The Corporation of the Township of Prince v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2017 CanLII 70654

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

October 17, 2017

FILE NO.:

WR 130637

Assessed Person(s):

Joseph C. Dimicoli and Lucy A. Dimicoli

Appellant(s):

The Corporation of the Township of Prince

Respondent(s):

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 31

Respondent(s):

Joseph C. Dimicoli and Lucy A. Dimicoli

Property Location(s):

326 Ironside Drive

Municipality(ies):

Township of Prince

Roll Number(s):

5766-000-000-49820-0000

Appeal Number(s):

2894617, 2954110 and 3030255

Taxation Year(s):

2012, 2013 and 2014

Hearing Event No.:

579245

Legislative Authority:

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

Heard:

February 5 and 6, 2015 in Prince Township, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel⁺/Representative

Township of Prince

Paul Cassan

Joseph C. Dimicoli and Lucy A. Dimicoli

Robert MacRae

MPAC

David Zhao

FINAL DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY SCOTT McANSH

1This appeal was partially decided by me on Mach 6, 2015 in ID 130637. In those reasons I found that a portion of the property located at 326 Ironside Drive in the Township of Prince (the “Property”) is in the commercial property class. At the time I issued that interim decision, I had not heard any submissions from the parties on the amount of land, or the value of the land, that should be in the commercial tax class. I left it open to the parties to make further submission on that point, if they could not agree on those issues.

2On July 19, 2017 counsel for the Township of Prince (the “Township”) wrote to the Assessment Review Board (“Board”), seeking a final decision on the apportionment of the Property. The Board asked for submissions from all parties on that issue, with a filing deadline of September 1, 2017. Only the Township filed submissions on the apportionment issue by the filing deadline.

3The Township submitted that all of the detached garage and surrounding lands should be classified as commercial. I agree with the Township that, without a clear way to partition off the portion of the detached garage used for heavy machinery, the entire garage should be in the commercial property class.

4The Township argued that the January 1, 2008 valuation day should have the total assessment of $369,000, with $26,179 in the commercial property class and the remaining $342,821 in the residential property class. For the January 1, 2012 valuation day, the Township submitted that the total assessment of $524,000 should have $87,823 in the commercial property class and the remaining $436,177 in the residential property class.

5The Township’s suggested values appear to fairly reflect the value of the garage and have not been challenged by the other parties. I therefore apportion the Property as follows:

a. For the 2012 taxation year, the total assessment of $369,000 has $26,179 in the commercial property class, with the remaining $342,821 in the residential property class.

b. For the 2013 and 2014 taxation years, the total assessment of $524,000 has $87,823 in the commercial property class, with the remaining $436,177 in the residential property class.