2338770 Ontario Inc. v. City of Brampton, 2016 CanLII 65232

Assessment Review Board / Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: September 26, 2016

FILE NO.: DM 141242

Moving Party(ies): 2338770 Ontario Inc.

Respondent(s): City of Brampton

Property Location(s): 5 Rutherford Road South

Municipality(ies): City of Brampton

Roll Number(s): 2110-020-005-03590-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3050686 and 3124545

Taxation Year(s): 2013 and 2014

Hearing Event No.: 635265

Legislative Authority: Sections 357.(7) and 357.(8) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25

Heard: June 23, 2016 by telephone conference call

APPEARANCES:

Parties 2338770 Ontario Inc. City of Brampton

Counsel+/Representative Brian Merkel Yvonne Kwiecien

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DISPOSITION DELIVERED BY LESLIE FLEMMING ON JUNE 23, 2016

DISPOSITION OF MOTION

1The parties to this motion are parties to an application by 2338770 Ontario Inc. to have the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) review a tax rebate granted to the appellant following renovations of the appellant’s hotel rooms, rendering them unusable. The City of Brampton (“City”) had provided the appellant with a rebate of $2,550.19 for the 2013 taxation year; however, it failed to provide the appellant with the calculation used in arriving at that amount.

2In order to determine whether or not the tax rebate granted was sufficient, the appellant requested that the City provide the calculations for same. The City refused to disclose the calculations without the fee charged by the City for “Capping/Clawback Calculation Summaries” pursuant to By-law No. 27-2006. A schedule to the By-law sets out the standard fee for this service in the amount of $10.

3The City argued that the representative for the appellant had failed to provide an authorization from the appellant for the release of information requested, which was required along with the fee of $10.

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION OF MOTION

4The Motion is granted. The cross-motion, raised in the course of the hearing, for authorization from the appellant for the release of information to the representative, is also granted. The Board finds that the calculation resulting in the tax rebate currently under review is information necessary to the hearing of the issues of this appeal. The Board will require the calculation in order to make its decision. The Board’s Rules of Practice (“Rules”) require disclosure of all relevant evidence 21 days prior to the hearing of the application, and this requirement does not require or impose a fee for such production. The Municipal Act 2001, and the Board’s Rules take priority over the contents of the City By-law where an appeal involving the City takes place.

CONCLUSION

5The Board hereby orders:

(a) The appellant will provide to the City a written authorization permitting the release of information to the representative. Such authorization is to be provided to the City’s representative on or before July 8, 2016.

(b) The respondent City will provide a copy of the calculation used in determining the tax rebate of $2,550.19 to the appellant’s representative on or before July 22, 2016.

6The application is adjourned to a full hearing at a date to be determined.