Raymond Wayne Adams v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2019 CanLII 18798

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: March 7, 2019

FILE NO.: DM 158644

Moving Party(ies): Raymond Wayne Adams

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 7

Respondent(s): City of Kawartha Lakes

Property Location(s): 4145 Highway 7

Municipality(ies): City of Kawartha Lakes

Roll Number(s): 1651-001-008-13500-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3320595

Taxation Year(s): 2018

Hearing Event No.: 710373

Legislative Authority: Rule 45 of the Assessment Review Board Rules of Practice and Procedure

Heard: February 11, 2019 by written submission

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Raymond Wayne Adams	Self-represented
MPAC	Justin Johnstone
City of Kawartha Lakes	No one appeared

DISPOSITION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY SCOTT McANSH

1Raymond Wayne Adams seeks an order compelling MPAC to provide him with certain documents. MPAC opposes his request. The City of Kawartha Lakes did not file any material in relation to this motion.

2Mr. Adams is seeking information about certain comparable properties from MPAC. He also seeks information on depreciation applied to buildings containing asbestos. I do not find that ordering further disclosure is proportional to the issues in dispute. I therefore dismiss Mr. Adams’ request.

Disclosure

3Rule 45 requires that all parties “provide a copy, in paper or electronic form, of all relevant documents in the possession, control or power to all other parties in the proceeding.” The Schedule of Events, which are part of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”), assigned to an appeal sets out the timing for each party to provide its documents to the other parties. In summary proceedings, such as this, the parties exchange disclosure at the same time, in week 4 of the schedule. In this appeal the parties were to exchange documents on or before September 4, 2018.

4In addition to the Board’s Rules, the Board has provided guidance documents to help the parties understand their disclosure obligations. The Guideline on Disclosure Requirements for General and Summary Proceedings (the “Disclosure Guideline”) discusses the timing of disclosure and sets out a list of documents that are presumptively relevant to common issues raised in appeals.

5The standard this Board applies to disclosure is that the party seeking a document must show how that document is relevant to an issue in dispute, Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region No. 16 v Champlain Properties Limited, 2017 CanLII 38345 (ON ARB), at paragraph 9.

6It is not enough, however, that a document be proven to be relevant to a specific issue in dispute. The Board will only order disclosure if it would be proportionate to do, in light of the issues in dispute, 1141557 Ontario Ltd. v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 30, 2019 CanLII 3426 (ON ARB).

Relevant and Proportional

7I must determine if the requested documents are relevant and if requiring their production would be proportionate. The usual measure for relevance is the pleadings of the parties. That is, it is common to determine if a document is relevant by looking at the issues that have been raised in the proceeding.

8While there were no pleadings filed here, there was an exchange of documents and a hearing date set. That hearing, set for December 10, 2018 was adjourned for this disclosure motion. The documents filed show that comparable farm sales are an issue in dispute, as well as the impact of asbestos on value.

9Mr. Adams says that he is looking for information on other properties from MPAC. MPAC argues that it has provided that information through its AboutMyProperty website, which includes information about properties as well as valuation guidelines. Mr. Adams has not explained how that website access is inadequate, and the evidence before me is that the website contains the property information he is seeking. That is, MPAC has already provided Mr. Adams with the property information.

10Mr. Adams’ other main request is for information on how asbestos impacts value. MPAC has not addressed that class of documents in its motion materials. However, Mr. Adams has not framed his request in a way that is amenable to an order. He has requested information “on structures being depreciated because of carcinogens in buildings.” That is a broad request and is not likely information that MPAC has readily available. A disclosure request should be as targeted as possible in order to permit the other party to know what needs to be provided. I do not find that Mr. Adams’ request is sufficient.

11Mr. Adams has made other requests, such as explanations for the assessment of certain other properties, or an explanation of why one property sold for well below its assessed value. Those requests are seeking the production of reasons from MPAC. Rule 45 only requires the disclosure of “all relevant documents.” It does not require explanations.

Procedural Concerns

12Mr. Adams brought this request for material to the Board on January 7, 2019. That is well after the mandatory meeting deadline of October 30, 2018 and the request is, therefore, out of time.

13It is important that disclosure requests be brought forward in a timely way. In a summary proceeding that means that request should be brought shortly after the disclosure deadline. If there is a need for further documents, that should be resolved before the mandatory settlement meeting. That did not happen here.

14I have found that Mr. Adams requests are not relevant or proportional to the issues in dispute. I would also have dismissed this application for being brought too late in the proceeding.

Conclusion

15Mr. Adams has already been provided with the property information he is seeking. While his request for asbestos information is relevant to an issue in dispute, it was too broadly framed to be used in an order, and such a broad order would not be proportional to the issues in dispute. Mr. Adams’ disclosure request is denied.