2011090 Ontario Inc. v. City of Cornwall, 2017 CanLII 70658

ISSUE DATE: October 17, 2017 FILE NO.: RRD 2017M13 Assessed Person(s): 2011090 Ontario Inc., City Lodge Hotel Appellant(s): 2011090 Ontario Inc. and S. Burki Respondent(s): City of Cornwall Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 01 Property Location(s): 1142 Brookdale Avenue Municipality(ies): City of Cornwall Roll Number(s): 0402-060-003-01800-0000 Appeal Number(s): 2967173, 3002621, 3070308 and 3143611 (deemed 2016 appeal) Taxation Year(s): 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 (deemed appeal) Hearing Event No.: 602240 Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended Request by: 2011090 Ontario Inc. and S. Burki (“Requesters”) Request for: A review of the Board’s Decision WR 140842 issued November 03, 2016 Heard: By written submission

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY PAUL MULDOON

INTRODUCTION

1Stephen Longo, on behalf of 2011090 Ontario Inc. and S. Burki (the “Requesters”) seeks a review of the decision of the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) (WR 140842) by Member Terry Denison issued on November 3, 2016. This request for review was filed with the Board on December 2, 2016.

2The issue before the Board at the hearing was whether the assessment of the property at 1142 Brookdale Avenue (the “subject property”) for the 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 taxation years was at current value. Whether the assessment was equitable with similar properties in the vicinity was not in dispute. The Board confirmed the subject property’s assessed value at $1,448,000 for the 2012 valuation date, apportioned at $91,500 in the residential class and $1,356,500 in the commercial class.

3In their request for review the Requesters raise four issues. First, the Requesters submit that the Presiding Member denied them natural justice and procedural fairness by refusing to qualify their witness, Mr. Allen, as an expert during trial. Second, the Requesters submit that the Presiding Member made errors of fact by disregarding the number of rooms that could generate income. Third, the Requesters submit that the Presiding Member breached the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness by conducting his own extra-judicial investigation. Fourth, the Requesters submit that the Presiding Member breached the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness by relying on his own interpretation of the definitions of “motel” and “hotel”.

4The Board has reviewed the Request for Review record and has found the issues raised by the Requesters’ can be addressed without further submissions.

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 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;

(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 order a motion to argue the question, 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:

Grounds for Review

(1) The Board may consider reviewing its decision if the grounds for