Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: December 12, 2016

FILE NO.: RRD 2016M12

Assessed Person(s): Paul Adrian Lenneard

Appellant(s): Paul Adrian Lenneard

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 16

Respondent(s): Township of Tiny

Property Location(s): West Shore Drive, Plan 839 Lot 17

Municipality(ies): Township of Tiny

Roll Number(s): 4368-000-014-10500-0000

Appeal Number(s): 2992252, 3022649 and 3087394

Taxation Year(s): 2013, 2014 and 2015

Hearing Event No.: 612137

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

Request by: MPAC

Request for: A review of the Board’s Decision WR 138338 issued on March 11, 2016

Heard: By written submission

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY PAUL MULDOON

ISSUES AND ORDER SOUGHT

1Melissa VanBerkum, counsel for the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (the “Requester”), seeks a review of the decision of the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) (WR 138338) Member Vincent Stabile issued on March 11, 2016. This request for review was filed with the Board on April 11, 2016.

2The issue before the Board at the hearing was whether the assessment of the property located at West Shore Drive, Plan 839 Lot 17, was at current value for the January 1, 2012 valuation day and was equitable with that of similar lands in the vicinity. Paul Lenneard and Jeannette Lenneard (the “Lenneards”) appeared at the hearing.

3At the hearing, MPAC recommended a current value of $590,000, reduced from $640,000 for the valuation day of January 1, 2012. The Lenneards submitted that the assessment was too high for a normal single family detached residential dwelling. Member Stabile found the current value for the subject property as of January 1, 2012 to be $590,000, as recommended by MPAC. Member Stabile further reduced the current value for the 2013, 2014 and 2015 taxation years to $472,000 on the basis of his equity analysis.

4In its request for review, the Requester alleges that the Board erred in three ways: (i) by rejecting MPAC’s equity analysis entirely, (ii) by ignoring earlier decisions of the Board regarding nearby properties, and iii) by creating “unfair assessment treatment of similar lands in the vicinity.”

5The Requester requests the Board grant a motion for review.

RELEVANT RULES

6Rules 141 to 146 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure sets out the process through which the Board may review a decision.

7A 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.

8The Associate Chair may exercise his discretion to grant a request and order a rehearing or a motion to review only if the Associate 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.

DISCUSSION AND REASONS

9The Board denies the Requester’s request for review and dismisses its request for a review motion.

10The Associate Chair does not find that the Requester raises a convincing and compelling case that the Board breached one or more of the grounds listed in Rule 145. The issues raised by the Requester do not meet this threshold.

11As the Board recently held in Maude v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp., 2016 CanLII 28436 (ON ARB):

10A finding on equity is within the purview of the presiding Member. The inclusion, absence or degree of emphasis on any particular fact in coming to a decision is left to the Member.

12How a Member chooses to deal with evidence at a hearing, in terms of admissibility and weight is within the jurisdiction of the presiding Member. The Associate Chair does not find an error of law in Member Stabile’s determination of equity. The Board should strive for a consistent and predictable approach as to how it approaches equity, but ultimately it is up to the Member to assess and weigh the evidence presented at the hearing.

13The Requester submits that Member Stabile by failing to turn his “mind to the effect of the other decisions for the neighbouring properties” breached procedural fairness. Procedural fairness is not breached if a Board Member is not persuaded by a party’s presentation of the applicable law or evidence. It is simply an exercise of the Board Member’s judgment. In this case, the Requester presented Member Stabile with prior Board decisions regarding nearby properties and he arrived at a different finding. This is not a ground for a review.

ORDER

14For the reasons noted above, the Board orders that this request for review be denied and the decision of Member Stabile (WR 138338) is hereby confirmed.