409315 Ontario Ltd. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2018 CanLII 84480

Assessment Review Board / Commission de révision de l'évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: September 07, 2018

FILE NO.: RD 2018M09

Assessed Person(s): 409315 Ontario Ltd.

Appellant(s): 409315 Ontario Ltd.

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation ("MPAC") Region 23

Respondent(s): Township of Zorra

Property Location(s): 92359 Road 92

Municipality(ies): Township of Zorra

Roll Number(s): 3227-013-050-00400-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3058627, 3091345, 3158362 and 3171706

Taxation Year(s): 2014, 2015 and 2016

Hearing Event No.: 701690

Legislative Authority: Rule 123 of the Assessment Review Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, as amended

Request for: A review of the Board's Decision WR 141744 issued on November 25, 2016

Heard: July 13, 2018 by teleconference call

Parties	Counsel+/Representative	Submissions
MPAC	Calvin Ho+	Requester
Township of Zorra	Kelly Hall	Received
409315 Ontario Ltd.	No one appeared	Not Received

DECISION DELIVERED BY SCOTT McANSH AND JEAN-PAUL PILON AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

INTRODUCTION

1MPAC applies to have a decision of the Assessment Review Board (the "Board") varied because it contains significant errors. The Board issued written reasons WR 141744 (the "Decision") on November 25, 2016. The Decision addressed the 2014, 2015, and 2016 assessment appeals of the property located at 92359 Road 92 in the Township of Zorra. Those appeals were filed by 409315 Ontario Ltd (the "Company").

2MPAC wrote to the Board after the Decision was issued, on December 20, 2016, indicating the Decision might contain "a technical or typographical error, error in calculation or similar minor error made in a decision or order" which required correction to "clarify a misstatement, ambiguity or similar problem" pursuant to Rule 130 of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure (the "Rules") then in force. The Member who had heard the appeal disagreed and it was determined that the request should instead be made in the form of a request for review, pursuant to current Rule 120.

3MPAC submitted a formal request for review of the Decision on February 26, 2018, and the request was heard by way of an oral motion by teleconference on July 13, 2018. The Company did not attend the motion hearing or file any written submissions on the motion. A representative of the Township of Zorra attended the hearing but took no positon on the motion.

THE ISSUE

4The issue before us is whether the Decision contains "a significant error of law or fact" in its reduction of the current value assessment of the property from $10,033,000 to $8,561,000 for the 2016 taxation year.

Background

5The property was assessed at $8,673,000 for the 2014 taxation year. That assessment was appealed by the Company as being too high. In October 2015, after the 2014 appeal was filed, MPAC inspected the property and determined that there had been improvements to the property that had not been taken into account in the assessed value of the land. MPAC also discovered, during that inspection, that a portion of the property, used as a 72 unit land lease retirement community, could only be used 11 months of the year due to a legal restriction.

6To address both the improvements and the reduced use of the retirement community, MPAC issued a correction to the assessment pursuant to subsection 32(1.1) of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31. That subsection lets "the assessment corporation… at any time during the taxation year, correct any error in the assessment or classification of a property that has resulted from incorrect factual information about the property." That correction returned a new value of $10,033,000 to the assessment roll. The notice of that correction was issued on May 22, 2016 and the roll was amended effective January 1, 2016. That new value replaced the $8,673,000 that was returned to the assessment roll.

7There was a deemed appeal of the $8,673,000 returned to the roll for the 2016 taxation year pursuant to subsection 40(26) of the Act because the Board has not disposed of the 2015 appeal by March 31, 2016. However, the appeal of that amount became moot when that value was replaced with $10,033,000 through MPAC's notice of correction. The deemed 2016 taxation year appeal, appeal number 3158362, should not have been considered in the Decision, and we will not consider it, because it was replaced by MPAC's notice. The only meaningful appeal for the 2016 taxation year is appeal number 3171706, and it is the way the Decision addressed that appeal that is under review.

8MPAC stated that the correction was only for the 2016 taxation year because they had no evidence of when the improvements to the property took place. The assessments for the 2014 and 2015 taxation year were not altered.

9The Decision acknowledges the higher assessed value for the 2016 taxation year at paragraph 3, although it lists only the taxable portion of the assessment, which is $10,015,365. The Decision also acknowledged that "the result of the inspection was a value in excess of $10,000,000" at paragraph 19, and that an increase in value "is supported by the results of the inspection" at paragraph 20. The Decision correctly states that "MPAC is not seeking an increase to the returned value" at paragraph 19. The Decision then reduced the 2014, 2015, and 2016 taxation year assessments all to $8,561,000, including the corrected 2016 assessment.

Rules

10MPAC argues that we should vary the Decision to the extent that it purports to reduce the assessment for the 2016 taxation year. They apply pursuant to Rule 121(b), which states that the Board will not grant a review request "unless the Board is satisfied that…the Board made a significant error of law or fact such that the Board likely would have reached a different decision." Rule 123(c)(i) states that we may "confirm, vary, or cancel the decision" after the considering the request.

11MPAC is seeking an order varying the Decision's disposition of the 2016 taxation year because the Decision contains a significant error of law or fact. They argue that the 2016 taxation year assessment of $10,033,000 should be confirmed.

DECISION

12We find that the Decision contains a significant error of law that would have led to a different decision. The error is clear and can be corrected. There is no need to order a new hearing. We therefore vary the Decision to confirm the assessment on the assessment roll of the 2016 taxation year.

13The Decision addressed three taxation years: 2014, 2015, and 2016. The value on the roll for the 2014 and 2015 taxation years was $8,673,000 and MPAC had corrected the 2016 taxation year assessment to $10,033,000. The Decision correctly states that MPAC was not seeking to increase any of those values, see paragraph 19.

14The Decision finds that the correction to the 2016 assessment included both a number of improvements, set out in paragraph 14, and a reduction for the land use restrictions on the retirement community, see paragraph 15. The Decision disagrees with MPAC that the 2016 changes could not be considered for the 2014 and 2015 taxation years. Specifically, the Decision found that the land use limitations should be reflected in the value for the other tax years, and calculated that the limitation reduced the value by $112,000, see paragraph 22. MPAC does not challenge that determination.

15The Decision then calculates the current value to be $8,561,000 and applied that value to all three taxation years, see paragraph 25. The Decision applied that value appropriately to the 2014 and 2015 taxation years. But the Decision had already found that MPAC had included that adjustment in the 2016 corrected assessment, so applying that reduction to the 2016 taxation year was a significant error. Applying the $112,000 to the 2016 taxation year effectively applied that land use reduction twice. Further, the Decision does not provide any other reasons for reducing the value of the property. There was therefore no basis on which to reduce the 2016 assessment at all and it was a significant error for the Decision to do so.

16The error in the Decision is only for the 2016 taxation year. The correct value for the 2016 taxation year is clear when the Decision is read as a whole. There would be nothing gained from rehearing these appeals. We therefore vary the Decision to correct the assessment for the 2016 taxation year.

CONCLUSION

17We find that there is a significant error the Decision in reducing the value of the property for the 2016 taxation year. We therefore vary the Decision and find that the value for the 2016 taxation year is $10,033,000, apportioned as:

$9,912,820 in the residential property class;

$102,545 in the commercial property class; and

$17,635 exempt conservation land.