Machines and Controls Inc. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2016 CanLII 76505

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: November 01, 2016

FILE NO.: RRD 2016M15

Assessed Person(s): Machines and Controls Inc.

Appellant(s): Machines and Controls Inc. Ahmad Salesi

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 09

Respondent(s): City of Toronto

Property Location(s): 347 Canarctic Drive

Municipality(ies): City of Toronto

Roll Number(s): 1908-033-350-01110-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3102727 and 3161256 (deemed 2016)

Taxation Year(s): 2015 and 2016 (deemed)

Hearing Event No.: 619432

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

Request by: Ahmad Salesi (“Requester”)

Request for: A review of the Board’s Decision (WR 138937) issued on April 06, 2016

Heard: By written submission

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY PAUL MULDOON

INTRODUCTION

1Ahmad Salesi (the “Requester”) seeks a request for review of the decision of the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) (WR 138937) delivered by Members Margarita Okhovati and Jennifer Griffith orally on February 23, 2016 and by written reasons on April 6, 2016. This request for review was filed with the Board on May 5, 2016.

2The issue before the Board at the hearing was whether the assessment of the property at 347 Canarctic Drive (the “subject property”) as returned at $312,000 and reduced to $248,000 by MPAC after reconsideration for the 2015 taxation year was at current value and equitable with similar properties in the vicinity. The Board returned the subject property’s assessed value at $235,000 for the 2015 taxation year. MPAC did not recommend a change in the assessed value. At the hearing, Mr. Salesi argued that the current value of the subject property was too high.

3In his request for review, Mr. Salesi suggested a value for the subject property. For the 2015 and 2016 (deemed) taxation years, he recommends the assessed value of $150,000 for the subject property.

RELEVANT RULES

4Rules 141 to 146 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”) set out the process through which the Board may review a decision.

5A 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.

6Under these Rules, the Associate Chair of the Board may exercise his discretion to grant a request and order a rehearing or a motion to review only if the Chair is satisfied that the request for review raises a convincing and compelling case falling within the narrow grounds of Rule 145. As 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.

ISSUE AND ORDER SOUGHT

7The Requester seeks a review of the Board’s decision (WR 138937) pursuant to Rule 145(1)(d). The Requester submits that the Board’s determination is factually incorrect and the Members relied upon incomplete information when reaching a finding of current value.

8The Requester does not seek any specific remedy under Rule 144 but asks that the Board review its decision.

DISCUSSION AND REASONS

9The starting point for all requests for review requires a determination of whether a convincing and compelling case has been raised such that the Board breached one of the five grounds listed in Rule 145. However, it is not sufficient that a breach is found; as the commentary in the Board’s Rules says, “The Board requires very good reasons for changing a final decision. It will not review a decision if in its view the basic conclusions will not change even though there is an error in the decision.”

10In his request, Mr. Salesi has brought up a number of concerns with the Board’s decision. The crux of Mr. Salesi’s request is that the Board misconstrued the evidence that he provided. As a secondary issue, Mr. Salesi objects to the Board’s statement that he refused to disclose the details of the purchase agreement on which he relied in part during the hearing.

11Even if the Board did misconstrue Mr. Salesi’s evidence, correcting the Board’s mistake would have no bearing on the outcome since the Board did not rely on this evidence but used the open market sale value of $235,000 on December 30, 2011.

12The evidence provided by Mr. Salesi is a chart outlining his estimations of how much the value of his property is affected due to its deficiencies compared to two other properties in the vicinity. The chart and the information contained within reflect Mr. Salesi’s opinion. Regardless of its misinterpretation of the chart, the Board made a general statement in paragraph 22 of its written reasons:

22The Board is reluctant to accept the Appellant’s personal opinion with respect to the value of the subject property when there is better evidence in the form of a valid sale of the subject property in December 2011.

13Simply put, it did not make a difference that the Board misconstrued Mr. Salesi’s opinion because there was better evidence before the board and therefore, there was no need to rely on Mr. Salesi’s estimates.

14The Board has broad discretion on how it weighs evidence and the panel used this discretion to consider all available evidence and decide to attach little weight to Mr. Salesi’s estimates.

15With regard to the secondary issue raised by Mr. Salesi, the Board found that the sale in May 2014 was further removed from the valuation date of January 2012 than the sale on December 2011. The Board further commented that the Real Estate Report contained language suggesting that the sale value did not accurately reflect the true value of the property:

17MPAC stated further that based on the Real Estate Report, (Exhibit 2) in the second sale of the subject property for $190,000 on May 5, 2014, under the remarks for clients, it is stated, “Priced for Quick Sale. Seller Moving Abroad”. In this respect, the Appellant, Ahmed Salesi (“Appellant”) testified that he could not disclose the details of the purchase for the purpose of privacy.

16Therefore, Mr. Salesi’s submission that he enclosed the Purchase Offer within his documents does not go to the core of the Board’s concern. Regardless of this, the Board had used its discretion in weighing evidence and found that the December 2011 sale should be weighed considerably more than the May 2014 sale because of its proximity to the valuation date.

17In reaching a decision, the Board reviews and weighs all the evidence which is submitted by the parties. Absent an error in law or fact, the Chair will not interfere as a request for review does not provide an opportunity to reargue a case.

ORDER

18The Associate Chair finds that the Board’s decision is reasonable based on the evidence which was before it and will not grant this request for review. Mr. Salesi’s request for review is dismissed and the decision of Members Okhovati and Griffith (WR 138937) is hereby confirmed.