Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: December 24, 2018

FILE NO.: RD 2018M20

Assessed Person(s): Judith Anne Truax; Scott Andrew Rose

Appellant(s): Scott Rose

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 07

Respondent(s): Township of North Kawartha

Property Location(s): 91 Butler Drive

Municipality(ies): Township of North Kawartha

Roll Number(s): 1536-020-001-52800-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3253665 and 3292986

Taxation Year(s): 2017 and 2018

Hearing Event No.: 701175

Legislative Authority: Rule 123 of the Assessment Review Board Rules of Practice and Procedure

Request for: A review of the Board’s Decision WR 153844, issued on October 10, 2018

Heard: By written submission

Parties, Representative, Submissions

Scott Rose Self-represented Requester

MPAC No one appeared Not Requested

Township of North Kawartha No one appeared Not Requested

DECISION DELIVERED BY PAUL MULDOON AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

INTRODUCTION

1Scott Rose seeks a review of the decision of this Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) in Rose v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 07, 2018 CanLII 96149 (ON ARB). This Request for Review was filed with the Board on October 18, 2018.

2Mr. Rose raises a number of concerns with the evidence presented to the Board by MPAC, and the Decision’s reliance on that evidence. Those arguments do not satisfy the Board that the Decision contains any significant error of fact or law that would have changed the outcome. Mr. Rose’s request is, therefore, dismissed.

ISSUES AND ORDER SOUGHT

3Mr. Rose sets out 15 alleged factual errors in the material MPAC presented to the Board, including errors in lot measurements, quality of construction ratings, and property descriptions. He argues that the Decision is flawed because it relied on MPAC’s sales data.

4Mr. Rose also asserts that equity was in dispute but was not dealt with in the Decision.

RELEVANT RULES

5Review requests must meet the procedural requirements of Rule 120 before they are considered. There are no procedural concerns with Mr. Rose’s 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.

6If 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.

FACTUAL ERRORS

7Mr. Rose’s primary complaints are with the material MPAC submitted to the Board. While he also complains that the Decision used that data, he does not allege that the Decision applied the wrong legal test, or made any calculation errors. The Decision states, at paragraph 26, that Mr. Rose “was able to indicate clearly where MPAC had made errors in its description of the lands.” That is, these issues were clearly raised at the hearing and live issues in the Decision.

8Mr. Rose’s main complaint appears to be that the Decision did not accept his evidence over MPAC’s. The weight given to evidence is a core duty of each Member of this Board. A party’s preference for a different weighing of the evidence does not amount to a significant error by the Board. There is nothing in the Decision that indicates that the evidence was handled in anything but a careful and proper manner. The Board must work with the evidence that is presented to it. While MPAC could have presented better evidence, the Decision is not in error for using the best evidence provided by the parties. The Decision makes this point at paragraph 28: “unless there is a complete absence of relevant evidence, the Board is required to use the best evidence presented, both verbally and in documents, to make a finding of current value.”

EQUITY

9Mr. Rose’s second main argument is that he was arguing for an equitable assessment. He therefore says that the Decision is in error when it states, at paragraph 5, that “Mr. Rose did not assert that an equitable reduction is required.”

10Mr. Rose argues that he raised the assessment of another property, at 35 Butler Drive, in arguing for an equitable assessment of $202,000. The Decision addressed that property, at paragraph 25, noting that Mr. Rose “provided no details about this possible comparable property.” Mr. Rose did not indicate any other equity argument in this request for review.

11The Board is not satisfied that the Decision was in error in finding that equity was not in dispute.

ORDER

12Mr. Rose’s request for review is denied.