Janice Anne Maude and Greg Maude v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2016 CanLII 28436

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: May 13, 2016

FILE NO.: RRD 2016M9

Assessed Person(s): Janice Anne Maude

Appellant(s): Janice Anne Maude and Greg Maude

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 07

Respondent(s): Township of Havelock-Belmont-Methuen

Property Location(s): 132-121 Kasshabog

Municipality(ies): Township of Havelock-Belmont-Methuen

Roll Number(s): 1531-010-009-40600-0000

Appeal Number(s): 2986825, 3018990 and 3073583 (deemed 2015)

Taxation Year(s): 2013, 2014 (and deemed 2015)

Hearing Event No.: 5074962

Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended

Request by: MPAC (“Requester”)

Request for: A review of the Board’s Decision WR 130693 issued on October 9, 2015

Heard: By written submission

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY PAUL MULDOON

ISSUES AND ORDER SOUGHT

1Donald G. Mitchell, counsel for MPAC (the “Requester”), seeks a review of the decision of the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) (WR 130693) by Member Robert Tchegus issued on October 9, 2015. This request for review was filed with the Board on November 4, 2015.

2The issue before the Board at the hearing was whether the value of Island 132 in Kasshabog Lake (the “subject property”) for the 2013, 2014 and deemed 2015 taxation years was correct and equitable when compared to the assessment of similar properties in the vicinity.

3At the hearing, MPAC submitted that the current value of $318,000 for the subject property was reasonable and correct. Janice and Greg Maude (the “Maudes”) submitted that the value of their property was too high and exceeded the average assessed value of $231,444 of similar properties in the vicinity. Based on the average assessed value of comparable properties and an adjustment for equity, the Board found the current value to be $233,000.

4MPAC requests a review of the decision on the basis that Member Tchegus incorrectly interpreted and applied s. 44.(3)(b) of the Assessment Act (“Act”). Specifically, MPAC submits the Member erred by basing his determination of equity on a comparison of assessments of similar lands in the vicinity rather than a comparison of the relationship between assessments and values.

RELEVANT RULES

5The Board’s rules respecting request for review are set out in Rules 141 to 146 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”).

6A request for review is received pursuant to Rule 144 which grants the Board with the following authority:

144. Receipt of Request for Review

(1) Where a request for review has been received, the Board may:

(a) seek written submissions from the parties on the issue raised in the request;

(b) grant a motion to argue the question;

(c) grant a re-hearing without a motion; or

(d) confirm, vary, suspend or cancel the decision.

(2) The Board will determine initially whether the request has met one or more of the eligible grounds for such a review without providing notice to the other parties. The Board may review or grant a motion request without submissions from other parties.

7The grounds for review are stated in Rule 145:

145. Grounds for Review

(1) The Board may consider reviewing its decision if the grounds for the request raise a convincing and compelling case that the Board:

(a) acted outside its jurisdiction;

(b) violated the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness, including allegations of bias;

(c) made an error of law or fact such that the Board would likely have reached a different decision;

(d) should consider new evidence, which was not available at the time of the hearing, but that is credible and could have affected the result; or

(e) heard false or misleading evidence from a party or witness, which was discovered only after the hearing and could have affected the result.

DISCUSSION AND REASONS

8The Board denies the request for review in this case.

9At issue in this request for review is the interpretation of s. 44.(3)(b) of the Act. At the hearing, MPAC submitted that the Board must determine how MPAC’s assessment of similar lands relates to their current values. The Maudes submitted that comparable properties may be assessed well below the subject property’s current value, but that does not negate a finding that the subject property is assessed too high.

10A finding on equity is within the purview of the presiding Member. The inclusion, absence or degree of emphasis on any particular fact in coming to a decision is left to the Member.

11Member Tchegus’s decision illustrates that the properties identified as comparable by the parties were considered. Furthermore, the record indicates (see paragraph 17 of WR 130693) that with the exception of one property, MPAC agreed with the properties selected by Mr. Maude as comparables.

12The comparable which was not agreed to by all parties was rejected by the Board and it did not factor in its calculation of equity.

13Given that the record before me does not indicate that MPAC objected to the applicability of these comparables at the hearing, I cannot find that Member Tchegus’s decision was unreasonable in his finding of equity.

ORDER

14For all these reasons, the Board orders that this request for review be denied.