Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 09 v. Ko, 2018 CanLII 118878

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

December 04, 2018

FILE NO.:

DM 157245

Moving Party(ies):

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 09

Respondent(s):

Elaine Man Shu Ko

Respondent(s):

City of Toronto

Property Location(s):

28 Bambo Grove

Municipality(ies):

City of Toronto

Roll Number(s):

1908-083-150-02100-0000

Appeal Number(s):

3262117 and 3293138

Taxation Year(s):

2017 and 2018

Hearing Event No.:

708466

Legislative Authority:

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

Heard:

November 7, 2018 in writing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Representative

Elaine Man Shu Ko

Self-Represented

MPAC

Aidan Mailer

City of Toronto

No one Appeared

DISPOSITION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY SUBUOLA AWOLERI

INTRODUCTION

1At the September 26, 2018 initial hearing of the appeal of the subject property, 28 Bambo Grove, filed by Elaine Man Shu Ko the Appellant (now “Respondent”), MPAC requested an adjournment of the hearing in order to file a motion to inspect the subject property. The Respondent opposed the adjournment request; the Board ruled in favour of MPAC and granted the request on exceptional circumstances based on factual disputes, between the parties.

2After the September 26, 2018 hearing was adjourned, MPAC was directed to serve and file its Motion materials by October 12, 2018 and the Respondent to file and serve her responding materials by October 22, 2018. This decision resolves MPAC’s request for an inspection.

ISSUES

3MPAC filed and served a Notice of Motion for inspection of the subject property, supported by the Affidavit of its assessor Mary Stiliadis, relying on Rule 47(c) of the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”).

4MPAC identified the specific issues for the inspection, as, amongst other things, the quality class and renovation type assigned to the subject property which the Respondent disputes.

5The Respondent opposes the Motion for inspection on the grounds that:

• There is no clear objective, scope of work, or standardized method for a home inspection;
• None of the other property sale comparables presented by MPAC were inspected;
• there is no indication that the person to perform the home inspection is qualified to do so. That Ms. Stiliadis is not qualified to carry out the inspection of the subject property. However, a home inspection by a qualified inspector may be agreeable to the Respondent;
• A home inspection would not resolve the dollar difference in valuation between the parties;
• A building permit was filed with the city, which triggered a home inspection by a professional engineer, and all the information needed by MPAC can be obtained from the building plans.

DISPOSITION OF MOTION

6The Board grants the order for an inspection of the subject property in accordance to Rule 47(c) of the Board’s Rules.

7Within 30 days of the date of this decision, the Respondent shall provide access to the subject property, and all parts thereof, to Ms. Stiliadis and another person authorized by MPAC for the purpose of inspecting the subject property. The inspection shall be carried out in the presence of the Respondent at a reasonable time to be mutually agreed upon by the parties.

8If the parties are unable to agree on the specific date for the inspection within seven business days of the date of this decision, either party can bring a Motion before the Board for directions on a particular date for the inspection to be carried out.

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION OF MOTION

9The Respondent purchased the subject property in 2014 and began a substantial renovation in 2015. The Respondent appealed the subject property’s 2016 assessment. The parties have had series of discussions prior to the first scheduled hearing date on September 26, 2018, but were unable to resolve the issues regarding the appeal. Prior to the first scheduled hearing date, MPAC had made two requests to the Respondent for an inspection of the subject property which were both declined.

10MPAC asserts that there are substantial facts in dispute between the parties, such as the quality class, data information, and renovation type, which is required for valuation purposes. In order to be able to respond to the Respondent’s issues, an inspection of the subject property is required. MPAC submits that proceeding to a full hearing without an inspection will be prejudicial to MPAC as it would prohibit MPAC from meeting its statutory onus of proving the correct current value at the hearing.

11In accordance to Rule 47(c) of the Board’s Rules, “a party may seek an order from the Board, by motion, ordering… (c) any other method of discovery, including inspections of property”.

12MPAC cites case of Municipal Property Assessment Corp., Region No. 16 v. Melnikova, [2017] O.A.R.B.D. No.153, (“Melnikova”) where the Board determined that:

inspections will 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…

13The Respondent asserts that a home inspection is not necessary and that any data can be verified through the building plan, which she had already provided to Ms. Stiliadis. She further asserts that the scope, the method, and the objective of the inspection have not been provided by MPAC. Furthermore, she questions Ms. Stiliadis’ qualification in conducting an inspection, stating it is an abuse of power and not fact finding and any other MPAC representative accompanying her could also be in collusion with her.

14In Melnikova, the Board stated that it will not grant MPAC a blanket “fishing trip” to look for issues at the property, and inspections should be framed around specific issues. MPAC identified the issues in its Notice of Motion as data pertaining to the quality class of the subject property and the renovation type.

15Inspections should also be requested in a timely way in order to preserve the hearing process, as determined in Melnikova. In this appeal, Ms. Stiliadis requested an adjournment at the Hearing of the Appeal, in order to prepare to file a Motion for Inspection, after MPAC’s request for inspection was declined twice by the Respondent. The adjournment request was granted by the Board as an exceptional circumstance, as it was apparent at the hearing that the parties had factual disagreement regarding the state and condition of the subject property.

16In reviewing the Respondent’s responding materials, it is evident that the subject property was renovated. She disputes, amongst other things, MPAC’s data regarding the quality of construction, the renovation type, the materials used in the renovation, window framing, interior finishes, and the effective year built of the subject property. The Board agrees with MPAC that these issues can be resolved by an inspection of the subject property. Furthermore, the Respondent has concerns that other comparable properties utilized by MPAC to arrive at the current value of the subject property may have not been inspected by MPAC and MPAC may not have an updated report on the state and condition of these comparable properties. The Respondent can raise these issues when the appeal is heard.

17The best tool to resolve these factual issues is through an inspection, as the state and condition of the subject property specifically the quality of construction, renovation type and the effective year built may have an impact on the current value of the subject property.

18In addressing the Respondent’s issue with Ms. Stiliadis’s qualification and any other MPAC representative’s ability to conduct a fair inspection, MPAC is the independent assessment corporation, responsible for assessing and classifying properties in Ontario, in accordance with the Assessment Act and its Regulations. The Board does not have the jurisdiction to order another corporate body or individual to fulfil this role. Any issue the Respondent encounters during the inspection can also be addressed at the hearing.

19MPAC has the onus of proving the correct current value of properties in Ontario. In order to discharge its onus, it should be based on the correct information about the property. The correct information about the subject property when there are disagreements between the parties regarding factual issues can be easily resolved by an inspection.

20The Board finds that the Respondent would not be prejudiced by an inspection and that the Respondent will have the opportunity to introduce evidence, raise issues, and make arguments about the correct current value of the subject property at the hearing. Based on the facts of this case, the Board finds it appropriate to order the Respondent to provide access to the subject property to MPAC’s Mary Stiliadis, and another person authorized by MPAC, for the purpose of inspecting the subject property. The inspection shall be carried out within 30 days of the date of this decision in the presence of the Respondent at a reasonable time to be mutually agreed upon.