Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: February 14, 2019

FILE NO.: WR 154594

Assessed Person(s): Rudolf Josef Meyer; Marlise Althaus

Appellant(s): Rudolf Josef Meyer; Marlise Althaus

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 01

Respondent(s): Township of North Glengarry

Property Location(s): 323 East Boundary Road

Municipality(ies): Township of North Glengarry

Roll Number(s): 0111-016-002-90000-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3281958 and 3288786

Taxation Year(s): 2017 and 2018

Hearing Event No.: 698667

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

Heard: June 13, 2018 in Alexandria, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Representative

Rudolf Josef Meyer and Marlise Althaus

Self-represented

MPAC

Michelle Gravelle

Township of North Glengarry

No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY MARK SPRAGGETT AND JEAN-PAUL PILON

1Rudolf Josef Meyer (the “Appellant”) is the owner of a farm located at 323 East Boundary Rd., in North Glengarry Township (the “Subject Property”).

2Pursuant to the provisions of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A. 31 (the “Act”), the assessment of land shall be based on its current value. The Act also provides that for the 2017 to 2020 taxation years MPAC is required to assess this value as of the valuation date, January 1, 2016.

3For the 2017 through 2018 taxation years under appeal, MPAC has assessed the current value as returned at $346,000 for the Subject Property, apportioned with $304,000 as residential and $42,000 as farm land as pursuant to s. 19.(5) of the Act.

4The Appellant filed an appeal for the 2017 taxation year with the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”), and he has been deemed to have brought the same appeal with respect to the Subject Property for the 2018 taxation year pursuant to s. 40(26) of the Act.

5Pursuant to s. 40(11) of the Act, North Glengarry Township was a party to the proceeding. However, it did not advise the Board of its position on the issues raised in these appeals, and no one appeared at the hearing on its behalf.

6Subsection 44(3)(b) of the Act directs the Board to reduce the current value of the Subject Property if similar lands in the vicinity have been assessed at a lower value. The purpose of this provision is to fairly distribute the municipal tax burden according to the value possessed by each ratepayer.

7MPAC took the position that an equitable reduction was not required. The Appellant did not assert that an equitable reduction is required. Therefore, in this proceeding, this ground for appeal was not in issue.

8At the completion of the hearing, the Board reserved its decision. For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that the for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years the current value of the Subject Property as of the valuation date, January 1, 2016, is $346,000.

9This is because, at the hearing, the Appellant indicated that his opinion of current value was between $325,000 and $350,000. MPAC took the position that its returned value of $346,000 was correct, which was within the range of what the Appellant indicated he would accept. The Appellant also took no position regarding MPAC’s classification of the Subject Property.

10In essence, the Appellant consented to MPAC’s opinion of current value at the hearing, leaving nothing for the Board to adjudicate.

DECISION

11On the consent of the parties, the Board finds that the returned assessment of $346,000 is confirmed for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years, apportioned as follows:

• Farm Property Class: $42,000

• Residential Property Class: $304,000