Faurecia Automotive Seating Canada Ltd. v. Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury, 2018 CanLII 1904

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

January 17, 2018

FILE NO.:

WR148794

Assessed Person(s):

Faurecia Automotive Seating

Appellant(s):

Faurecia Automotive Seating Canada Ltd.; Medreleaf Corp.

Respondent(s):

Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury

Respondent(s):

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region No. 16

Property Location(s):

100 Reagens Industrial Parkway

Municipality(ies):

Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury

Roll Number(s):

4312-020-005-17202-0000

Appeal Number(s):

3143504

Taxation Year(s):

2016

Hearing Event No.

676168

Legislative Authority:

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

Heard:

September 26, 2017 in Barrie, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Representative

Faurecia Automotive Seating Canada Ltd.

Chaney Morkill and Sehaj Gill

Medreleaf Corp.

James Brook

MPAC

David Zhao

Town of Bradford West Qwillmbury

Victoria Gowans

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY VINCENT STABILE

INTRODUCTION

1The subject property comprises a large industrial building which has had various improvements from 1999 – 2008 and 10.97 acres of land. The property was sold and a transfer of title was registered on July 18, 2016 for a total consideration of $8,750,000.

2The appeal under consideration is for 2016 taxation year. The assessed value returned by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) for the 2016 taxation year is $10,781,000. Both the assessed corporation, Faurecia Automotive Seating Canada Ltd. (“Faurecia”) and the new owner, Medreleaf Corp. (“Medreleaf”) appeal on the basis that the assessed value is too high. No issue was raised at the hearing in respect to the classification of the property.

ISSUE

3The issue to be determined is the correct current value of the property for the 2016 taxation year.

DECISION

4The issue was resolved by way of the Appellants and Municipality’s settlement where it was agreed that the correct current value for the 2016 taxation year is $9,250,000.The Assessment Review Board (“Board”) accepted the settlement proposed by the Appellants and the Municipality at the agreed upon current value of $9,250,000.

PRELIMINARY MOTIONS

MPAC’s Motion to dismiss

5At the opening of the hearing, David Zhao, acting both as advocate and assessor for MPAC, made a motion to dismiss the appeal on the basis that the Appellants had failed to provide disclosure.

6Upon inquiry, it was determined that Faurecia had served a Statement of Issues (“SOI”) on MPAC on August 28, 2017 and Medreleaf had served its disclosure documents on MPAC on September 5, 2017.

7Based on the SOI served by Faurecia and the disclosure of Medreleaf, there was no merit in the motion from MPAC, accordingly the motion was denied.

Medreleaf’s Motion for Party Status

8Upon the disposition of the motion by MPAC, Mr. Brook made an oral motion for status on behalf of Medreleaf, the new owner of the subject property. There was no substantive opposition by any of the other parties. Status was granted as Medreleaf was the new owner of the subject property and has a direct interest in the outcome of this appeal.

MPAC’s Request for Adjournment

9Upon status being granted to Medreleaf, Mr. Zhao representing MPAC, requested an adjournment of the hearing, indicating that he was not ready to procced with the hearing as he had been away on vacation and had returned about four days prior to the hearing.

10The adjournment request was opposed by the Appellants as well as the Municipality, all stating that there had been ongoing settlement discussions among themselves and other assessors/representatives from MPAC.

11The Board considered the submissions of the parties. Moreover it considered the provisions of Rules 83 and 84 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure including, but not limited to the fact that MPAC was sent a notice of hearing, had received disclosure, that there was no evidence that MPAC had made reasonable efforts to avoid the adjournment, and the lack of timeliness of the adjournment request. The Board found that MPAC had not met any of the criteria set out in those rules.

12The request for an adjournment was denied.

EVIDENCE

MPAC

13The hearing proceeded. Mr. Zhao was invited to present his evidence on behalf of MPAC.

14Mr. Zhao advised the Board that he had no evidence to present. Further, he advised that no disclosure documents had been served by MPAC on the appellants. MPAC had failed to meet it onus under the Assessment Act to support the assessment as returned.

Appellants’ Evidence

15The Board received in evidence two sets of documents from Mr. Brook, on behalf of Medreleaf. The first set, marked Exhibit 1, consisted of a duly executed Agreement of Purchase and Sale between Faurecia and Medreleaf dated April 11, 2016; a letter dated June 27, 2016 between lawyers for the purchaser and vendor representing an amending agreement; authorizations and directions; a Transfer of title registered July 18, 2016 showing a consideration of $8,750,000. The second set, marked Exhibit #2, was a print-out from MPAC titled ICI Commercial / Industrial Report dated September 2, 2017, setting out particulars of sale of the subject property.

16Mr. Morkill, on behalf of Faurecia advised that he would be relying on the Medreleaf productions and evidence.

SETTLEMENT

17More importantly, Mr. Morkill advised that the Appellants together with the Municipality (which was represented by an independent paralegal firm), had reached an settlement agreement but had been unable to secure the consent of MPAC.

18[19 Mr. Zhao was invited to consult with Ms. Gowans, the paralegal for the Municipality, as well as any other individual at MPAC to clarify any issues pertaining to the proposed settlement.

19MPAC took no position on the settlement.

CONCLUSION

20The Board was advised that the settlement agreed between the Appellant and the Municipality to for the 2016 taxation year was $9,250.000. The settlement was accepted by the Board.