Robert W. Norman and Wendy E. Norman v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2016 CanLII 29993

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: May 19, 2016

FILE NO.: RRD 2016M8

Assessed Person(s): Robert W. Norman and Wendy E. Norman

Appellant(s): Robert W. Norman and Wendy E. Norman

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 02

Respondent(s): Township of Leeds and the Thousand Islands

Property Location(s): 341 Hill Island East

Municipality(ies): Township of Leeds and the Thousand Islands

Roll Number(s): 0812-812-025-36400-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3049893 and 3070452

Taxation Year(s): 2014 and 2015

Hearing Event No.: 602742

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

Request by: Robert Norman and Wendy Norman (“Requesters”)

Request for: A review of the Board’s Decision WR 136386 issued on December 22, 2015

Heard: By written submission

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY PAUL MULDOON

ISSUES AND ORDER SOUGHT

1Robert and Wendy Norman (the “Requesters”), seek a review of the decision of the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) (WR 136386) by Member Jacques Laflamme issued on December 22, 2015. This request for review was filed with the Board on January 25, 2016.

2The issue before the Board at the hearing was whether the assessment of the property at 341 Hill Island East (the “subject property”) as returned at $467,000 for the January 1, 2012 taxation cycle was at current value. The Board reduced the property’s current value to $383,000.

3At the hearing, MPAC submitted that the current value be reduced to $401,000 on the basis of a change in building quality classification. Ms. Norman did not accept the recommendation and sought to have the current value reduced to $300,000.

4The Requesters submit that the Board “heard false or misleading evidence from a party or witness, which could have affected the result” of the final decision. Additionally, they submit that the Board “should consider new evidence, which was not available at the time of the hearing.” Relying on these grounds, the Requesters recommend the assessed value be amended to $300,000 for the January 1, 2012 valuation day.

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.

9The first ground raised by the Requesters in seeking a review of the decision is that the Board heard misleading evidence from the MPAC assessor. Specifically, the Requesters take issue with the statement by MPAC that the property submitted as a comparable, located at 263 Hill Island East, was sold for less than half its assessed value because the seller was “uninformed.” The Requesters believe this judgement made by MPAC against the property owner was an unfair statement and relied upon by the Board.

10The record does not indicate that this statement made by the MPAC assessor was determinative in the Board rejecting this property as a comparable. Rather, as indicated by the Board at paragraph 28 of its decision:

28The Board is puzzled by the fact that Ms. Norman would use a neighbouring property that sold for $172,000 as a comparable, calls it an “excellent comparable” but yet asks the Board to reduce the subject property to $300,000. The comparable property does not seem to fit the request for a $300,000 value, whether based on selling price or the physical attributes. The Board will not use it in it’s (sic) analysis as it finds that it is too dissimilar to the subject property [emphasis added].

11The language used by the Member in this paragraph, “whether based on selling price or physical attributes,” demonstrates that the Member rejected this comparable on two independent bases. Even if I accept the Requesters’ argument that the property was not sold for half its value or by an uninformed seller, it would still fail as a comparable as it did not share the subject property’s characteristics.

12Secondly, the Requesters submit that had the evidence substantiating the condition of the property been available by MPAC at the time of the hearing, the Member’s finding of current value could be significantly different. The Requesters state that at the hearing, MPAC informed the Board that it could not provide the value of the property if it was classified as fair as compared to average as the “MPAC system was not on-line that day.”

13I do not find that this evidence, if available, would have changed the Member’s decision. At paragraph 21 of the decision, the Member lists the evidence relied upon when upholding the quality class assigned to the structures on the subject property. This includes photographs submitted by the Requesters and statements made by them in cross-examination. The written reasons indicate that on the basis of the evidence, the Member applied 15% reduction to the main cottage’s value because of its unfinished nature.

14Therefore, as the Board made a finding that the structures were properly classified, I do not find that a numerical value showing the impact of a “fair” versus “average” quality classification on current value would have impacted the decision reached by the Member. While the quality class of a property may be a factor in determining the current value of a property, it is only one such factor.

15Lastly, the admissibility of evidence and its weight is within the jurisdiction and authority of the Member or panel of the Board and absent an error of law, in respect of the Member’s determination of the proper comparables, I will not interfere. A request for review does not present an opportunity to reargue a case or make up for deficiencies in evidence presented at the hearing.

16After reviewing the submissions in light of the test outlined in Rule 145, I do not find that the submissions made by the Requesters raise a convincing and compelling case that but for the factual errors, a different decision would have been reached.

ORDER

17For all these reasons, the Board orders that this request for review be denied.