Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: March 17, 2017

FILE NO.: RRD 2017M01

Assessed Person(s): Warren Rogers Aitchi Hepburn

Appellant(s): Warren Hepburn

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 28

Respondent(s): Township of Archipelago

Property Location(s): 1 A104 Island Shawanaga Island A101 PCL

Municipality(ies): Township of Archipelago

Roll Number(s): 4905-180-002-35300-0000

Appeal Number(s): 2999198 and 3029591

Taxation Year(s): 2013 and 2014

Hearing Event No.: 571342

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

Request by: Warren Hepburn (“Requester”)

Request for: A review of the Board’s Decision (WR 129188) issued on February 26, 2015

Heard: By written submission

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY PAUL MULDOON

INTRODUCTION

1Warren Hepburn (the “Requester”) seeks a review of the decision of the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) (WR 129188) by Member Skanes issued on February 26, 2015. This request for review was filed with the Board on February 4, 2016.

2The issue before the Board at the hearing was whether the assessment of the property at 1 A104 Island Shawanaga Island A104 PCL (the “subject property”) returned at $1,544,000 for the 2013 taxation year and $1,359,000 for the 2014 taxation year following a request for reconsideration was at current value and equitable with similar properties in the vicinity. The Board returned the subject property’s assessed value at $1,359,000 for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years, apportioned at $586,300 in the Managed Forest tax class and $772,700 in the Residential tax class.

3In his request for review, the Requester submits that the presiding Member erred in law by failing to apply the appropriate adjustment for assessing Managed Forests under s. 19(5.2) of the Assessment Act and s. 32.2(1) of Ontario Regulation 282/98.

4The Board sought submissions from the parties on April 7, 2016. The Board did not receive submissions from either MPAC or the Township of Archipelago.

RELEVANT RULES

5Rules 141 to 146 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”) set out the process whereby the Board may review a decision.

6A 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.

7The Associate Chair may exercise 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.

ISSUE AND ORDER SOUGHT

8The Requester seeks a review of the Board’s decision (WR 129188) pursuant to Rule 145(c). The Requester submits that the presiding Member made an error of law by failing to apply the Managed Forest adjustment to the assessed value of the subject property. At the hearing, the Requester asked the Board to reduce the assessment of the subject property to $1,777,000 (WR 129188 at paras 38, 45, and 57). The Requester now asks that the current value of the property should be $1,106,000 (rounded) after adjustments.

9The Requester seeks an order amending the Board’s decision (WR 129188) to reflect the adjustment for Managed Forests.

DISCUSSION AND REASONS

10The Board denies the request for review in this case.

11The Requester submits that the presiding Member did not apply the Managed Forest adjustment when determining the current value of the subject property once it had confirmed the current value suggested by MPAC.

12During the hearing, MPAC sought an assessment of $1,359,000 for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years, apportioned at $586,300 in the Managed Forest tax class and $772,700 in the Residential tax class. The presiding Member accepted MPAC’s evidence and confirmed its assessment and apportionment.

13At the hearing, the Requester advised he had no dispute with MPAC’s assessment of the Managed Forest portion of the assessment (WR 129188 at para 37).

14The calculation for Managed Forests is not a reduction applied to an assessment after the assessment is confirmed. Instead, s. 19(5.2) of the Assessment Act and s. 32.2(1) of Ontario Regulation 282/98 pertain to the value of the land which contains a Managed Forest.

15During the hearing the Requester made submissions regarding the current value of the subject property. However, the Requester failed to provide evidence that MPAC’s suggested value and apportionment did not accurately reflect the Managed Forest land value adjustment; the Requester also failed to provide evidence in support of his adjustment calculation which he altered at the end of the hearing. The presiding Member relied on the evidence before him and it was entirely reasonable for the presiding Member to accept and confirm MPAC’s suggested value and apportionment.

16The Requester has failed to raise a convincing and compelling case that the presiding Member made a material error of fact or law.

ORDER

17The Associate Chair finds that the Requester has not raised a convincing and compelling case that the presiding Member made a material error of law or fact such that the Board would likely have reached a different decision. The request for review is denied and the Requester’s file will be closed.