Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE:
November 30, 2018
FILE NO.:
WR 155949
Assessed Person(s):
Diane Marie Shelly and Daniel Ian Shelly
Appellant(s):
Diane Marie Shelly and Daniel Ian Shelly
Respondent(s):
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 31
Respondent(s):
City of Sault Ste Marie
Property Location(s):
486 Highway 563
Municipality(ies):
City of Sault Ste Marie
Roll Number(s):
5727-170-000-29500-0000
Appeal Number(s):
3265865 and 3314747
Taxation Year(s):
2017 and 2018
Hearing Event No.:
702874
Legislative Authority:
Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended
Heard:
September 21, 2018 by teleconference call
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Representative
Diane Marie Shelly and Daniel Ian Shelly
Self-represented
MPAC
Richard Thomas
City of Sault Ste Marie
No one appeared
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY JEAN-PAUL PILON ON SEPTEMBER 21, 2018
BACKGROUND
1Diane Marie Shelly and Daniel Ian Shelly (the “Appellants”) are the owners of 486 Highway 563 (the “Subject Property”) in the District of Algoma.
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, MPAC is required to assess this value as of the valuation date, January 1, 2016 (“current value”).
3MPAC has returned a current value of the Subject Property of $417,000 in 2017 and 2018 but is recommending that the assessment for both taxation years be reduced to $379,000.
4The Appellants filed an appeal for the 2017 taxation year with the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”), and have been deemed to have brought the same appeal with respect to the Subject Property for the 2018 taxation year pursuant to subsection 40(26) of the Act. It is their position that MPAC’s assessment of current value is too high and that the correct current value is $220,000.
5Pursuant to subsection 40(11) of the Act, the District of Algoma was a party to the proceeding. However, it did not advise the Board of its position on the issues raised in these appeals, and no one appeared at the hearing on its behalf.
6Subsection 44(3)(b) of the [Act](https