Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: January 18, 2018

FILE NO.: DM 2018M01

Moving Party: Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”), Region 19

Respondent: Nadiya Lopatina, Vladyslav Strashko

Respondent: City of Hamilton

Property Location: 41 Beverly Glen Drive

Municipality: City of Hamilton

Roll Number: 2518-301-140-05633-0000

Appeal Number: 3200367

Taxation Year: 2017

Legislative Authority: Rule 47(c) of the Assessment Review Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, as amended

Heard: In writing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
MPAC	Kyle Duncan
Nadiya Lopatina, Vladyslav Strashko	Vladyslav Strashko
City of Hamilton	No one appeared

DISPOSITION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY SCOTT McANSH

DISPOSITION OF MOTION

1MPAC seeks an order for an inspection of 41 Beverly Glen Drive in the City of Hamilton (the “property”). MPAC’s request is based on the length of time since the last inspection, the quality of construction of the property, and a suspicion of business activity at the property. Vladyslav Strashko opposes the motion on the basis that MPAC has not met the legal test for an inspection order and that this motion amounts to a “fishing expedition.”

2I agree that MPAC has not met the test for an inspection. The motion for an inspection is therefore dismissed. MPAC is ordered to provide disclosure to Mr. Strashko and the City of Hamilton within 10 days from the issue date of this motion.

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION OF MOTION

3Mr. Strashko and his wife purchased the property on December 15, 2014. They objected to the assessment of the property for 2017 taxation because it was $92,000 more than the purchase price they had paid just over a year before the valuation date of January 1, 2016. They filed a Request for Reconsideration (“RfR”) with MPAC on July 7, 2016.

4MPAC requested, by phone, an inspection of the property shortly after the RfR was filed, on July 18, 2016. Mr. Strashko asked that MPAC send the reasons for the inspection to him in writing, but did not receive anything further from MPAC at that time. This appeal was filed on November 23, 2016, after the request for review process had run its course. It was not until December 14, 2017 that MPAC made a written request for an inspection. Mr. Strashko denied the inspection request the next day, stating that MPAC had failed to provide a reasonable rationale for the inspection. This motion was filed a short time later.

5This Board recently set out the law relating to inspections in Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region No. 16 v Melnikova, 2017 CanLII 81711 at para. 4. Requests for an inspection must set out how the inspection will help resolve a specific dispute, must be made in a timely way, and should be attempted on consent before a motion is filed.

6MPAC argues that an inspection is necessary for three reasons: (1) the property was last inspected in November of 1987; (2) Mr. Strashko has put the quality of construction in issue; and (3) Mr. Strashko may be operating a business out of the property, which would change the tax classification. I do not see any merit in those reasons.

7The length of time since a property was last inspected cannot be the basis for an inspection order. There is no schedule on which property should be inspected. MPAC has been granted a broad power to inspect property, for the purposes of roll return, in s.10 of the Assessment Act. If MPAC feels the need to inspect property at regular intervals, the legislature has provided it with a tool to do so. But that remedy is not available once an appeal has been filed with this Board.

8The quality of construction is a physical characteristic that can be the basis for an inspection, but the primary dispute here appears to be about the sale of the property, not its construction. MPAC suggests that because Mr. Strashko compared his home to homes with a lower quality of the construction he has put the condition of the property in issue. Mr. Strashko denies that the quality of construction is in dispute. Rather, he says that any comparisons made to lower quality properties were to the price increases of other property over time. The comparisons were not to the other buildings per se. I agree that quality of construction does not appear to be a core issue in dispute in this appeal. Nor has MPAC provided any specific rationale on why the quality class it has assigned to the property might be wrong. An inspection is not justified on the quality of construction because that issue is not truly in dispute.

9The last of MPACs arguments is that there may be a business operating from the property. They indicate that the Law Society of Upper Canada website shows the property to be Mr. Strashkos business address. Mr. Strashko explained that he lists his home address with the Law Society so that former clients can contact him if necessary. He is now employed full time with a law firm in the City of Toronto and does not operate a legal practice from the property. The evidence in this motion is clear that there is no business being operated from the property. An inspection will not add anything to that assessment. The home business argument was only raised in this motion, and appears to be an attempt to expand the issues in dispute for the sole purpose of securing an inspection order. I will not order an inspection when it will not yield any useful information around a topic that does not appear to truly be in dispute.

10MPAC has not provided any compelling, specific, issue that an inspection will help resolve. The motion fails on that basis alone. I also note that this request was not made in a timely way and would be denied on that basis as well. MPAC first requested an inspection of the property by phone in July 2016. Mr. Strashko, quite reasonably, asked that the request be put in writing, with reasons. That was only done a year after this appeal was filed. MPAC knew that it wanted an inspection well before this appeal was even filed, but did not request this inspection again until its disclosure deadline was fast approaching. It is relying on this motion to delay its disclosure obligations. Such a lengthy delay should not be permitted.

11MPAC should bring inspection motions as soon as it forms the intention to inspect land. MPAC is also obligated to seek consent before bringing the motion, but here consent was not truly sought until December 2017, over a year after the appeal was filed. An 18 month delay between an intention to inspect and seeking consent is unreasonable. Such a delay is prejudicial to Mr. Strashko, and the Board`s process, in delaying the processing of this appeal.

12This motion appears to be a fishing expedition. I was presented with no concrete way an inspection will benefit the litigation of this appeal. The timing of the motion also undermines the processing of the appeal. The motion is denied and MPAC is ordered to provide disclosure to Mr. Strashko and the City of Hamilton within 10 days from the issue date of this motion.