Daniels LR Corporation v. City of Brampton, 2016 CanLII 63437

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: September 13, 2016

FILE NO.: WR 141442

Assessed Person(s): Daniels LR Corporation

Appellant(s): Daniels LR Corporation

Respondent(s): City of Brampton

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, (“MPAC”), Region 15

Property Location(s): 4107 Castlemore Road

Municipality(ies): City of Brampton

Roll Number(s): 2110-120-003-04500-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3123648

Taxation Year(s): 2014

Hearing Event No. 623346

Legislative Authority: Section 357.(8) of the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 2001, s.o. 2001, c. 25, as amended

Heard: On June 22, 2016 in Brampton, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Daniels LR Corporation	Evan Hovius
City of Brampton	Yvonne Kwiecien

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY LESLIE FLEMMING

INTRODUCTION

1The subject property giving rise to this application was initially 15.17 acres of vacant land being developed into a residential subdivision. Pursuant to the subdivision agreement with the City of Brampton (“City”), the appellant transferred a portion of the lands to the City for use generally as roadways and green spaces. The transfer took place on January 15, 2014. The appellant applied to the City for a refund of taxes paid for this portion of the lands for 351 days of 2014.

Preliminary Issue

2Ms. Kwiecien on behalf the City raised a preliminary issue:

Did the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) have jurisdiction to decide the value of the exempt lands? This matter was not an assessment appeal and no evidence was to be provided by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) to assist the Board in determining current value.

3The Board ruled that it has jurisdiction as set out in s. 357.(10) the Municipal Act, 2001 (“Act”):

The Assessment Review Board shall hear the appeal and may make any decision that council could have made.

4In this case the Board has jurisdiction to determine the amount of the tax refund to be paid to the appellant as a consequence of a portion of the subject property having become exempt during the 2014 taxation year. The Board has jurisdiction to determine what portion of the subject property became exempt and then what portion of the taxes paid in respect of that portion should be refunded.

ISSUE

5The appellant made application pursuant to the Act for a refund of taxes paid in 2014 with respect to lands that were transferred to the City on January 15, 2014. The application was originally made to the City on February 27, 2015, which was within the time permitted by the legislation. Because the appellant also had an application before the Board respecting the value of the lands, the City chose to wait for the other proceeding and in that event would let the Board make the decision regarding the tax refund.

6The appellant eventually withdrew the application under the Assessment Act, but because a period of time had passed without a decision by the City, the appellant applied to the Board for a decision.

DECISION

7The Board finds that the appellant is entitled to a refund of a portion of the 2014 taxes paid for 4.2 acres out of 15.17 acres of the subject property for 351 days of 2014.

8The final property tax levy for 2014 was $70,609.75 for the subject property. The exempt lands comprised 27.69% of the subject property. The refund should have been $18,813.60 or 27.69% of the taxes paid calculated over 351 days. The City has refunded the amount of $2,042.36 and must now refund to the appellant the balance owing in the amount of $16,771.24.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

Legislation

9Section 357.(1) of the Act, in part, states that:

Upon application to the treasurer of a local municipality made in accordance with this section, the local municipality may cancel, reduce or refund all or part of taxes levied on land in the year in respect of which the application is made if,

(c) the land has become exempt from taxation during the year or during the preceding year after the return of the assessment roll for the preceding year;

10Section 357.(3) sets out the timing of such an application:

An application under this section must be filed with the treasurer on or before February 28 of the year following the year in respect of which the application is made.

11Where Council fails to make a decision by September 30of the year following the taxation year in question, as in this case, s. 357.(8) permits the applicant to:

…appeal to the Assessment Review Board by October 21 of the year by filing a notice of appeal with the registrar of the board and the appeal shall be a new hearing.

Evidence

12The appellant submitted the following documentary evidence in support of the appeal:

(a) A copy of the original application dated February 27, 2015, including information on the blocks conveyed on January 15, 2014, and a copy of the plan of subdivision;

(b) A list of the exempt lands, the date of conveyance and respective PIN numbers;

(c) An aerial view of the subdivision;

(d) A copy of the 2014 final Tax Bill;

(e) a document summarizing MPAC’s data set respecting the subject property.

13The appellant submitted that, according to its records, the size of the property conveyed to the City was 6.127 acres. However, part of this figure comes from the “Honeyview Trail” portion of the exempt lands. While the appellant submitted a PIN number for this portion of the exempt lands, the date of transfer did not appear in the materials. A copy of the transfer document provided by the City (Exhibit 6) did not make reference to the “Honeyview Trail” block. The City disputes the inclusion of this portion of property in the exempt lands. In the absence of clear proof that the Honeyview Trail was transferred on January 15, 2014, along with the other blocks, the Board will consider the total lands transferred, and therefore exempt from taxation, as being 4.2 acres in size.

14The appellant submitted that the transferred lands should be treated as having the same value as the non-exempt lands, or a value of $437,500 per acre. Using this figure, the appellant concluded that the value of the exempt lands (inclusive of Honeyview Trail) was $2,680,612.

15On behalf of the City, Ms. Kwiecien submitted the following information in Exhibits 5 through 13:

• Comparable property values for vacant development land in Brampton;

• A copy of the transfer of January 15, 2014, for Blocks 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 and 35;

• Descriptions of the blocks of Plan 43M-1951;

• The city’s calculations based on the value of the blocks (totalling $188,561);

• A Severance/Consolidation Plan Information Form (“SCIF”), prepared by MPAC, for Brampton showing the starting point, the phased-in value and the destination value for each of the aforementioned exempt blocks;

• MPAC’s response to the s. 357 application (which included the SCIF),

• An aerial photograph and other graphics of the subject property with exempt areas.

16Ms. Kwiecien submitted that the Honeyview Trail portion of the exempt lands was used exclusively by the developer during the building of the subdivision. She also advised that the transfer of this portion of the exempt lands was not registered until the end of 2014. Ms. Kweicien’s argument was that Honeyview Trail ought not to be considered as part of the exempt lands until the City assumes responsibility for the road. In this case, the Board does not have to decide this issue for the reason that no evidence was provided by either party to confirm that Honeyview Trail had indeed by transferred to the City and that it had been transferred on January 15, 2014.

17Ms. Kwiecien further submitted that the Board should rely on the SCIF as evidence of the value of the exempt lands, but that the Board had no jurisdiction to determine the current value of the remainder of the development lands. Unfortunately, while Exhibits 8 and 9 were evidence of MPAC’s findings of value and of MPAC’s response to the appeal, no one from MPAC was called to answer questions about either document. The Board did not find that either Exhibits 8 or 9 provided assistance in determining the amount of taxes that should be refunded to the appellant.

18In this case, the Board’s task is to determine the amount of the tax refund, if any, due to the appellant. Once the Board determined the correct area of the lands transferred to the City on January 15, 2014, the Board determined that the exempt lands comprised 27.69% of the original subject property. The tax exemption would need to be 27.69% of the total taxes levied on the subject property for the 351 days of 2014 that the lands belonged to the City.

CONLUSION

19The Board finds that the Appellant is entitled to a refund of a portion of the 2014 taxes paid for 4.2 acres or 27.69% of the subject property of 15.17 acres for 351 days of 2014.

20The final property tax levy for 2014 was $70,609.75 for the subject property inclusive of the exempt lands. The exempt lands comprised 27.69% of the subject property. The refund should have been $18,813.60, which is 27.69% of the total taxes paid calculated over 351 days. Because the City has already refunded the amount of $2,042.36, it must now refund to the appellants the balance owing in the amount of $16,771.24.