Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: February 19, 2019

FILE NO.: RD 2019M05

Assessed Persons: Joseph C. Dimicoli and Lucy A. Dimicoli

Appellant: The Corporation of the Township of Prince

Respondents: Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 31

Respondents: Joseph C. Dimicoli and Lucy A. Dimicoli

Property Location: 326 Ironside Drive

Municipality: Township of Prince

Roll Number: 5766-000-000-49820-0000

Appeal Number: 2894617, 2954110, and 3030255

Taxation Year: 2012, 2013, and 2014

Hearing Event No.: 579245

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

Request for: A review of the Board’s Decision WR 130637 issued on October 17, 2017

Heard: By written submission

Parties	Representative	Submissions
MPAC	David Zhao	Requester
Township of Prince	Tim Harmar	Respondent

DECISION DELIVERED BY PAUL MULDOON AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

INTRODUCTION

1MPAC applies to have the decision of the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) by Vice-Chair McAnsh (the “Member”) in WR 130637, issued on October 17, 2017 Dimicoli v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 31, 2017 CanLII 70654 (ON ARB) (the “Decision”) reviewed pursuant to Rule 120 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”). The Decision was issued following the Interim Decision ID 130637 dated March 6, 2015 (the “Interim Decision”) (un reported). The parties did not challenge the Interim Decision which found that a portion of the detached garage and surrounding land should be in the commercial property class. The Request for Review identified only the Decision for the review. The Decision determined the portion and the value of the property in the commercial property class without considering the submissions filed by MPAC, as the Member indicated that he had not received submissions from MPAC.

2This Request for Review was submitted with the Board on November 7, 2017 and submits that the Board violated the rules of natural justice and procedural fairness as well as made a serious error in law or fact all which relate to some degree to the Member’s omission to consider MPAC’s submissions before coming to the final decision.

RELEVANT RULES

3The first step in a review request is the procedural requirements of Rule 120 which must be satisfied before a review request can be considered. In this case, there are no procedural concerns with MPAC’s request.

4The second step in a review request is to consider whether the grounds for the Request for Review set out in Rule 121 are established. That Rule 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.

5If the Board determines that the grounds for review have been established, then the third step in a review request is to identify the appropriate remedy from the remedies available in Rule 123. That Rule states:

6Upon consideration of a request for review, or on its own initiative, the Board may:

(a) dismiss the request;

(b) reinstate the appeal, with or without conditions; or

(c) after providing all parties an opportunity to make submissions,

i. confirm, vary, or cancel the decision,

ii. order a rehearing on all or part of the matter, or

iii. order a motion to decide the review.

REVIEW REQUEST – ANALYSIS

7This Request for Review is limited to the Decision. However, the Interim Decision sets the context for the review. Paragraph 6 of the Interim Decision states:

…the Board finds that a portion of the detached garage and surrounding land should be classified in the commercial property class. This is an interim decision as the Township did not have an accurate measurement of the amount of land, or the value, that should be in the commercial class. The parties may make further submission on that issue if they are unable to come to an agreement on the size and value of the commercial portion of the property. [emphasis added]

8It was not disputed that MPAC made submissions to the Board regarding the size and value of the commercial portion of the property. However, in the Decision, the Member indicated that it only received submissions from the Township. The Decision was based on the Township’s submissions without considering MPAC’s submissions.

9MPAC asserts that the Board violated the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness by not considering MPAC’s submissions before issuing the decision.

10Based on the record before the Board in this Request for Review, the Board agrees that there was an error in natural justice and procedural fairness as the Member did not know MPAC had made submissions and therefore did not consider MPAC’s submissions before coming to a final decision.

11The Board finds that it is not necessary to consider the other grounds for review, as the error in natural justice and procedural fairness is sufficient to grant this Request for Review.

12The Request for Review is granted and a rehearing by the same panel will be had on the matters post-Interim Decision. The panel has not been changed as, the error relates to the fact that the Member did not have the opportunity to consider the submissions made by MPAC, and the Member is in the best position to consider any such evidence now.

ORDER

13MPAC’s Request for Review of the Decision is granted.

14A re-hearing by the same panel will be heard regarding the size and value of the commercial portion of the property.