Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: September 05, 2018
Assessed Persons: Douglas Rodger Barnard and Kathleen Fay Barnard
Appellants: Douglas Rodger Barnard and Kathleen Fay Barnard
Respondent: Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 04
Respondent: Town of Laurentian Hills
Property Location: 90 Mielkes Road
Municipality: Town of Laurentian Hills
Roll Number: 4792-092-015-20425-0000
Appeal Number: 3207858 and 3292218 (deemed appeal)
Taxation Year: 2017 and 2018 (deemed 2018 appeal)
Hearing Event No. 697271
Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended
Heard: April 6, 2018 in Deep River, Ontario
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Representative |
|---|---|
| Douglas Rodger Barnard | Self-represented |
| MPAC | Tina Jamieson |
| Town of Laurentian Hills | No one appeared |
DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY SCOTT McANSH
1The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) uses a computer driven multiple regression model to assign values to all properties in Ontario. However, when MPAC appears before this Assessment Review Board (“Board”) it is required to prove “the correctness of the current value of the land.” Simply providing a value calculated using the model is insufficient. MPAC is required to provide some evidence that, if believed, supports its opinion of the current value. They have not done so here.
2This is an appeal by Douglas Barnard of his property, located at 90 Miekles Road in the Town of Laurentian Hills. The property is 10 acres and contains a large house built in 1979. It was assessed at $513,000 for both the 2017 and 2018 taxation years. MPAC is recommending that the property be assessed at $456,000 for both taxation years, but have not provided evidence that can support that value. Mr. Barnard is recommending that the property be assessed at something less than that amount based on the value MPAC’s model has assigned to his land being too high.
3Neither party has provided sufficient evidence for me to determine that any particular current value is more likely than not. I therefore reduce the assessments to the last uncontested assessment, which is the $460,000 that was returned to the assessment roll for the 2016 taxation year. I reduce the assessment for the 2017 and 2018 taxation year from $513,000 to $460,000.
Legislation
4Subsection 40(17) of the Assessment Act, RSO 1990, c A.31 (the “Act”) places the burden of proof on MPAC to prove the correctness of the current value. Clause 44(3)(a) of the Act requires the Board to “determine the current value of the land.” Current value is defined in section 1 as “the amount of money the fee simple, if unencumbered, would realize if sold at arm’s length by a willing seller to a willing buyer.” That is, I must determine what the subject property would have sold for in an arm’s length transaction on the relevant valuation day, set pursuant to [section 19.3](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-199