Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

March 08, 2019

FILE NO.:

RD 2019M03

Assessed Person(s):

Martin Simon and Evelyn Simon

Appellant(s):

Martin Simon

Respondent(s):

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 17

Respondent(s):

Muskoka Lakes Township

Property Location(s):

1026 Berners Road

Municipality(ies):

Muskoka Lakes Township

Roll Number(s):

4453-040-003-01300-0000

Appeal Number(s):

3262135 and 3309064

Taxation Year(s):

2017 and 2018

Hearing Event No.:

701288

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 154644 issued on August 21, 2018.

Heard:

By written submission

Parties

Counsel⁺/Representative

Submissions

Martin Simon

Self-represented

Requester

MPAC

Not Received

Muskoka Lakes Township

Not Received

DECISION DELIVERED BY PAUL MULDOON AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

INTRODUCTION

1On September 20, 2018, Martin Simon (“Requester”) filed a written Request for Review with the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) respecting the Decision of Member Laws issued on August 21, 2018, WR 154644 (“Decision”).

2The background to this Request for Review is as follows. The Requester is the owner of 1026 Berners Road (“Subject Property”), a seasonal recreational property located on Bass Lake in the municipality of Muskoka Lakes Township. The Subject Property is a 0.26 acre lot with a 188 foot waterfront and a slightly slopped topography. Located on the Subject Property is a single-story cottage built in 2006 with a walk-out basement. The main floor and basement of the cottage both measure 1,111 square feet, however only 888 square feet of the basement is finished. The cottage has two-and-a-half bathrooms, a fireplace, western exposure, and is accessible by a seasonal road.

3The Subject Property was assessed with a current value of $670,000 for the 2017 and 2018 tax years as of the January 1, 2016 valuation day. On June 26, 2017, the Requester filed an appeal with the Board.

4The hearing was conducted on July 23, 2018 by telephone conference call. At the hearing, MPAC presented four comparable sales and argued the Subject Property’s returned assessment of $670,000 was correct and equitable. All four of MPAC’s sales were accepted by the Board as comparable as explained in paragraphs 9 to 13 of the Decision.

5The Requester argued the current value of the Subject Property should be reduced to $570,000 for the 2017 and 2018 tax years. In support of this argument, the Requester presented four sales in his evidence. The Board found only one of the four sales presented by the Requester was comparable to the Subject Property, namely, 11-1000 Kendon Road.

6In considering the five sales accepted as comparable, the Board preferred the evidence presented by MPAC and determined the current value of the Subject Property is $670,000. The Presiding Member found that no adjustment was warranted with respect whether there was need for an equity adjustment as proposed by the Requester at the hearing.

7The Requester asks that the Board vary or cancel the Decision, reconsider the evidence of the appeal, and reduce the current value of the Subject Property to $570,000, or such other value as the Board deems reasonable.

8For the reasons that follow, the Board concludes that the Request for Review is denied.

RELEVANT RULES

9The Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”):

Request for Review

121. A party may request a review of any final decision of the Board, other than a decision pursuant to Rule 122, by filing a request in writing no more than 30 days after the decision was issued, including:

(a) a copy of the decision to be reviewed;

(b) the written reasons for the decision, as set out in Rule 112;

(c) the reasons for the request, addressing the factors set out in Rule 121;

(d) notice of any appeals or applications for judicial review that have been filed in relation to the decision;

(e) proof of service on all other parties to the proceeding;

(f) the remedy or relief sought; and

(g) the fee specified by the Board.

Grounds for Review

122. 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.

Review Order

124. Upon 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.

ISSUES

10In the Request for Review, the Requester relies on the grounds set out in Rule 122 (c).

DISCUSSION, ANALYIS AND FINDINGS

11To meet the threshold for review under Rule 122(c), the Requester must satisfy the Board that: (i) the Board heard false or misleading evidence from a party or witness; (ii) the false or misleading evidence was not reasonably available during the hearing; and, (iii) the false or misleading evidence would have affected the result of the decision.

The Requester’s Submissions

12The Requester submits the Board heard false and misleading evidence from MPAC, causing the Board to effectively “ignore” his sale evidence with respect to another property, 21-1141 Bass Lake Road, a 10.4 acre waterfront property.

13First, the Requester submits the Board heard false evidence and submits that MPAC was wrong in its submissions when it stated that a substantial part of 21-1141 Bass Lake Road is swamp. In support of this allegation, the Requester submits a picture that appears to be taken from a boat on the water looking towards the property. It appears that a red arrow was added to the photo to point out a fragmented view of a dwelling in the background through dense trees. The Requester claims this photo is evidence that there is no swamp on the property and therefore MPAC was wrong.

14Further, the Requester makes new submissions that the Subject Property is swampy. To support this claim, the Requester submits photos of what appears to be the Subject Property’s waterfront taken from the same perspective as the previous photo. In his submissions, the Requester uses these photos to compare the two properties (which are strikingly similar) and concludes the Subject Property is swampy, (as compared to 21-1141 Bass Lake Road). Further, later in his submissions, the Requester acknowledges there may in fact be a swamp on the property at 21-1141 Bass Lake Road, but cannot confirm this fact. He concludes that a swamp on the property is irrelevant in any event.

15Second, with respect to misleading evidence, the Requester alleges the Board heard misleading evidence from MPAC with respect to the right-of-way easement through 21-1141 Bass Lake Road. While the Requester admits the fact that there is a road on the property was “technically correct”, he contends it was misleading evidence since it is “virtually irrelevant” in the context of value. The Requester concludes that the road providing a right of way to other cottages has “no substantive effect on the use of value of the property”.

Findings

16The sale of 21-1141 Bass Lake is addressed at paragraph 16 of the Decision. These reasons include the fact that the property is 39 times larger than the Subject Property, contains a right of way easement splitting the property by a road, and a substantial amount of the lot is swamp.

17The Requester largely presented arguments based on his opinion and views with respect to current value and expresses his dissatisfaction with the Board’s decision not to consider 21-1141 Bass Lake Road as a comparable sale in determining current value of the Subject Property. In making these submissions the Requester was unable to point to any credible evidence to support the allegations that the Board hard false or misleading evidence from MPAC, and on a few occasions, admitted that the evidence was not necessarily false or misleading, rather, he felt the evidence presented by MPAC had “no substantive effect on the value”.

18The admissibility of evidence and its weight is within the jurisdiction and authority of the Presiding Member and, absent an error of law, the Board will not interfere. A Request for Review is not an opportunity to reargue a case or make up for deficiencies in evidence or arguments presented at the appeal hearing.

19Based on the reasons above, the Board finds the Requester did not meet the threshold for review required under Rule 122(c).

ORDER

20The Request for Review is dismissed.