Jea Yu Yang v. City of Toronto, 2019 CanLII 18815

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: March 07, 2019

FILE NO.: WR 156992

Assessed Person(s): Jea Yu Yang; Yuh-Zun Ku

Appellant(s): Ya Jea Yu Yang; Yuh-Zun Ku

Respondent(s): City of Toronto

Property Location(s): 610-88 Sheppard Avenue

Municipality(ies): City of Toronto

Roll Number(s): 1908-092-130-03406-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3287360

Taxation Year(s): 2016

Hearing Event No.: 706867

Legislative Authority: Section 322.(5) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c.11 Sched. A

Heard: October 24, 2018 by telephone conference call

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel⁺/Representative

Jea Yu Yang

Self-represented

City of Toronto

Christopher Henderson⁺ and Georgia Karakolis

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY DAN WEAGANT

INTRODUCTION AND AGREED-TO FACTS

1Jea Yu Yang and Yuh-Zun Ku (the “Appellants”) filed an application to the City of Toronto to correct an apportionment of unpaid taxes to their condominium unit. The condominium was declared and registered in 2015. At the time of its registration, the condominium was in the Multi-residential property class. After registration, the condominium units and common areas were apportioned separately in the Residential property class.

2The Appellants submit that the apportionment of unpaid taxes for the 2016 taxation year was incorrect and that they paid too much as a result. The Appellants filed an application under s. 322.(1) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11 Schedule A (the “Act”).

3Council held a meeting in accordance with s. 322.(3) and advised the Appellants of its decision. The Appellants were not satisfied with Council’s decision and, under s. 322.(5) of the Act, filed an appeal with the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”).

4The City submits that condominium declarations set off a series of steps that are confusing to condominium owners because the transfer from the Multi-residential property class to the Residential property class is often accomplished by amending the classification and then apportioning the new classification to the units based on a list of criteria. This transfer is often completed by a series of omitted assessment notices that often occur over more than one taxation year.

5The City submits this process is delayed because MPAC is responsible for it and has to react to changing data as it becomes available.

6The Appellants believe the taxes apportioned to their unit are too high for the 2016 taxation year. The City submits that the Appellants actually received a credit in 2016, related to the shifting assessment from the Multi-residential property class to the Residential property class.

7Section 322.(1) of the Act states:

Division into parcels – Upon application by the city treasurer or to the treasurer by an owner of land, the City may,

a) Divide, for the purposes of this section, land which is assessed in one block into two or more parcels if each parcel is one that can be legally conveyed under the Planning Act;

b) Apportion the unpaid taxes on the land among the parcels,

i) in proportion to their relative value at the time the assessment roll for the year in which the application is made was returned, or

ii) if Council is of the opinion that an apportionment under subclause (i) is not appropriate due to special circumstances, any other manner; and

c) direct what proportion of any part payment of taxes on the land is to be applied to each of the parcels.

8Section 322. (5) of the Act states:

Appeal. – Within 35 days after council makes its decision, an applicant or owner may appeal the decision of council under clause (1)(b) to the assessment Review Board by filing a notice of appeal with the registrar of the board.

This is the path taken by the Appellants to file this appeal.

ISSUE

9The Board must first decide whether or not there are unpaid taxes on either the ‘parent‘ parcel (prior to the registration of the condominium units) or the subject parcel (the parcel created after registration). If there are unpaid taxes to be apportioned, the Board must then determine, in accordance with clause 1(b)(1) of s. 322, the amount to be apportioned.

DECISION

10The Board finds that the documentary evidence and testimony submitted by the parties shows there were no unpaid taxes to be apportioned. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

11The Act is very clear in setting out the scheme for an owner to file an application under s. 322 of the Act. The first criterion is that the taxes to be apportioned must be unpaid.

12The Board heard from the Appellants that they were not satisfied with the apportionment of taxes, once they had been paid. Georgia Karakolis testified for the City. She said that the 2015 taxes were paid by the condominium building developer, and were apportioned once the values apportioned to the separate units in the building were determined.

13Ms. Karakolis testified that in the course of re-designating the parcel from the Multi-residential property class to the Residential property class the proportion changed, to the Appellants’ benefit, which resulted in a refund or credit to their account.

14The parties both submitted that this situation is complicated. Mr. Henderson submitted that the Appellants were treated fairly and that the apportionment was correct both in terms of timing and amount.

15For their part, the Appellants submitted in their final argument that the situation looked “more like an assessment problem than a tax problem.”

16The Board finds that the submissions and documents received clearly indicate that there were no unpaid taxes. The statute is clear that for the Board to consider an appeal under this section, there must be unpaid taxes.

17As there were no unpaid taxes, the Board finds that there is no means of appeal.

18The appeal is dismissed.