Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: June 16, 2017

FILE NO.: DM 146944

Moving Party: Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”), Region No. 16

Respondent: Champlain Properties Limited

Respondent: City of Orillia

Property Location: 6 Front Street North

Municipality: City of Orillia

Roll Number: 4352-040-402-17700-0000

Appeal Numbers: 2954389, 3022817, 3087389, and 3155203

Taxation Years: 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016

Hearing Event No.: 684467

Legislative Authority: Rule 47 of the Assessment Review Board Rules of Practice and Procedure

Heard: May 25, 2017 in writing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Representative

Champlain Properties Limited

Allan Holmes

MPAC

David Zhao

City of Orillia

No one appeared

DISPOSITION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY SCOTT McANSH

1The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) seeks an order compelling Champlain Properties Limited (“Champlain”) to produce:

a. Real estate listings for the June 25, 2013 sale of 6 Front Street North, Orillia (the “Property”); and

b. The third environmental study report of the Property.

2Champlain did not file any submissions or evidence on this motion, despite having ample opportunity to do so.

3For the reasons set out below, MPAC’s motion is granted.

Rules

4This motion was filed under the new Assessment Review Board Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”). The motion seeking document discovery falls under Rule 47(c), which states, in part:

47 A party may seek an order from the Board, by motion, ordering…any… method of discovery…

5The documents that are required to be disclosed under the new Rules are set out in Rule 45, which states:

45 All parties must provide a copy, in paper or electronic form, of all relevant documents in their possession, control or power to all other parties in the proceeding, except for privileged documents.

Facts

6MPAC’s representative filed an affidavit setting out the facts underlying this motion. The first document MPAC is seeking is a real estate listing for the Property. The Property sold on June 25, 2013 for $772,500. MPAC sent a sales questionnaire in order to gather some information around the sale. A questionnaire was returned to MPAC, signed by Maureen Way on October 21, 2014, which indicated that the sale was a private sale. A further sales questionnaire was returned to MPAC, signed by Allan Holmes on July 13, 2016, which indicated that the 2013 sale was sold through a real estate agent.

7In early 2017, MPAC sought clarification on how the Property sold in 2013. MPAC states that Champlain maintained that the Property had sold through a real estate agent, but did not provide the listings supporting the sale. MPAC seeks a copy of those listings.

8The second document sought by MPAC is a copy of a third environmental study report on the Property. MPAC has other environmental study reports of the Property, and became aware of this existence of this report in March of 2017. A number of requests were made for the report, all of which were denied by Champlain.

Analysis

9The jurisprudence of this Board was clear under the previous rules. The party seeking production bears the onus of demonstrating that the documents or information sought has a “semblance of relevance” to the issues in the appeals, Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region No. 3 v. Via Rail Canada Inc. [2013] O.A.R.B.D. No. 291 at para. 15, citing Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region No. 27 et al, v. Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation (2006), DM51730. I am of the view that the new Rules have altered that existing jurisprudence, such the standard is now “relevance” and not a “semblance of relevance.”

10OId Rule 56 did not set out a disclosure standard, while new Rule 45 requires that all relevant documents be disclosed, other than privileged documents. There is no claim of privilege here. The question is if the documents sought are relevant.

11The appeals here seek to determine, among other things, what the Property likely would have sold for on January 1, 2012. Information relating to a sale of the Property in mid-2013 is highly relevant to that determination. While the sale price is known, it is material how the Property was exposed to the market, as that can impact the sale price. There is no question that the real estate listings for that sale are relevant documents.

12Another live issue in these appeals is the degree to which contamination on the Property impacts its value. To that end, the latest in a series of environmental study reports for the Property is highly relevant. The nature of the contamination, and the cost to cure that contamination, are highly relevant issues in any dispute over the impacts of contamination on value. The third environmental study report is relevant to the appeals.

Conclusion

13The real estate listings related to the sale of the Property on June 25, 2013 and the third environmental assessment report for the Property are both relevant documents for these appeals. Rule 45 requires that all relevant documents be provided to the other parties. I therefore order Champlain to provide those documents to MPAC.