Municipal Property Assessment Corporation v. Melnikova, 2017 CanLII 81711

Assessment Review Board / Commission de révision de l'évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: November 28, 2017

FILE NO.: DM 2017M09

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

Respondent: Elena Melnikova

Respondent: City of Orillia

Property Location: 373 West Street North

Municipality: City of Orillia

Roll Number: 4352-030-312-01000-0000

Appeal Number: 3256882

Taxation Year: 2017

Legislative Authority: Rule 47(c) of the Assessment Review Board Rules of Practice and Procedure as amended

Heard: In writing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
MPAC	Brittany Allen
Elena Melnikova	Robert Baranowski
City of Orillia	No one appeared

DISPOSITION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY SCOTT McANSH

DISPOSITION OF MOTION

1MPAC seeks an order of the Assessment Review Board ("Board") permitting an inspection of the property located at 373 West Street North in the City of Orillia (the "property"). MPAC seeks the inspection in order to determine the appropriate adjusted age of the property, as well as its state and condition for the 2017 taxation year. Elena Melnikova states that there is no dispute around those issues and that a recent sale of the property is a complete answer to the primary issue in appeal. She also argues that MPAC's motion was filed too late, being filed with the Board 32 days before the scheduled hearing.

2The inspection is granted, for the reasons that follow. The parties are to arrange an inspection on or before Friday, December 8, 2017. The scheduled hearing on Friday, December 15, 2017 will proceed.

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION OF MOTION

3The law relating to inspections is well settled. MPAC has a number of statutory tools that permit it to inspect property and collect information for the purposes of returning the assessment roll, see for example s. 10 of the Assessment Act ("Act"). However, once an appeal is filed those remedies are no longer available, see Canadian National Railway Co. v. Winnipeg (City) Assessor, 1997 CanLII 23010 (MB CA), [1997] M. J No. 362, 118 Man.R. (2d) 142. Rather, the Board has the authority to grant an inspection pursuant to Rule 47(c), which states, in relevant part:

47 A party may seek an order form the Board, by motion, ordering…inspections of property.

4In general, inspections will be granted where there are issues in dispute around the condition, quality, age, or other physical aspects of a property. An inspection can resolve those types of disputes in a way that no other tool can. However, inspections must be framed around a specific issue. The Board will not grant blanket "fishing trips" for MPAC to look for issues at properties. Inspections should also be requested in a timely way, so that the hearing process is preserved. Finally, inspections should have been attempted on consent before the matter is brought before the Board.

5The inspections here are sought around two specific issues: (1) the adjusted age of the property; and (2) the property's state and condition on the roll return date.

6The adjusted age of the property is an issue here because there have been some modifications to the buildings on the properties. Some of those were a condition of the sale of the property in 2014. MPAC is not aware of the current condition of the buildings on the property, which is essential evidence for any determination of value. Renovations to property are a common ground on which this Board will grant an inspection, see Cohen v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, DM 51335.

7The adjusted age relates to MPAC's second ground, the property's state and condition. Property is valued as it was on the second Tuesday after December 1 of each year, for the following year's taxation, see section 36(1) of the Act. So the question here, for 2017 taxation, is how the property was on December 13, 2016. MPAC cannot, obviously, travel back in time to make that determination. The state and condition on roll return cannot be the sole ground for an inspection conducted a year later. Here, the issue is what improvements have been made to the property since 2014. That is a valid basis for an inspection, even if the status on December 13, 2016 cannot be determined. Although Ms. Melnikova states that there is no dispute around these issues, these are issues that are clearly relevant to the value of the property.

8The final issue to address is timeliness. This summary appeal was assigned a July 19, 2017 commencement date. MPAC first requested an inspection just over a month later, on August 22, 2017. MPAC again requested an inspection at the mandatory meeting between the parties on September 26, 2017. MPAC requested an inspection a third time on October 2, 2017. MPAC brought this matter to the Board on November 3, 2017, over two months after it first requested an inspection. Ms. Melnikova argues that the request was too late, because it was only six weeks before the scheduled hearing.

9I agree that this motion could have been brought in a more timely fashion. However, that is not the test. The appropriate test for timeliness is if the parties are prejudiced by the request. Six weeks before a summary hearing date is not unreasonable. The parties had time to file ample motion material and will have time to organize an inspection well before the hearing date. MPAC made its initial request in a timely way, and should have brought the matter to the Board when it was clear that there would be no consent to an inspection. MPAC should not be penalized, however, for attempting to organize a consent inspection. I would not deny this relevant inspection solely on the basis of a two month delay.

CONCLUSION

10MPAC's motion for an inspection is granted. Ms. Melnikova must facilitate an inspection of the property on or before December 8, 2017.