Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: July 17, 2017
Assessed Person(s): Reeves Realty Corporation
Appellant(s): Reeves Realty Corporation
Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 23
Respondent(s): Town of Ingersoll
Property Location(s): See Attached Schedule “A”
Municipality(ies): Town of Ingersoll
Roll Number(s): See Attached Schedule “A”
Appeal Number(s): See Attached Schedule “A” and 2016 (deemed appeals)
Taxation Year(s): 2015 and 2016 (deemed appeals)
Hearing Event No.: 620457
Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended
Request by: Dr. Leonard Reeves (“Requester”)
Request for: A review of the Board’s Decision (WR 138789) issued on April 8, 2016
Heard: By written submission
DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY PAUL MULDOON
INTRODUCTION
1Dr. Leonard Reeves, (the “Requester”), requests a review of the decision of the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) (WR 138789) delivered by Member Weagant on April 8, 2016 [Reeves Realty Corporation v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 23, 2016 CanLII 19398 (ON ARB)] (the Presiding Member’s Decision”). This request for review was filed with the Board on April 29, 2016. The Board misplaced the request and the Requester refiled it on June 2, 2017 and copied the parties.
2The issues before the Presiding Member at the hearing were: (1) whether the assessments of the 14 residential condominium properties were at current value for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years; and (2) whether the assessments were equitable with similar properties in the vicinity. The Presiding Member confirmed the assessments of the 14 condominium units located at 50 Garland Court, Ingersoll for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years, ranging from $90,000 to $100,000 all in the residential tax class.
3The Requester argues that “the decision of the Board was flawed and warrants a complete review.” More specifically, the Requester submits: (1) the Presiding Member was biased when he accepted MPAC’s comparable properties and not the Requester’s comparable properties; and (2) the Presiding Member erred both in citing the Elgin case and finding that the funding agreement was like a mortgage.
RELEVANT RULES
[4] Rules 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.
5A request for review is received pursuant to Rule 144 which grants the Board with the following authority:
- 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.
6The Board may exercise discretion to grant a request and order a rehearing or a motion to review only if the Board 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:
- 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.
ISSUES AND ORDER SOUGHT
[7] The Requester requests a review of the Presiding Member’s Decision pursuant to Rule 145(1)(b) and (c). Although not specifically requested, the Board interprets the Requester asking for a complete review to mean a request for a motion (Rule 144(1)(b)) or a re-hearing (Rule 144 (1)(c)). At the hearing the Requester argued that the assessments were too high.
DISCUSSION AND REASONS
[8] The Board denies the request for review in this case.
Issue No. 1: Bias
[9] The Requester submits that the Presiding Member showed extreme bias when he did not ask for price adjustments for MPAC’s comparable properties due to the individual garages or on-street owner occupied factors. Similarly the Requester submits that the Presiding Member showed extreme bias when he found that the Requester’s comparable properties had no sales data.
10Bias in law consists of either actual bias or a reasonable apprehension of bias. Actual bias occurs when a decision maker has a pecuniary interest in the proceedings before that decision maker. In other words, where a decision maker may reasonably expect a financial gain from the decision he or she makes.
11The Board interprets the Requester’s submission to mean that he alleges the Presiding Member’s decision making raises a reasonable apprehension of bias. The test to be applied when determining whether there has been a reasonable apprehension of bias, is whether a fully informed reasonable person viewing the Presiding Member’s conduct practically and realistically would conclude that it is more likely than not that the Presiding Member did not decide the matter fairly [see Committee for Justice & Liberty v. Canada (National Energy Board) (1976), 1976 CanLII 2 (SCC), [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369 at paragraph 394].
12In this case, the Board finds the Presiding Member made an independent decision on the totality of the evidence and submissions made by the parties in the hearing and accepted MPAC’s comparable properties. The fact that a Presiding Member prefers the evidence of one party over that of another party does not mean the Member is biased against the latter party. The Board finds a reasonable person, in reviewing the Presiding Member’s conduct would not practically and realistically conclude that he did not decide fairly. Therefore, a reasonable apprehension of bias does not arise from the Presiding Member preferring MPAC’s comparable properties.
Issue No. 2: Material Error of Fact or Law
[13] The Presiding Member addressed the sworn testimony of Paul Beaton, Director of Human Services for the County of Oxford, regarding the Canada-Ontario Affordable Housing Program (“AHP”) in paragraph 16 of the Decision. As for the interpretation of encumbrance in the definition of current value in section 1 of the Assessment Act, the Presiding Member addressed the issue in paragraph 25 of the Decision.
14The Presiding Member referred to the Elgin case (Elgin and St. Thomas Housing Corp. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp., Region No. 23 [2008] O.A.R.B.D. No 222), which was provided by MPAC, to support MPAC’s interpretation of unencumbered as meaning any encumbrance of the property such as an AHP should be ignored when determining current value. The Requester interpreted unencumbered to mean that an encumbrance should factor into a determination of current value.
15Presiding Members have the jurisdiction and authority regarding the admissibility of evidence and the weight to be given to admissible evidence at a hearing. Unless the Presiding Member errs in law in determining admissibility and weight of evidence, the Board does not interfere.
16The Board does not find a material error of law or fact in the Presiding Member’s preference of MPAC’s comparable properties, accepting MPAC’s definition of encumbrance, citing of the Elgin case as submitted by MPAC or in comparing the AHP to a mortgage. In this case the Presiding Member exercised his discretion and articulated his reasons for doing so in paragraphs 18 to 29 of the Presiding Member’s Decision.
Conclusion
17In summary, the Board finds that the Requester has failed to establish any of the grounds under Rule 145 to raise a convincing and compelling case that the Board should review the decision made by the Presiding Member.
ORDER
18The request for review is denied and the Presiding Member’s Decision is confirmed.
“Paul Muldoon”
PAUL MULDOON
ASSOCIATE CHAIR
Assessment Review Board
A constituent tribunal of Environment and Land Tribunals Ontario
Website: www.elto.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248
Schedule “A” continues…