Bock v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2018 CanLII 58333

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: June 26, 2018

FILE NO.: RRD 2018M06

Assessed Persons: Barbara Mae Connolly and Warren Harold Bock

Appellant: Warren Harold Bock and Barbara Mae Connolly

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

Respondents: City of Peterborough

Property Location: 301 Carnegie Avenue, Unit 65

Municipality: City of Peterborough

Roll Number: 1514-060-007-07893-0000

Appeal Number: 3200176

Taxation Year: 2017

Hearing Event No.: 689894

Legislative Authority: Rule 120 of the Assessment Review Board Rules of Practice and Procedure, as amended

Request for: A review of the Board’s Decision WR 149642 issued on January 18, 2018

Heard: By written submission

Parties

Representative

Submissions

Warren Harold Bock

Self-represented

Requester

DECISION DELIVERED BY PAUL MULDOON AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

INTRODUCTION

1Warren Harold Bock requests a review of the decision of Member Bourassa (the “Member”) in WR 149642, issued on January 18, 2018 (the “Decision”). Mr. Bock submits that the Member failed to properly consider the issue of double taxation. That issue was raised before the Member. The Member held that the Board had no jurisdiction to address the alleged double taxation. Mr. Bock has raised no error of law or fact in the Decision on that issue. Mr. Bock`s submissions do not rise to any of the grounds for review set out in Rule 121. Mr. Bock’s request is therefore dismissed, without the need for submissions from the other parties.

2Mr. Bock is attempting to re-argue an issue that was put before the Presiding Member. A review is not a re-hearing of the appeal. A review is limited to the grounds set out in Rule 121 of the Assessment Review Board Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”). When none of those grounds are squarely addressed by a requester, the review should be dismissed. Mr. Bock has not raised any ground for review, therefore Mr. Bock’s request is dismissed.

ISSUES AND ORDER SOUGHT

3The only issue raised by Mr. Bock is that his property should not be taxed the same as other properties in the City of Peterborough because it is not serviced by the City in the same way as other properties. He frames this as double taxation. He is seeking to have the Decision cancelled on that basis.

RELEVANT RULES

4Requests for Review of Assessment Review Board decisions are governed by Rules 120 through 123 of the Board’s Rules. Reviews will only be granted if the Board is satisfied that one of the grounds listed in Rule 121 are met. Rule 121 states:

Grounds for Review

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.

5The only clause under which Mr. Bock’s submissions could be said to fall is clause (b): “the Board made a significant error of law or fact such that the Board would likely have reached a different conclusion.”

DISCUSSION AND REASONS

6Mr. Bock’s property is a semi-detached residential condominium in a development where the common property includes major utility services that are usually provided by the municipality. Those utilities include electricity, water, sewage, street lighting, and roads. Mr. Bock argues that it is unfair to assess his property at the same level as other properties because he does not receive the same services from the City. He also argues that paying condominium fees for those services amounts to a tax, so paying the municipal taxes on a full assessment is double taxation.

7The Presiding Member summarized this very submission from Mr. Bock’s at paragraph 24 of the Decision. The Member held, at paragraph 38, that “the Board has no jurisdiction to establish a specific tax class for condominium properties or determine the assessment for a given taxation year as a percentage of the CVA.” The Presiding Member made no error of law or fact in reaching that conclusion.

8Section 19.(1) of the Assessment Act, RSO 1990, c. A.31 states explicitly that “the assessment of land shall be based on its current value.” Mr. Bock does not take issue with the current value determined in the Decision. Instead, he argues that it should be reduced by 17% on the basis of his condominium fees. The Presiding Member is correct that there is no provision in the Assessment Act to alter the assessment of a condominium on the basis of the fee levied by the condominium corporation. Condominium units, like nearly all other property in Ontario, is assessed at its current value.

9Mr. Bock submitted Schickedanz Bros. Ltd. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp. Region No. 14, [2010] O.A.R.B.D. No. 682 in support of his position. That case does not help his position. In that case Member Wyger found that a recreation centre owned by a condominium corporation had easements over it in favour of the residential units in the condominium. Pursuant to s. 9 of the Assessment Act, the value of easements is added to the dominant tenement and removed from the servient tenement. Member Wyger found that the recreation centre had an assessed value of zero because all of the value should be added to the residential units in the condominium.

10Member Wyger found that the value of the recreation center was reflected in an increased sale price of each residential unit. That is, the market value of the residential units reflected the value of the common property that came with those units. Member Wyger found that it to be double taxation to also assess the recreation centre. In Mr. Bock’s case, there is no indication of double taxation. There is no evidence that the common property of Mr. Bock’s condominium corporation has been separately assessed, which would be the only basis for double taxation arising from Member Wyger’s decision.

11The Member was obliged, pursuant to s. 44(3)(a) of the Assessment Act, to determine that current value and did so. Mr. Bock is not contesting the current value findings made by the Member. He is arguing that he ought not to be assessed at that current value because his condominium includes certain types of common property. There is nothing in the Assessment Act that permits a lower assessment for condominiums with more elaborate common property. Mr. Bock has not raised any error of law or fact in the Decision.

ORDER

12Mr. Bock’s request to review the Decision is dismissed.