Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: December 3, 2018

FILE NO.: RD 2018M18

Assessed Person(s): David Morellato, Marguerite Morellato

Appellant(s): David Morellato, Marguerite Morellato

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 32

Respondent(s): City of Thunder Bay

Property Location(s): 429 Morse Street

Municipality(ies): City of Thunder Bay

Roll Number(s): 5804-010-089-14800-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3278957 and 3314923

Taxation Year(s): 2017 and 2018

Hearing Event No.: 700965

Legislative Authority: Rule 123 of the Assessment Review Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, as amended

Request for: A review of the Board’s Decision WR 154042 issued on September 14, 2018

Heard: By written submission

Parties	Representative	Submissions
David Morellato, Marguerite Morellato	Self-represented	Requester
MPAC	No one appeared	Not Requested
City of Thunder Bay	No one appeared	Not Requested

DECISION DELIVERED BY PAUL MULDOON AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

INTRODUCTION

1David Morellato and Marguerite Morellato (the “Morellatos”) apply for a review of Morellato v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 32, 2018 CanLII 86691 (ON ARB) (the “Decision”) pursuant to Rules 120 to 123 of the Assessment Review Board’s (the “Board’s”) Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”). This Request for Review was filed with the Board on October 11, 2018.

2The Morellatos argue that the Decision contains significant errors of fact, including failing to accept their statistical analysis, accepting MPAC’s evidence, mischaracterizing their evidence, and overvaluing a new garage. None of the allegations made by the Morellatos meet the threshold test in the Rules to find that the Board should alter the Decision or send the matter to a re-hearing.

RELEVANT RULES

3Review requests must meet the procedural requirements of Rule 120 before they are considered. There are no procedural concerns with the Moretellos’ request. Reviews can only be granted if the provisions of Rule 121 are met: That Rule states:

121 A request for review will not be granted unless the Board is satisfied that:

(a) the Board acted outside its jurisdiction or violated the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness;

(b) the Board made a significant error of law or fact such that the Board would likely have reached a different decision;

(c) the Board heard false or misleading evidence from a party or witness, which was discovered only after the hearing and would have affected the result;

(d) there is new evidence that could not have reasonably been obtained earlier and would have affected the result; or

(e) any of the situations in Rule 122 exist.

4If the Board is satisfied that a provision of Rule 121 is met, the remedies available are set out in Rule 123, which states:

123 Upon consideration of a request for review, or on its own initiative, the Board may:

(a) dismiss the request;

(b) reinstate the appeal, with or without conditions; or

(c) after providing all parties an opportunity to make submissions,

i. confirm, vary, or cancel the decision,

ii. order a rehearing on all or part of the matter, or

iii. order a motion to decide the review.

ERRORS OF FACT OR LAW

5The Morellatos frame their arguments as relating to natural justice and new evidence, but they are all, in substance, allegations that the Decision contains “a significant error of law or fact such that the Board would likely have reached a different decision.” The Board reads the Morellatos submissions as setting out only two classes of errors:

a. Not accepting their evidence; and

b. Misconstruing their evidence.

Neither class contains any error. Members of this Board are required to consider the evidence before them and clearly state why they find that evidence supports a particular result. The Morellatos do not agree with the Decision, but have not shown that the Decision contains any errors.

Not Accepting Evidence

6The Decision found that all of the seven sales submitted were inferior to the Morellatos property. The Morellatos argue that the Decision is in error in finding that one property, 448 Richard Street, was an inferior property. They set out a number of reasons that they say make it unlike their property. It appears that all of those reasons were presented at the hearing. The Decision found, at paragraph 24, that the Morellatos “property would sell for more because of the larger building area.” That is a reasonable and fair conclusion for the Decision make. There is no error in that analysis.

7The Morellatos also argue that the building permit value for a garage constructed in 2006 should be used. The Decision did not address that issue. The Decision notes, at paragraph 8, that MPAC “has issued a supplementary assessment notice for the subject property’s 2018, 2019 and 2020 taxation years.” Those supplementary appeals were not before the Board. The Decision looked at the value of the property as it is, including the addition. It did not apply any particular value to the garage. There is no error in the Decision declining to consider the building permit value.

8The Decision notes, at paragraph 29, that “all of MPAC’s sale properties sold for more than their assessed values which indicates an inequity in this small sample.” The Decision found that, when a larger sample of properties was considered, there was no evidence that it would inequitable to assess the Morellatos’ property at its current value. The Morellatos say that the inequity in the smaller sample should have been relied on. The Board is not satisfied that the Decision made an error in its consideration of the equity evidence. The Decision was required to make a determination of which properties were similar, for equity purposes, and it did so. Considering all similar property is the best way to see if there is evidence that all property is assessed at something substantially less than its value. The Decision did so.

9The Morellatos put forward evidence that their assessment had increased significantly. The Decision held, at paragraph 19, that “each valuation day must be examined independently from other valuation days, and markets change over time.” The Morellatos argue that the Decision erred in that assessment and that they should be assessed the same as other property owners. The Decision was correct that property must be valued for each valuation day. The assessment of a property on other days is not relevant to the question of what the property likely would have sold for on a particular day. The Decision properly addressed the increase over time submissions.

Misconstruing Evidence

10The Morellatos submit that the Decision erred when it held, at paragraph 15 that their statistical valuation evidence did not rely “on market sale values.” They say that the data in their analysis we taken from MPAC’s sales evidence. The Board notes that both scenarios presented by the Morellatos plot the assessment per finished square foot against the square footage of the properties. None of those metrics are sale values. Hence, while the data may have been taken form MPAC’s sales package, the Decision was correct that neither method relies on market sale values.

ORDER

11The Morellatos’ Request for Review is an attempt to re-argue the hearing. They do not raise anything that satisfies the Board that the Decision contains any errors. Their Request for Review is denied.