent(s):
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”), Regions 9, 14 and 15
Respondent(s):
Cities of Toronto, Mississauga and Markham
See Schedule “C”
Municipality(ies):
Cities of Toronto, Mississauga and Markham
Property Location(s):
See Schedule “A”
Roll Number(s):
See Schedule “A”
Appeal Number(s):
See Schedule “A”
Taxation Year(s):
See Schedule “A”
Hearing Event No.:
603540
Legislative Authority:
Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended
Heard:
November 2, 2015 by Telephone Conference Call
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel+/Representative
Assessed Persons/Appellants
Peter Milligan+
James G. Walker+
James Wilson+
Colin Francis
Naila Houda
Scott Nepage
MPAC
Frank X. Shea+
City of Ottawa
Paul Poirier
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DISPOSITION DELIVERED BY J. L. WALKER ON NOVEMBER 2, 2015
DISPOSITION OF MOTION
MOTION
1The Assessment Review Board (“Board”) had before it the Motion of the appellants King Edward Realty Inc., HMC AP Canada Inc., Starwood Canada Corporation, and Intercontinental Hotel Group (“moving parties’) to obtain disclosure from MPAC of financial information regarding various properties listed below. Section 53 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended (“Act”) bars MPAC from providing this information absent an Order of the Board.
2The subject properties in Schedule “A” are hotels located in the City of Toronto, City of Mississauga and the City of Markham, and comprise guest rooms or suites, food and beverage outlets, meeting and conference spaces, and in some instances, parking spaces for vehicles.
3The moving parties appealed the assessments of the subject properties for the taxation years as described in Schedule “A”. MPAC has valued the subject properties as of January 1, 2008 and January 1, 2012 using the income approach to value employing a capitalized income method. The moving parties assert that the current values established by MPAC are incorrect.
4The moving parties have identified comparable properties and their valuation experts require performance information including but not limited to income and expenses, rents, building characteristics, vacancy levels, and average daily rates.
5Prior to serving this Notice of Motion, Peter Milligan and James G. Walker, counsel for the moving parties, obtained an Order of the Board (DM 134136) dispensing with personal service, and substituting service by registered mail. The Motion Record was served to all third parties and their representatives. The Affidavit of Service of James G. Walker demonstrates that service was perfected by registered mail to the parties listed in Schedule “C”.
6Counsel for the moving parties included in the Motion Record draft Undertaking of Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure (“Undertakings”) (Schedule “B”) to be signed by anyone using the information, to ensure that the information is used solely for the purpose of conducting appeals before the Board and that it will not be otherwise disclosed or used.
7Frank Shea, counsel for MPAC, consents to this Motion and to the form of undertakings provided by the moving parties’ counsel. Scott Nepage, appearing on behalf of the Element Vaughan Southwest, located at 6170 Highway 7 (Roll No. 1928 000 321 44550 000) indicated that he was unable to take client instruction prior to the telephone conference call, but was content to proceed on the basis of the draft Undertakings.
8James Wilson, counsel for the owners of the Hazelton Hotel, located at 118 Yorkville Avenue, Toronto, Ontario (Roll No. various between 1904 052 260 07201 0000 and 07380 0000) and the SoHo Metropolitan Hotel located at 318 Wellington Street West, Toronto, Ontario (Roll No. various between 1904 062 220 02604 0000 and 04609 0000) opposed the motion, seeking either an exclusion of these properties or an adjournment of the motion to make further submissions.
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION OF MOTION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
9The Motion is granted. The Board finds that the moving parties have complied with Rule 34(f) and Rule 57 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure governing the form and service of motions, and is satisfied that the documentation sought by the moving party is required to pursue its appeals of