Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 29 v. 2226776 Ontario Limited, 2019 CanLII 29133

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

April 05, 2019

FILE NO.:

DM 159295

Moving Party(ies):

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation ("MPAC"), Region 29

Respondent(s):

2226776 Ontario Limited

Respondent(s):

City of Timmins

Property Location(s):

1752 Riverside Drive

Municipality:

City of Timmins

Roll Number(s):

5627-010-091-03000-0000

Appeal Number(s):

3044579, 3044576, 3059552, 3093314, 3160260, 3245166, and 3314359

Taxation Year(s):

2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018

Hearing Event No.:

711064

Legislative Authority:

Rule 47(c) of the Assessment Review Board Rules of Practice and Procedure

Heard:

March 18, 2019 by written submission

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel⁺/Representative

MPAC

Brittany Kee

2226776 Ontario Limited

Amanda Myers

City of Timmins

No one appeared

DISPOSITION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY SCOTT McANSH

1MPAC seeks an order of this Assessment Review Board (this "Board") to inspect the property at 1752 Riverside Drive in the City of Timmins. MPAC says that the costing of the property is in issue and that an inspection would permit it to collect the data needed for a proper costing. 2226776 Ontario Limited (the "Company") opposes MPAC's motion, arguing that the only issue in dispute is if the assessment is equitable and that MPAC has not met the requirements for an inspection set by the Board.

2For the reasons that follow, MPAC's inspection request is denied.

Law

3The Board set out a framework for inspections in Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region No. 16 v Melnikova, 2017 CanLII 81711 (ON ARB). The Board held, at paragraph 4, that "inspections will be granted where there are issues in dispute around the condition, quality, age, or other physical aspects of a property… However, inspections must be framed around a specific issue… [and]... should also be requested in a timely way."

Issues in Dispute

4These appeals had a commencement date of June 15, 2018. The Company served a Statement of Issues on November 9, 2018, in accordance with the schedule of events. MPAC requested an inspection by November 30, 2018, which was also in accordance with the schedule. MPAC's request turns on paragraph 9 of the Company's Statement of Issues, which states in part "MPAC has determined the CVA of the Subject Property using the cost approach .The Appellant does not dispute the appropriateness of the cost approach but all forms of loss in value have not been recognized by MPAC."

5MPAC says that shows that the costing is at issue and that is an issue that can be resolved through an inspection. The Company says that, read in context, that paragraph is referring to MPAC's failure to consider equity and that the physical state of the building is not at issue. I agree with the Company that the Statement of Issues does not raise any issues that require an inspection.

6The Statement of Issues pleads that the assessment of a number of comparable properties are lower than the assessment of this property. That is an equity argument. Nothing in the Statement of Issues pleads functional obsolesce, physical depreciation, or other costing issues. I do not accept that paragraph 9 opens the issue of the cost approach to value.

7The only issue pled is the equity of the assessment, which relies on the assessments of other properties. An inspection of the property will not assist in resolving an equity dispute.

8MPAC also argues that the property has not been inspected since 2013. As noted in Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 19 v Lopatina, 2018 CanLII 1903 (ON ARB), at paragraph 7, the "length of time since a property was last inspected cannot be the basis for an inspection order." MPAC has statutory tools it can rely on to inspect property at regular intervals.

Conclusion

9MPAC has not provided a specific issue that would justify an inspection of this property. The only issue in dispute is equity, which cannot be resolved through an inspection. MPAC's motion is denied.