HLS York Developments Ltd. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2016 CanLII 76506

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

ISSUE DATE: November 01, 2016

FILE NO.: RRD 2016M16

Assessed Person(s): HLS York Developments Ltd. and H & R Property Management Group

Appellant(s): HLS York Developments Ltd., Metro Ontario Inc. and H & R Property Management Group

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

Respondent(s): City of Toronto

Property Location(s): 80 Front Street East

Municipality(ies): City of Toronto

Roll Number(s): 1904-064-280-01300-0000

Appeal Number(s): 2957212, 2950489, 3016696, 3009891, 3078796 and 3076171

Taxation Year(s): 2013, 2014 and 2015

Hearing Event No.: 599638

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

Request by: HLS York Developments Ltd. (“Requester”)

Request for: A review of the Board’s Decision (DM 135687) issued on January 21, 2016

Heard: By written submission

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY PAUL MULDOON

INTRODUCTION

1Ian Andres on behalf of HLS York Developments Ltd. (the “Requester”) seeks a review of the decision of the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) (DM 135687) delivered by Member Joseph Wyger on January 21, 2016. This request for review was filed with the Board on May 5, 2016.

2At the hearing, the Board heard a motion by HLS York and Metro grocery store (“Metro”). HLS York and Metro were seeking an order granting leave to withdraw their appeals and an order to strike the Notice of Intention to Seek a Higher Assessment and Class Change served by MPAC. The Board denied the motion and decided to have the appeals heard on their merits.

3In its request for review, the Requester alleges that the Board made significant errors of fact that would have directly affected the outcome of the motion.

RELEVANT RULES

4Rules 141 to 146 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure set out the process whereby the Board may review a decision. Only those decisions eligible for review under Rule 141 will be reviewed by the Board:

141. Decisions Eligible for Review/Board’s Powers on Review

(1) The Board may review all or part of any final decision at the request of a party or upon its own initiative, and may:

(a) confirm, vary, suspend, or cancel the decision; or

(b) order a re-hearing before a different Member.

(2) The Board will not review:

(a) interim or interlocutory orders; and,

(b) decisions on requests for review.

ISSUE AND ORDER SOUGHT

5The Requester seeks a review of the Board’s decision (DM 135687) pursuant to Rule 145(1)(d). The Requester submits that the Board’s determination is factually incorrect and Member Wyger relied upon incomplete information in dismissing the motion before him.

6The Requester requests that Member Wyger’s decision be cancelled or varied so as to grant leave to HLS York and Metro to withdraw their outstanding appeals for the 2013-2015 tax years and if necessary, to strike MPAC’s Notice of Intention. In the alternative, the Requester requests a review or re-hearing of the motion by a different Member of the Board.

DISCUSSION AND REASONS

7The issue in this matter is whether the decision for which the requestor is seeking a review is eligible to be reviewed under Rule 141 of the Board’s Rules. The Associate Chair finds that the decision is not reviewable pursuant to Rule 141 because it is an interlocutory order.

8The Ontario Court of Appeal defined interlocutory orders as orders which do not “determine the real matter in dispute between the parties - the very subject matter of the litigation, but only some matter collateral. It may be final in the sense that it determines the very question raised by the application, but it is interlocutory if the merits of the case remain to be determined.” [Hendrickson v. Kallio, 1932 CanLII 123 (ON CA), [1932] O.R. 675, [1932] O.J. No. 380 (C.A.) at p. 678].

9Board’s decision on the Requester’s motion does not decide the subject matter of the dispute between the parties, which is the quantum of the assessment. Instead, it rejects the Requester’s request to have the matter disposed at an early stage and orders the matter to be heard on its merits.

ORDER

10The Associate Chair of the Board finds that the Board’s disposition of the Requester’s motion was an interlocutory order and therefore not reviewable pursuant to Rule 141. The matter will be heard on its merits.