Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: March 14, 2016

FILE NO.: RRD 2016M1

Assessed Person(s): Gerardo Capocci and Rosina Capocci

Appellant(s): Gerardo Capocci and Rosina Capocci

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

Respondent(s): City of Toronto

Property Location(s): 1348 St. Clair Avenue West

Municipality(ies): City of Toronto

Roll Number(s): 1904-033-580-07500-0000

Appeal Number(s): 2997503, 3015970 and 3074024

Taxation Year(s): 2013 (and deemed 2014 and 2015)

Hearing Event No.: 560018

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

Request by: Gerry Capocci (“Requester”)

Request for: A review of the Board’s decision WR 125959 issued on September 28, 2015

Heard: By written submission

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY PAUL MULDOON

ISSUES AND ORDER SOUGHT

1Gerardo Capocci, the Requester, seeks a review of the decision of the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) (WR 125959) by Member Charlotte D. Sloan issued on September 28, 2015. This request for review was filed with the Board on October 27, 2015.

2The issue before the Board at the hearing was whether the assessment of the property at 1348 St. Clair Avenue West (the “subject property”) as returned at $788,000 for the 2013 taxation year accurately reflected the current value and was equitable with similar lands in the vicinity. MPAC offered a reduced assessment of $749,000. At the hearing, Mr. Capocci argued that the current value of the subject property should be $362,000.

3The Applicant submits that the Board relied on evidence which breached the rules of disclosure and used the incorrect comparable property when reaching a finding of current value.

RELEVANT RULES

4The Board’s rules respecting requests for review are set out in Rules 141 to 146 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”).

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.

6The grounds for review are 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

7The Board denies the request for a review in this case.

8With respect to an alleged error of law, as in this case, the Board will only grant the request for review if there is a convincing and compelling case that, but for the error, the Board would have likely reached a different result.

9Mr. Capocci submits that the Board erred in hearing evidence which was not submitted pursuant to the Board’s disclosure rules. In particular, the Applicant states that MPAC submitted a map (“Corso Italia” Business Improvement Area Map) outlining the location of the Applicant’s property. It is incumbent on parties to make their arguments or objections known at the hearing. There is no record that there was a strong objection to the map at the hearing and if there was, the Member allowed the introduction of the map, a discretionary decision that she is permitted under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act. The introduction of the map does not lead to a finding of an error of law or a breach of natural justice or procedural fairness.

10Mr. Capocci also submits that 1257 St. Clair Avenue West should not have been included in the Board decision as a comparable while the valid sale of 1350 St. Clair Avenue West was rejected. At paragraph 36 of the decision, Member Sloan explains why 1257 St. Clair Avenue West was found to be a comparable property:

36The Board accepts both 1059 St. Clair Avenue West and 1257 St. Clair Avenue West, which are Sales 1 and 3 of MPAC’s suggested comparable properties, since they are both of a similar age as the subject property and both have similar, albeit somewhat smaller, total building areas as the subject property. Both properties have similar lot sizes as the subject property, with Sale 1 being somewhat smaller and Sale 3 being somewhat larger.

11The Board, at paragraph 35, also explains its justification as to why the sale at 1350 St. Clair Avenue West was not accepted as a comparable:

35The Board does not accept the Appellant’s suggested property, 1350 St. Clair Avenue West as a comparable property. While it is the same age and is in the same location as the subject property, its total building area is substantially smaller (about 54% smaller) than the subject property. When that significant difference in building area is combined with its somewhat smaller lot size, the Board is not persuaded that 1350 St. Clair Avenue West is sufficiently similar to the subject property in order to be used for a direct sales comparison analysis.

12In reaching its decision, the Board reviews properties which are submitted by the parties as comparables. The admissibility of evidence and its weight is within the jurisdiction and authority of the member or panel of the Board. There is no error of law in respect of the Member’s determination of the proper comparables.

ORDER

13For all of these reasons, the Board orders that this Request for Review be denied.