Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: May 13, 2019

FILE NO.: RD 2019M14

Assessed Person(s): Leo Joseph Machado, Lorna Cecelia Machado

Appellant(s): Leo Machado, Lorna Machado

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 15

Respondent(s): City of Brampton

Property Location(s): 213 Van Scott Drive

Municipality(ies): City of Brampton

Roll Number(s): 2110-060-001-38012-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3322298

Taxation Year(s): 2018

Hearing Event No.: 709370

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

Request for: A review of the Board’s Decision WR 157992 issued on February 8, 2019

Heard: By written submission

Parties	Representative	Submissions
Leo Machado, Lorna Machado	Self-represented	Requester
MPAC	No one appeared	Not Requested
City of Brampton	No one appeared	Not Requested

DECISION DELIVERED BY PAUL MULDOON AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

INTRODUCTION

1Leo and Lorna Machado (the “Machados”) request that the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) decision in Machado v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 15, 2019 CanLII 9708 (ON ARB) (the “Decision”) be set aside. They say that the Decision contains a number of errors. They filed this request on March 1, 2019.

2For the reasons that follow, the Machados’ request to review the Decision is denied.

ISSUES

3The Machados set out a number of concerns with the Decision. The main concerns they raise are that:

a. MPAC evidence was unreliable; and

b. The City of Brampton should not have participated in the appeal.

RELEVANT RULES

4Review requests must meet the procedural requirements of Rule 120 before they are considered. There are no procedural concerns with the Machado’s request. Reviews can only be granted if the provisions of Rule 121 are met: That Rule states:

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 is satisfied that a provision of Rule 121 is met, the remedies available are set out in Rule 123, which states:

123 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.

ERRORS OF FACT OR LAW

6Both of the concerns raised by the Machados fall under clause 121(b): “the Board made a significant error of law or fact such that the Board would likely have reached a different decision.”

7The majority of the Machados complaint is that MPAC did not have compelling evidence. They complain that MPAC’s AboutMyProperty website is inaccurate. They say that MPAC’s time adjustment study is too confusing. They submit that MPAC did not have accurate information on the properties it submitted to the Board.

8This review process is for the Board to review its decisions. The case presented by MPAC is not relevant to a review unless it can be shown that MPAC’s case led to a significant error of fact in the decision under review. The Machados have not made that connection. They argue that MPAC’s data in inaccurate, but do not point to any particular error in the Decision.

9Members of this Board must make decisions based on the evidence before them. The Decision carefully considered the evidence before the Board and reached supportable conclusions. The Machados have not established that MPAC’s alleged errors led to any significant errors of fact in the Decision.

10The Machados’ other main complaint is that the City of Brampton ought not have participated in the hearing. They say that the City of Brampton has no role in assessments so they had no right to appear. While the City of Bampton has no role in preparing assessments, it is a party to every appeal under the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 pursuant to subsection 40(11). Rule 12 is clear that in “any proceeding a party… may appear in person or by representative.” That is, the City of Brampton had a clear legal right to appear at the hearing and make any submissions on the issues that it saw fit to make.

11The Machado’s also complain that the Decision directly addresses the City of Brampton’s proposed current value. The Decision used all of the evidence to arrive at its conclusion. That included the evidence presented by the City of Brampton. That analysis of the evidence, and the Decision’s arrival at a different current value than that submitted by the City of Brampton, addresses the City of Brampton’s submissions. The Decision did not err in following the evidence to a conclusion rather than explicitly rejecting each submitted conclusion.

CONCLUSION

12The Machados have not presented any evidence or argument satisfying the Board that the Decision contains any errors. Their Request forRreview of the Decision is denied.