Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: November 1, 2018 FILE NO.: DM 156144

Moving Party(ies): Osmo Ramakko Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 30 Respondent(s): City of Sudbury

Property Location(s): 371 North Shore Black Lake Road Municipality(ies): City of Sudbury Roll Number(s): 5307-110-001-23200-0000 Appeal Number(s): 3225376 and 3314578 Taxation Year(s): 2017 and 2018 Hearing Event No.: 701611

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

Heard: June 22, 2018 by written submission

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Osmo Ramakko	Self-represented
MPAC	Brittany Kee
City of Sudbury	No one appeared

DISPOSITION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY DIRK VANDERBENT

BACKGROUND

1Osmo Ramakko is the owner 371 North Shore Black Lake Road, City of Greater Sudbury (the “Subject Property”), which is classified as a single family year-round detached residence on water (Property Code 313).

2Pursuant to the provisions of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act“), the assessment of land shall be based on its current value. The Act also provides that, for the 2017 to 2020 taxation years, the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) is required to assess this value as of the valuation date, January 1, 2016. (“current value”).

3Mr. Ramakko (the “Appellant”) has filed an appeal of MPAC’s assessment for the 2017 taxation year, with the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”), pursuant to s. 40 of the Act. In his appeal, he takes issue with respect two grounds of appeal: current value and whether there should be an equitable reduction of current value.

4In this proceeding, the Appellant has filed two Motions with the Board. In Motion 1, the Appellant requests the following procedural directions:

a. MPAC be directed to attend and participate fully and actively in a Settlement Meeting with the view of seriously attempting to resolve the appeal between the two parties.

b. MPAC be directed to provide a written response to the issues and questions raised in the Statement of Issues and Responses provided by the Appellant.

c. MPAC be directed to assign a new representative to handle the appeal on their behalf.

5In Motion 1 and Motion 2, the Appellant also requests, pursuant to Rule 45 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, that MPAC provide the following the following documents:

Respecting the Issue of Current Value:

1. A list of all sales of Code 313 properties since January 1, 2012 on the following streets, together with sales dates, sale prices, January 1, 2016 and January 1, 2012 Assessed Values: North Shore Black Lake Road, Clark Road, Makada Drive, Wuorenen Road.

2. A list of all sales since January 1, 2012 with the same "Neighbourhood" Code as the Subject Property, including sales dates, sale prices and January 1, 2016 and January 2012 Assessed Values.

3. A diagram or map indicating the boundaries of the "Neighbourhood" and the "Market Area" in which the Subject Property is located.

4. An explanation why and how MPAC's Mass Appraisal system selected one property along North Shore Black Lake Road for an increase in the January 1, 2016 Assessed Value, compared to January 1, 2012, while decreasing all the others (with one explainable exception).

5. For the City of Greater Sudbury, a summary statement of how Assessment Values for Waterfront properties have changed from January 1, 2012 to January 1, 2016.

6. Copy of Current Manuals, Directives and Protocols detailing the procedures to be followed by MPAC Assessors in completing an Individual Valuation for a Residential Property.

7. Copy of the list of all potential properties identified as meeting the Assessor’s search criteria for "comparable" properties and used in selecting the 6 comparators for the Valuation Report. The list should include the same level of information that was viewed by the Assessor but to include at least the address, sale price and date, and current assessment for each identified property.

8. Copy of the final Report, prepared by MPAC Assessors, for the Subject Property as part of the Request for Reconsideration phase.

Respecting the Issue of Equitable Reduction:

9. Copy of the Level of Study Report prepared by MPAC Assessors for the Subject Property as part of the Request for Reconsideration phase and/or or as part of the Equity Analysis for the current appeal.

10. Copy of Current Manuals, Directives and Protocols detailing the procedures to be followed by MPAC Assessors in completing the Equity Analysis Report for an Individual Assessment of a Residential Property.

11. Copy of the list of all properties identified as meeting the Assessors search criteria for "similar" properties in the vicinity of the Subject Property and used to select 30 properties for the Equity Analysis Report. The list should include the same level of information that was viewed by the Assessor but to include at least the address, sale price and date, and current assessed value for each identified property.

6The Board directed that the Motions be heard in writing. MPAC has provided a response to Motion 2. The City of Greater Sudbury has not provided any response.

DECISION

7The Motion is allowed in part. The Board’s specific disposition for each requested item is provided below.

RELEVANT LEGISLATION AND RULES

8The Act:

1. “current value” means, in relation to land, the amount of money the fee simple, if unencumbered, would realize if sold at arm’s length by a willing seller to a willing buyer.

19.(1) Assessment based on current value. – The assessment of land shall be based on its current value.

19.2(1) Valuation days – Subject to subsection (5), the day as of which land is valued for a taxation year is determined as follows:

3. For each subsequent period consisting of four consecutive taxation years, land is valued as of January 1 of the year preceding the first of those four taxation years.

44.(3) Same, 2009 and subsequent years. – For 2009 and subsequent taxation years, in determining the value at which any land shall be assessed, the Board shall,

(a) determine the current value of the land; and

(b) have reference to the value at which similar lands in the vicinity are assessed and adjust the assessment of the land to make it equitable with that of similar lands in the vicinity if such an adjustment would result in a reduction of the assessment of the land.

9The Board’s Rules of Practice:

Proportionality

5. These Rules shall be applied in a manner proportionate to the importance and complexity of the issues in a proceeding and with a view to resolving appeals within the four year cycle.

Statement of Issues and Responses

1. Statements of issues and responses must contain:

(1) If the issue is current value:

a) the current value requested and how it is calculated;

b) a full statement of every issue that the party intends to raise, including identification of comparable property to be referred to, if any;

c) a list of all facts, legal grounds and documents that the party relies on in support of its position.

(2) If the issue is the equity of the assessment pursuant to section 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act:

a) the assessment requested;

b) identification of the vicinity claimed by the party;

c) identification of similar lands in the vicinity to be relied on by the party;

d) how the party proposes to calculate the adjustment for equity; and

e) a list of all facts, legal grounds and documents that the party relies on in support of its position.

Disclosure

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.

DISCUSSION, ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

Requests for Procedural Directions

10Regarding Request 1, that MPAC be directed to participate in a Settlement Meeting, the Board notes that this appeal is to be heard by way of Summary Proceeding, and the Schedule of Events requires a Mandatory meeting in which the parties are to meet among themselves to attempt to negotiate a resolution of the appeal.

11In light of the Board’s decision granting some of the Appellant’s requests for disclosure, the Board will amend the due date for completion of the Mandatory Meeting to a date to be set by the Board Registrar eight weeks from the issuance date of this Order. Upon completion of the Mandatory Meeting, the parties are required to complete and file an updated Mandatory Meeting Form with the Board. The subsequent due date for filing documents to be relied on at the hearing will be 14 business days thereafter. All orders for disclosure of documents by MPAC, as set out in this Order, are to be provided by MPAC within two weeks of the issuance date of this Order.

12Regarding Request 2, that MPAC be required to serve and file a written response to the Appellant’s statement of issues, the Board notes that the Schedule of Events for appeals heard by way of Summary Proceeding does not require the exchange of written pleadings. For this reason, the Appellant’s request is denied.

13Regarding Request 3, that the Board direct MPAC to change its representative in this proceeding, the Board notes that, generally speaking, a party is entitled to choose its representative. The Appellant, in his written statement of issues, states the MPAC’s representative is biased because he participated in responding to the Appellant’s Request for Reconsideration made pursuant to s. 39.1 of the Act. However, the Appellant has provided no explanation in support of this assertion. Consequently, the Board finds that the Appellant has not established any grounds in support of his request. Therefore, his request is denied.

Requests for Disclosure of Documents

The test to be applied

14The test to be applied has been set out in Walmart Canada Corporation and Target Canada Corporation v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 01, 2018 CanLII 67789 (ON ARB).

18Relevance is determined in relation to whether a document is relevant to an issue in dispute. However, this is not the only criteria that the Board will consider when determining whether a document, which may be relevant, should be disclosed. Rule 45, itself, provides an exception for privileged documents. In addition, Rule 5

provides that “These Rules shall be applied in a manner proportionate to the importance and complexity of the issues in a proceeding and with a view to resolving appeals within the four year cycle’. Therefore, the requirement to disclose relevant documents must also be applied in a proportionate manner. Rule 45 does not include specific criteria to assess proportionality. However, the Board finds that the criteria in Rule 29.2.03(1) and (2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure (Ontario) are applicable, namely:

1. the time required for the party or other person to answer the question or produce the document would be unreasonable;

2. the expense associated with answering the question or producing the document would be unjustified;

3. requiring the party or other person to answer the question or produce the document would cause him or her undue prejudice;

4. requiring the party or other person to answer the question or produce the document would unduly interfere with the orderly progress of the action; and

5. the information or the document is readily available to the party requesting it from another source.

6. whether an order for disclosure would result in an excessive volume of documents required to be produced by the party or other person.

The Board observes that this is a non-exhaustive list. There may be other criteria identified on a case by case basis.

19In applying the above criteria, the Board must balance these considerations against relevancy, i.e. the degree to which it appears that the document is relevant to an issue in dispute, and, if so, how probative this evidence may be. The onus to establish that a document should be disclosed pursuant to Rule 45 rests with the party who requests the disclosure.

20In addition to the above, it should also be noted that Rule 45 only requires disclosure of documents in a party’s possession, control, or power. A party is not

required to produce new information, or obtain documents that are not within its possession, control, or power.

Disclosure Request No. 1

15The request is for a list of all sales of Code 313 properties since January 1, 2012 on the following streets, together with sales dates, sale prices, January 1, 2016 and January 1, 2012 Assessed Values: North Shore Black Lake Road, Clark Road, Makada Drive, Wuorenen Road.

Submissions

16The Appellant did not provide detailed submissions to further explain the relevancy of this request. MPAC did not provide a response to this request.

Findings on Request No. 1

17The Board first notes that the request includes a request for assessed values of the requested properties as of January 1, 2012. The Board further notes that the Motions make it clear that the applicable assessment methodology is a comparative property sales analysis. Assessed values as of January 1, 2012 are not relevant to this type of analysis. For this reason, this part of the request is denied.

18Although not entirely clear, the Board assumes that the streets named in the Appellant’s request are sufficiently close to the Subject Property. Comparative property sale dates typically should be within two years of the valuation date of January 1, 2016. However, if there is an insufficient number of sales meeting this criteria, earlier sales may sometime be considered. For this reason, the Board accepts that this aspect of the Appellant’s request is relevant.

19In summary, therefore, MPAC is required to disclose all sales where sale dates occurred on or after January 1, 2012, for Code 313 properties located on the streets listed in the Appellant’s request. If this information is available on MPAC’s on-line database named “AboutMyProperty”, the Appellant is directed to obtain this information from this database.

Disclosure Request No. 2

20The request is for a list of all sales since January 1, 2012 with the same Neighbourhood Code as the Subject Property, including sales dates, sale prices and January 1, 2016 and January 2012 Assessed Values.

Submissions

21The Appellant did not provide detailed submissions to further explain the relevancy of this request. MPAC did not provide a response to this request.

Findings on Request No. 2

22The Board has already found, under Request No. 1, that assessed values of properties as of January 1, 2012, are not relevant.

23The request is in respect of all classes of properties within the same neighbourhood as the Subject Property. As there is no indication that the request is in respect of comparable properties to be considered in a comparative property sales analysis, the requested information is not relevant. For this reason, the request is denied. For clarification, this ruling is subject to the Board’s ruling in respect of Request No. 7.

Disclosure Request No. 3

24The request is for a diagram or map indicating the boundaries of the Neighbourhood and the Market Area in which the Subject Property is located.

Submissions

25The Appellant did not provide detailed submissions to further explain the relevancy of this request. MPAC did not provide a response to this request.

Findings on Request No. 3

26The Board notes that in Smith v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 16, 2018 CanLII 35053 (ON ARB), the Board ordered that MPAC should provide a map to clearly indicate the location of the subject property in the homogeneous neighbourhood, and to confirm its boundaries. This information is relevant to the determination of which proposed properties are comparable to the Subject Property, as property location is one factor that is considered when making this determination.

27The boundaries of the market area, although it could bear some relevance, may be less probative. However, as this information is readily available, and does not require production of a large volume of information that is disproportionate to importance and complexity of the issues in this proceeding, the Board finds it should be disclosed. The Board’s earlier direction that the Appellant should access this information on AboutMyProperty, also applies, if this information can be found there.

Disclosure Request No. 4

28The request is for an explanation why and how MPAC's Mass Appraisal system selected one property along North Shore Black Lake Road for an increase in the January 1, 2016 Assessed Value, compared to January 1, 2012, while decreasing all the others (with one explainable exception).

Submissions

29The Appellant did not provide detailed submissions to further explain the relevancy of this request. MPAC did not provide a response to this request.

Findings on Request No. 4

30As previously noted, the Motion materials confirm that the applicable assessment methodology is a comparable property sales analysis. The Board notes that there is no indication whatsoever that MPAC intends to rely on its mass appraisal method to support its position respecting the current value of the Subject Property. Consequently, information related to the application of MPAC’s mass appraisal method is not relevant. For this reason, the Appellant’s request is denied.

Disclosure Request No. 5

31The request is for a summary statement of how Assessment Values for Waterfront properties in the City of Greater Sudbury, have changed from January 1, 2012 to January 1, 2016.

Submissions

32The Appellant did not provide detailed submissions to further explain the relevancy of this request. MPAC did not provide a response to this request.

Findings on Request No. 5

33The Board first notes that its jurisdiction is to determine current value as of a specific valuation date, in this case, January 1, 2016. Where equitable reduction is in issue, the Board’s is also required to compare the current value, as determined by the Board, to the assessed values of similar properties in the vicinity, again as of the same valuation date. Therefore, an analysis of how assessment values have changed since the previous assessment cycle valuation date of January 1, 2012, is not relevant to the issues the Board must determine. Furthermore, the request is vague, in that it does not specify specifically how such change is to be quantified and reported. There is also no indication whether MPAC currently has this information, as opposed to being asked to prepare new information. Requests for disclosure must be relevant, proportional, and clearly defined. The Appellant’s request meets none of these criteria. For these reasons, the Board denies this request.

Disclosure Request Nos. 6 and 10

34These requests are being considered together as they are essentially requesting the same type of documentation. Specifically, the requests are for a copy of Current Manuals, Directives and Protocols detailing the procedures to be followed by the MPAC Assessor in completing, for a residential property: an Individual Valuation (respecting current value); and an Equity Analysis Report (respecting equitable reduction).

Submissions

35The Appellant maintains that MPAC’s Reports contains numerous errors that may well constitute a violation of the assessor’s Certification of these Reports, and that the Appellant will present evidence in support of this assertion at the Hearing. He states his belief that MPAC's Assessor has violated certain aspects of various professional standards of practice, including the Canadian Uniform Standards in Professional Appraisal Practice (“CUSPAP”), the International Valuation Standards (“IVS”), the Appraisal Institute of Canada (“AIC”), and the International Association of Assessing Officers (“IAAO”). The Appellant submits that, in order to examine these questions at the Hearing, the Appellant requires a clear understanding of the rules of practice and procedure that the MPAC Assessor followed in undertaking his Valuation Report and Equity Analysis Report. He submits that this will, moreover, clarify whether the alleged violations were sanctioned by MPAC or were the actions of an individual.

36In response, MPAC submits that the Board does not have jurisdiction to compel an MPAC valuation analyst to conform to any appraisal standards. MPAC maintains that the Board can use appraisal standards to determine the weight of the evidence before it. MPAC also emphasizes that the MPAC valuation analyst is not currently a member of the professional associations listed by the Appellant. MPAC asserts, therefore, that the analyst has no professional obligation to comply with the standards of those associations. MPAC submits that the Board has discretion when weighing evidence and, although the opinion of comparability and methodology in valuation approaches may differ between parties (and the Board), the Board has the ultimate discretion to weigh the evidence before it.

37In reply, the Appellant states that MPAC’s Valuation Report contains a “Certification” signed and dated by the assessor declares that “...this Report has been prepared in conformity with the Canadian Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (CUSPAP).” The Appellant asserts that this same “Certification” is contained in virtually every Report produced by MPAC. He maintains, therefore, that this is quite obviously a corporate policy requirement. He argues that the Assessor cannot now distance himself from the professional and ethical obligations inherent in his certification, regardless of his personal membership status in those standard-setting organizations.

Findings on Request Nos. 6 and 10

38The Board first notes that the issue of the adequacy of an assessment is to be determined by the Hearing Adjudicator. In these Motions, the Board must apply the applicable legal test to determine whether the requested documents, (i.e. MPAC’s Manuals, Directives and Protocols detailing the procedures to be followed by the MPAC Assessor), should be disclosed. The Board observes that most of the submissions made by the parties are not germane to this test.

39It is obviously open to the Appellant to challenge the validity or reliability of the Assessor’s analysis and conclusions by calling evidence referencing property appraisal standards. However, he is not seeking disclosure of these standards in these Motions. The issue, here, is what is the relevance of MPAC’s Manuals, Directives and Protocols to the issues in dispute? In this regard, the Board notes that there is no suggestion, in the Motion materials, that MPAC is advancing an argument that its Assessor’s analysis and conclusions should be accepted by the Hearing Adjudicator because the assessor has followed internal MPAC directives and protocols. The Board finds that the Appellant has not established that compliance or non-compliance with internal MPAC directives and protocols, to the extent that they exist, would be a probative or determinative consideration when weighing the evidence. The probative standards, as referenced by the Appellant, are the published standards of professional appraisal associations. Furthermore, the validity and reliability of the assessor’s conclusion is based on the assumptions, data, and analysis set out in his/her report, as measured against such professional standards, not whether the assessor complied with internal MPAC directives or protocols. For these reasons, the Board finds that any internal MPAC directives and protocols, would be of limited, if any relevance, and certainly of limited probative value. When measured against such limited relevance and/or probative value, the Board finds that the time and expense associated with producing such documentation would not be proportionate. For these reasons, the request is denied.

Disclosure Request No. 7

40The request is for a copy of the list of all potential properties identified as meeting the Assessor’s search criteria for “comparable” properties and used in selecting the 6 comparators selected for the Valuation Report. The list should include the same level of information that was viewed by the Assessor but to include at least the address, sale price and date, and current assessment for each identified property.

Submissions

41The Appellant maintains that the assessor may have selected properties that had sales prices greater than the Subject Property’s assessed value, in order to influence the outcome. He submits that the data requested will allow the appellant to test that theory.

42MPAC submits that its valuation specialist has outlined the parameters of the search criteria used in selecting comparable properties for its six proposed current value comparable properties. MPAC emphasizes that the parameters and properties meeting those requirements are listed in MPAC’s valuation report.

Findings on Request No. 7

43To the extent that MPAC’s assessor identified a “preliminary list” of potential comparable properties from which the assessor selected the six proposed comparable properties shown in his/her report, such a “preliminary list” may be relevant. However, in determining whether a document should be disclosed, the Board must consider the circumstances of the individual case. As noted above, the onus is on the requesting party to establish that a document should be disclosed. In this case, the Board first notes that the Appellant has provided no explanation to indicate that the referenced “preliminary list” would provide additional probative information, other than its relevance to the Appellant’s allegation of potential misrepresentation (discussed below). Furthermore, assuming that the requested information is relevant, the Board notes that the Appellant has an alternate means to identify proposed comparable properties through the AboutMyProperty database, in order to test his theory.

44The Board also notes that the Appellant’s rationale for arguing that the requested information should be disclosed, is based on the Appellant’s allegation that MPAC’s assessor may have deliberately produced a misleading valuation assessment. The Board notes that the Appellant has not provided any basis on which to conclude that the potential for such misrepresentation exists. The allegation, to some extent, implies misconduct on the part of another individual. An allegation of impropriety will only be considered where it has been clearly substantiated. Here, the Appellant makes only a bald allegation that is clearly speculative. The Board finds that a party cannot raise an unsubstantiated allegation and then seek to characterize the allegation as issue in the proceeding for purposes of obtaining disclosure of a document.

45For these reasons, the Board finds that, in the circumstances of this case, the relevancy of the Appellant’s request is, at best, unclear, appears to be of limited probative value, and is not proportional. Therefore, the request for this disclosure is denied.

Disclosure Request Nos. 8 and 9

46These requests are being considered together as they are essentially requesting the same type of documentation. More specifically, the Appellant requests disclosure of the valuation report and equity analysis report that were prepared as part of the Appellant’s Request for Reconsideration made pursuant to s. 39.1 of the Act.

Submissions

47MPAC emphasizes that the Board has no jurisdiction over the Request for Review process. MPAC asserts that this process is an opportunity for owners of properties and MPAC to review the current value of the Subject Property and attempt to avoid the costs associated with filing an appeal. MPAC further notes that municipalities are not parties to the Request for Review process and that the Board does not adjudicate matters in dispute during this process. MPAC emphasizes that, if the parties cannot come to an agreement or if the municipality decides to object to a settlement, the parties can file an appeal to the Board, at which time, the subject matter then falls within the jurisdiction of the Board. In the alternative, MPAC maintains that there is no provision expressly outlined within the Act that stipulates that MPAC must use the same comparable property report in the Request for Review process as it would adduce in an appeal proceeding. MPAC also maintains that it has no obligation to share its comparable property report with any party within the Request for Review process.

48In his Motion, the Appellant did not provide detailed submissions in support of his request, but he has provided a reply to MPAC’s submissions. He asserts that he has made no request for adjudication of the Request for Review process, and that he is only asking for access to the information used by MPAC in reaching its decision. The Appellant disputes MPAC’s position that only information created after the date that his appeal was filed, is within the jurisdiction of the Board. The Appellant argues that, if this assertion was correct, most of the data contained within MPAC’s own Valuation Report and Equity Analysis Report would also have to be excluded from the current appeal proceeding, as much of this data was produced prior the date on which he filed his appeal.

49The Appellant maintains that he does not assert that MPAC must use the same data from the Request for Review phase in the subsequent Appeal phase. Instead, he submits that the requested documents will provide data that will be helpful to his case.

50The Appellant disputes MPAC’s assertion that it has no obligation to share any Report with any party within the Request for Review process, submitting that Rule 45 requires that all parties must disclose all relevant documents in in their possession.

Findings on Request Nos. 8 and 9

51The Board finds that it is unnecessary to address MPAC’s submission that the Board does not have jurisdiction over the Request for Review Process, because this is not the question the Board must address in this Motion. The question is whether the requested documents are relevant to an issue in dispute. As these reports, as described by MPAC in its submissions, were prepared specifically regarding the valuation issues respecting the Subject Property that are now the very issues in dispute in this appeal proceeding, they are relevant and should be disclosed.

52There is an exception to the requirement to disclose a relevant document where the document is subject to privilege. In this regard, the Board notes that MPAC has not expressly claimed that any of the requested documents are privileged.

53The Board infers from MPAC’s submission that, if the Board does not have jurisdiction over the Request for Review process, any documents prepared for the reconsideration process are, in some way, subject to privilege. In this regard, the Board notes that the Request for Review process under s. 39.1 is a statutorily mandated process where MPAC is required to reconsider its assessment of current value, if requested to do so. There is nothing in the wording of the legislation to indicate that this process constitutes a settlement negotiation conducted in contemplation of litigation which, in this case, is a Board appeal. Section 39.1(6) of the Act is the only subsection that, potentially, may have had some bearing on this question. It provides that the Minister may make regulations “governing the disclosure of information by the assessment corporation and a person making a request under this section.” However, no regulation has been implemented.

54In summary, the Board finds that the requested documents are relevant, and are not subject to privilege. MPAC has not submitted that the requirement to disclose the requested documents would be disproportionate to the importance and complexity of the issues in this proceeding. For these reasons, the Board orders that MPAC provide the Appellant with a copy of the requested documents.

Disclosure Request No. 11

55The request is for a copy of the list of all properties identified as meeting the Assessors search criteria for “similar” properties in the vicinity of the Subject Property and used to select 30 properties for MPAC’s Equity Analysis Report. The Appellant requests that this list should include the same level of information that was viewed by the Assessor but to include at least the address, sale price and date, and current assessed value for each identified property.

Submissions

56The Appellant did not provide detailed submissions to further explain the relevancy of this request.

57MPAC submits that it has selected the closest 30 comparable properties in relation to the Subject Property, based on parameters outlined in the equity analysis report. Although, MPAC submits that 30 comparable properties are a sufficient number of properties to conduct an equity analysis and derive a meaningful conclusion, MPAC agrees that the entire data set meeting those parameters can be provided.

Findings on Request No. 11

58As MPAC has agreed to provide the requested information, this request is not in dispute, and, therefore, an order requiring MPAC to disclose the information is not required.