Smith v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2018 CanLII 35053

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: April 19, 2018

FILE NO.: DM 151642

Moving Party(ies): Appellants: William Davies Smith Jean Helen Smith and William Davies Smith

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 16

Respondent(s): Town of Midland

Property Location(s): 17111 Highway 12

Municipality(ies): Town of Midland

Roll Number(s): 4374-010-011-75500-000

Appeal Number(s): 3251272

Taxation Year(s): 2017

Hearing Event No.: 696064

Legislative Authority: Rule 47 of the Assessment Review Board, Rules of Practice and Procedures

Heard: March 16, 2018 in writing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
William Davies Smith	Self-represented
MPAC	David Zhao
Town of Midland	No one appeared

DISPOSITION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY MARCELLE BOURASSA

MOTION

1Jean Helen Smith and William Davies Smith (the “Appellants”) have appealed the assessment of the Subject Property, a single family detached property located at 17111 Highway 12, in the Town of Midland, for the 2017 taxation year.

2William Smith, on behalf of the Appellants, brings a Motion seeking disclosure of all relevant documents in MPAC’s possession and control.

3By Notice of Motion dated February 14, 2018, Mr. Smith (the “Moving Party”) requested an Order of the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) compelling MPAC to disclose the following:

a) A proper map defining the boundaries of the homogeneous area in which the Subject Property is located and a pointer locating each of the six properties that MPAC claims to be comparable and identifying each by number 1 through 6.

b) A copy of the list or excel spreadsheet of all assessments in the homogeneous area.

c) A copy of all the Property Assessment Detail (“PAD”) sheets for each of the properties in the above list or excel spreadsheet.

d) A copy of MPAC’s inspection report of the Subject Property.

e) A copy of MPAC’s inspection reports for any and all other properties listed in the excel spreadsheet in the homogeneous area.

f) A list of all properties in the homogeneous area that received reductions by the Request for Reconsideration process, minutes of settlement or orders of the Board as a result of 2016 appeals and the reasons for the reductions.

4The Moving Party also asks that full disclosure of all relevant documents in the Respondent’s possession and control to be made within 30 days of the hearing of the motion or such other time limit as the Board may deem appropriate.

5In Response to the Notice of Motion, MPAC, represented by David Zhao, submits that MPAC has provided much of the information requested. Mr. Zhao states as follows in the Response to the Appellant’s Notice of Motion (“Response”):

a) MPAC has produced the information sought in item (a). MPAC has already produced maps on May 12, October 20 and November 17, 2017. MPAC’s disclosure was sent to Mr. Smith on December 20, 2017 and also included a map with MPAC’s six comparables identified and numbered. Copies of the documents produced by MPAC are attached as Exhibits 1, 2, 3 and 4 to the affidavit of Darren Manuel filed in support of MPAC’s Response.

b) MPAC agrees to produce assessment information for all residential properties, but only within the homogeneous neighbourhood T15. A copy of the spreadsheet with information pertaining to the eight residential properties as produced by MPAC is attached as Exhibit 6 to the affidavit of Mr. Manuel. It is MPAC’s positon that the assessment information of other types of properties is irrelevant, as the Subject Property is a single family dwelling.

c) MPAC agrees to produce PAD sheets for all residential properties only within homogeneous neighbourhood T15. Copies of the PAD sheets for the eight residential properties are attached as Exhibit 6 to the affidavit of Mr. Manuel. MPAC does not agree that it is required to produce PAD sheets for other types of properties in the homogeneous neighbourhood T15.

d) MPAC states that a copy of MPAC’s inspection report for the Subject Property does not exist and therefore cannot be produced. Mr. Manuel states in his affidavit that the Subject Property was last inspected in April 2013 and that there was no inspection report.

e) MPAC states that inspection reports for all other residential properties in homogeneous neighbourhood T15 do not exist and therefore cannot be produced. Mr. Manuel also states in his affidavit that the other residential properties are either vacant land or have not been inspected in the last three years.

f) MPAC has produced information regarding the residential properties in homogeneous neighbourhood T15 that have received reductions by the Request for Reconsideration (“RfR”) process as a result of an RfR filed for the 2016 current value assessment and the reasons for the reductions.

DISPOSITION OF MOTION

6The Board orders that:

a) MPAC shall provide a larger version of the map, in paper form, and to clearly indicate the location of the Subject Property and to clearly highlight the area boundaries of homogeneous neighbourhood T15.

b) MPAC shall confirm the area boundaries (north, south, east and west) of homogenous neighbourhood T15 in writing by street name (and alternate names such as Heritage Drive, as appropriate) so that the boundaries are clearly identified.

c) MPAC shall provide a larger version of the map, in paper form, that clearly shows the location of the six MPAC comparable properties in their respective homogeneous neighbourhoods, if applicable.

d) MPAC shall provide this disclosure to the Appellants no later than 30 days after the release of this Order.

e) Parties are to complete exchange of disclosure within 45 days after the release of this Order.

f) Within 60 days after the release of this Order, the parties are to schedule and complete a mandatory settlement meeting to attempt to resolve the appeal among themselves and MPAC, on behalf of the parties, shall file a Mandatory Meeting Form with the Board.

g) Where a hearing has been requested, the parties must file with the Board all documents and any written submissions which they will rely on at the hearing no later than two weeks after the due date for filing the Mandatory Meeting Form.

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION OF MOTION

7The relevant rules of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”) are:

45 - Disclosure

All parties must provide a copy, in paper or electronic form, of all relevant documents in their possession, control or power to all other parties in the proceeding, except for privileged documents.

Board Order for Discovery

47. A party may seek an order from the Board, by motion, ordering…:

(c) any other method of discovery, including inspections of property.

8This Motion was heard in writing pursuant to Rule 65 of the Board’s Rules.

9The Board has considered the Moving Party’s Notice of Motion, dated February 14, 2018 and Motion Record, MPAC’s Response to the Notice of Motion dated March 2, 2018 and the supporting affidavit of Mr. Manuel dated March 2, 2018 and attached Exhibits and the Moving Party’s Reply to MPAC’s Response to Motion dated March 8, 2018.

(a) A proper map defining the boundaries of the homogeneous area in which the Subject Property is located and a pointer locating each of the six properties that MPAC claims to be comparable and identifying each by number

10The Board has examined the two maps provided by MPAC, which indicate the boundaries of homogeneous area T15 in which the Subject Property is located, and show the location of the Subject Property and six comparable properties. The Board finds the two maps are not very helpful and virtually unintelligible. These maps are copies of computer screen shots of Google maps (without the assistance of a zoom feature), which are not helpful. The Board finds that the boundaries of homogeneous area T15 are not visible or clearly defined on the maps produced. The Board orders MPAC to provide a larger version of the map, in paper form, and to clearly indicate the location of the Subject Property and six comparable properties and clearly highlight the area boundaries of homogeneous neighbourhood T15. The Board also orders MPAC to confirm the area boundaries (north, south, east and west) of homogenous neighbourhood T15 in writing by street name (and alternate names such as Heritage Drive, as appropriate) so that the boundaries are clearly identified.

11Furthermore, it appears from the Board’s review of the map and information provided in MPAC’s disclosure on December 20, 2017, that some of MPAC’s comparable properties may be located in different homogeneous neighbourhoods than the Subject Property. While MPAC may argue at the hearing that it found it necessary to expand the neighbourhood in order to find a suitable number of comparable properties, the Board finds that the map showing the location of these comparable properties is not helpful and virtually unintelligible. The Board orders MPAC to provide a larger version of the map, in paper form, that clearly shows the location of the six MPAC comparable properties in their respective homogeneous neighbourhoods, if applicable.

(b) A copy of the list or excel spreadsheet of all property assessments in the homogeneous area

12In MPAC’s Response, Mr. Zhao states that MPAC agrees to produce assessment information for all residential properties only within homogeneous area T15. A copy of the spreadsheet summarizing the roll numbers, addresses, property codes, property types, 2016 Current Value Assessments, zoning and neighbourhood for the eight residential properties (including the Subject Property) has been provided by MPAC. It is MPAC’s position that the assessment information of other types of properties is irrelevant. The Board has considered that this appeal concerns a property classified in the residential property class and finds, based on the Motion materials, that the production of assessments for other properties located in homogeneous area T15 and classified in other property classes is not relevant to the issues on this appeal. They would not be used in a comparable sales analysis. Therefore, the Board finds that MPAC has complied with the Moving Party’s production request. The request for the production of assessment information for properties in other property classes within homogeneous area T15 is denied.

(c) A copy of all of the PAD sheets for each of the properties in the above list or excel spreadsheet

13MPAC has produced PAD sheets for all residential properties only within homogeneous neighbourhood T15. As this appeal concerns a property in the residential property class, the Board finds that the production of PAD sheets for other properties located in homogeneous area T15 and classified in other property classes is not relevant to the issues on this appeal. Therefore, the request for the production of PAD sheets for properties in other property classes within homogeneous area T15 is denied. The Board finds that MPAC has otherwise complied with the Moving Party’s production request.

(d) A copy of MPAC’s inspection report of the Subject Property

14Mr. Manuel states in his affidavit that the Subject Property was last inspected in April 2013 by a now retired assessor for the purpose of reviewing the Moving Party’s Request for Reconsideration, but he only inspected the exterior and did not prepare an inspection report. Based on the Motion materials before the Board, the Board will not speculate that MPAC has deliberately sent the Moving Party on a ”wild goose chase” or find “a lack of candor” on the part of MPAC, as suggested in his Reply to MPAC’s Response to Motion. The Moving Party asserts that MPAC had previously directed him to obtain inspection reports for the Subject Property through an access to information request. The Board will not order MPAC to produce an “Affidavit of documents” raised by the Moving Party in his Reply to MPAC’s Response. Based on the Motion materials before the Board, the request for the production of the Subject Property’s inspection report is denied as none appear to exist.

(e) A copy of MPAC’s inspection reports for any and all other properties listed in the excel spreadsheet in the homogeneous area

15Mr. Manuel states in his affidavit that, of the seven remaining residential properties in homogenous neighborhood T15, four are vacant and three have not been inspected within the last three years. Based on the Motion materials before the Board, no inspection reports appear to exist in the time frame relevant to establishing the 2016 current value assessment of the Subject Property. Therefore, the request for the production of the remaining residential properties in homogeneous neighbourhood T15 is denied. Furthermore, as this appeal concerns a property in the residential property class, the Board finds that the production of inspection sheets for other properties located in homogeneous area T15 and classified in other property classes is not relevant to the issues on this appeal. Therefore, the request for the production of inspection reports for properties in other property classes within homogeneous area T15 is denied. Consequently, the Board finds that MPAC has otherwise complied with this production request.

(f) A list of all properties in the homogeneous area that received reductions by the Request for Reconsideration process, minutes of settlement or orders of the Board as a result of 2016 appeals and the reasons for the reductions

16Mr. Manuel states in his affidavit that MPAC has produced information regarding the residential properties (the Subject Property and 731 Kirk Street), both located in homogeneous neighbourhood T15, whose assessments were reduced in the RfR process as a result of a review of their 2016 current value assessments and the reasons for the reductions. The 2016 current value assessment for 749 King Street was confirmed. Again, as this appeal concerns a property in the residential property class, the Board finds that the production of a list of properties in other property classes in homogeneous neighbourhood T15 where assessments have been reduced and the reasons for the reductions is not relevant to the issues on this appeal. Therefore, the Board finds that MPAC has complied with the Moving Party’s production request. The request for the production of a list of properties in other property classes in homogeneous area T15 that have received reductions and the reasons for the reductions are denied.