Franklin David Tall and Tomoko Tall v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and City of Toronto, 2019 CanLII 50339

Assessment Review Board

Issue Date: May 30, 2019 File No.: DM 158096 Appeal Number(s): 3265983 and 3297714 Taxation Year(s): 2017 and 2018 Hearing Event No.: 698464

Moving Party(ies): Franklin David Tall, Tomoko Tall Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation ("MPAC") Region 09, City of Toronto Property Location(s): 159 Morningside Avenue Municipality(ies): City of Toronto Roll Number(s): 1904-011-260-00300-0000

Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended

Heard: July 13, 2018 by written submission

Parties	Counsel+/Representative	Submissions
Franklin David Tall, Tomoko Tall	Self-represented	Moving Party
MPAC	Wellannie Ching	Received
City of Toronto		Received

DISPOSITION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY DIRK VANDERBENT

REASONS

Background

1David Franklin Tall and Tomoko Tall are the owners of a residential property located at 159 Morningside Avenue in the City of Toronto (the "Subject Property").

2Pursuant to the provisions of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the "Act"), the assessment of land shall be based on its current value. The Act also provides that, for the 2017 to 2020 taxation years, the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation ("MPAC") is required to assess this value as of the valuation date, January 1, 2016. ("current value").

3Mr. and Ms. Tall (the "Appellants") have filed appeals for taxation years 2017 to 2018 with the Assessment Review Board (the "Board"), pursuant to s. 40 of the Act. These appeals are being heard by way of summary proceeding. The Board Rules of Practice and Procedure (the "Rules") provides for a Schedule of Events which sets out due dates for completion of pleadings and exchange of disclosure.

4In this proceeding, the Appellants have filed a Motion with the Board, pursuant to Rule 45 of the Board's Rules, requesting that MPAC provide the following documents:

a. a map defining the boundaries of the geographical area that MPAC considers homogenous;

b. a spreadsheet (either Word or Excel) listing all of the residential properties in the homogenous geographical area and showing the assessments for each;

c. the Property Assessment Detail ("PAD") sheets for each of the properties shown on the spreadsheet;

d. a list of all properties in the geographical area that received reductions based on Request for Reconsideration ("RfR")'s, Minutes of Settlement, or Orders of the Board and, if by RfR or Minutes, then a reason for the reduction in summary form.

e. copies of any and all inspection reports in the homogenous geographical area.

f. the average assessment increase between 2012 and 2016 in the homogenous area.

5In its response, MPAC points out that it has provided a written description of the boundaries of the homogenous neighbourhood, but also agrees to provide a map within a time frame set by the Board. Regarding all the other documents requested by the Appellants, it is MPAC's position that they are not relevant nor proportional since the Appellants have yet to provide their disclosure.

6The Board directed that the Motion be heard in writing. Only MPAC has filed a response to the Motion.

DECISION

7The Motion is allowed in part. The Board's specific disposition for each requested item is provided below.

Relevant Legislation and Rules

8The Act:

1. "current value" means, in relation to land, the amount of money the fee simple, if unencumbered, would realize if sold at arm's length by a willing seller to a willing buyer.

19.(1) Assessment based on current value. – The assessment of land shall be based on its current value.

19.2(1) Valuation days – Subject to subsection (5), the day as of which land is valued for a taxation year is determined as follows:

3. For each subsequent period consisting of four consecutive taxation years, land is valued as of January 1 of the year preceding the first of those four taxation years.

44.(3) Same, 2009 and subsequent years. – For 2009 and subsequent taxation years, in determining the value at which any land shall be assessed, the Board shall,

(a) determine the current value of the land; and

(b) have reference to the value at which similar lands in the vicinity are assessed and adjust the assessment of the land to make it equitable with that of similar lands in the vicinity if such an adjustment would result in a reduction of the assessment of the land.

9The Board's Rules:

Proportionality

5. These Rules shall be applied in a manner proportionate to the importance and complexity of the issues in a proceeding and with a view to resolving appeals within the four year cycle.

Statement of Issues and Responses

Statements of issues and responses must contain:

(1) If the issue is current value:

a) the current value requested and how it is calculated;

b) a full statement of every issue that the party intends to raise, including identification of comparable property to be referred to, if any;

c) a list of all facts, legal grounds and documents that the party relies on in support of its position.

(2) If the issue is the equity of the assessment pursuant to section 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act:

a) the assessment requested;

b) identification of the vicinity claimed by the party;

c) identification of similar lands in the vicinity to be relied on by the party;

d) how the party proposes to calculate the adjustment for equity; and

e) a list of all facts, legal grounds and documents that the party relies on in support of its position.

Disclosure

45. All parties must provide a copy, in paper or electronic form, of all relevant documents in their possession, control or power to all other parties in the proceeding, except for privileged documents.

No Admission

46. The disclosure or production of a document is not an admission of its relevance or admissibility.

Discussion, Analysis and Findings

The Test to be Applied

10The test to be applied has been set out in Walmart Canada Corporation and Target Canada Corporation v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 01, 2018 CanLII 67789 (ON ARB).

18Relevance is determined in relation to whether a document is relevant to an issue in dispute. However, this is not the only criteria that the Board will consider when determining whether a document, which may be relevant, should be disclosed. Rule 45, itself, provides an exception for privileged documents. In addition, Rule 5 provides that "These Rules shall be applied in a manner proportionate to the importance and complexity of the issues in a proceeding and with a view to resolving appeals within the four year cycle'. Therefore, the requirement to disclose relevant documents must also be applied in a proportionate manner. Rule 45 does not include specific criteria to assess proportionality. However, the Board finds that the criteria in Rule 29.2.03(1) and (2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure (Ontario) are applicable, namely:

1. the time required for the party or other person to answer the question or produce the document would be unreasonable;

2. the expense associated with answering the question or producing the document would be unjustified;

3. requiring the party or other person to answer the question or produce the document would cause him or her undue prejudice;

4. requiring the party or other person to answer the question or produce the document would unduly interfere with the orderly progress of the action; and

5. the information or the document is readily available to the party requesting it from another source.

6. whether an order for disclosure would result in an excessive volume of documents required to be produced by the party or other person.

The Board observes that this is a non-exhaustive list. There may be other criteria identified on a case by case basis.

19In applying the above criteria, the Board must balance these considerations against relevancy, i.e. the degree to which it appears that the document is relevant to an issue in dispute, and, if so, how probative this evidence may be. The onus to establish that a document should be disclosed pursuant to Rule 45 rests with the party who requests the disclosure.

20In addition to the above, it should also be noted that Rule 45 only requires disclosure of documents in a party's possession, control, or power. A party is not required to produce new information, or obtain documents that are not within its possession, control, or power.

Disclosure Request No. 1

11The request is for a map defining the boundaries of the geographical area that MPAC considers homogenous.

12As noted above, MPAC agrees to provide a map within a time frame set by the Board. The Board orders that MPAC provide this map within two weeks of the date of the issuance of this Decision on Motion.

Disclosure Requests No. 2 and No. 3

13The requests are for: a spreadsheet (either Word or Excel) listing all of the residential properties in the homogenous geographical area and showing the assessments for each; and a property assessment detail sheet for each of these properties.

Appellants' Submissions

14The Appellants assert, based on reading other Board decisions, that this information is in MPAC's possession and control in the form of spreadsheets, either in an MSWord format or as Excel spreadsheets and can be easily produced by MPAC. They also assert that MPAC has been ordered to provide this information to other property owners in Ontario who have appealed their assessments. In support of this submission the Appellants cite Comete v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp., Region No. 9, [2014] O.A.R.B.D. No. 432 ("Comete"). More specifically, the Appellants rely on para. 16 of this decision in support of their assertion that MPAC cannot discriminate between property owners with respect to the completeness of information disclosed. The Appellants submit that complete information about other comparable properties with lower assessments in the neighbourhood is critical to their ability to properly prepare "...appeal documents that will cite the equity provisions of the Assessment Act."

15The Appellants specifically request "property assessment detail (PAD) sheets" for properties with lower assessments. They maintain that these sheets are relevant and critical to the Board's ability to see which properties are comparable to the Subject Property and to thereafter apply s. 44 of the Act. They assert that MPAC has agreed to provide, or has been ordered to provide, the PADs for all residential properties in the homogenous area that have lower assessments than the Subject Property. In support of this submission they refer to the Board's Decision in Smith v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 16, 2018 CanLII 35053 ("Smith").

16As an example of the extent of disclosure, and as an example of the form of an MPAC spreadsheet, the Appellants again cite Comete, stating that the Board ordered MPAC to provide the Appellant with information on 203 properties, including property assessment details.

MPAC's Submissions

17MPAC argues that procedural fairness does not require exhaustive disclosure. MPAC submits that the correct question on this Motion is whether enough information is already available to the Moving Party to permit the Moving Party to adequately prepare a case and deliver its disclosure. MPAC maintains that the Board is also entitled to consider the objective of providing timely and effective adjudication of appeals within the four-year assessment cycle.

18MPAC submits that, under the new Rules, the scope of documentary disclosure has been narrowed to "relevant" documents; older decisions, which applied a standard of broad and liberal disclosure based on a "semblance of relevance" are no longer applicable.

19MPAC submits that it cannot be the intention of the Rules that MPAC disclose all potentially relevant documents prior to the exchange of disclosure. Requiring excessive disclosure on matters of unclear relevance threatens to delay and over-complicate appeals and undermine the express objective under the Rules to resolve all appeals within the four-year cycle.

20MPAC provides all property owners with detailed information about property assessments. As part of its 2016 Assessment Update, MPAC provided stakeholders with three levels of disclosure through its AboutMyProperty website:

a) Level 1: Methodology Guides explaining how MPAC approached the valuation of particular types of property;

b) Level 2: Market Valuation Reports explaining how the methodology described has been applied at the sector level for the purpose of each assessment; and

c) Level 3: Property specific valuation information is available through secure access to property tax payers, their representatives, and municipalities.

21MPAC maintains that the initial disclosure provided by MPAC is more than sufficient for the Appellants to understand:

a) The valuation methodology applied to the property;

b) How market valuation parameters were determined;

c) How the market valuation parameters were applied to the property;

d) MPAC's record of the state and condition of the property when it assessed the property; and

e) How comparable properties in the vicinity were assessed.

22MPAC emphasizes that it has advised the Appellants about the AboutMyProperty website, and has informed them that, through AboutMyProperty, snapshots of property data for 100 properties and a more detailed view for up to 24 properties are accessible.

23In addition to the above disclosure, MPAC has provided the Appellants with a Valuation Report, an Equity Analysis Report, and Property and Sales Information for MPAC's Comparable Sales Analysis. MPAC indicates that it has already provided the roll numbers, property addresses, 2016 current value assessments, sale dates and sale prices of 241 properties in its Valuation Report and provided the same details for 30 properties on its Equity Analysis Report, in addition to the information available in AboutMyProperty.

24In affidavit evidence filed in support of MPAC's response, MPAC confirms that production of a list of current value assessments for all residential properties in the homogenous neighbourhood, and the production of property assessment detail sheets would require time intensive manual database searches to obtain the information, and time intensive work in manually producing electronic spreadsheets to provide this information.

25MPAC submits that the Appellants' requests lack specificity, maintaining that the request for a list of the assessed value of all residential properties and their associated PADs, in the homogenous neighbourhood are excessive and disproportionate to the issues to be addressed in this appeal. In support of this submission, MPAC further asserts that the request for information for all residential properties in the homogenous neighbourhood, lacks specificity, as there are various types of properties that fall under the residential category that are not necessarily similar to the Subject Property.

Findings on Request No. 2

26The Board begins its analysis by first discussing the level of information that parties should provide to the Board when making a request for disclosure under Rule 45. If the Board orders a party to provide disclosure, the order must provide a specific and detailed description of the document to be provided, in order that the party providing the document will know what it is required to provide. Therefore, the requesting party must provide a specific description of each requested document, not merely a generic description such a document title. In this case, the Appellants' refer to a property assessment detail sheet or "PAD." There may be different definitions of the information to be provided in a "PAD." In a request for disclosure, neither the Board, nor the responding parties, should be left in a position where they have to guess what specific information is being requested.

27In assessment appeals, documents are requested in relation to specific properties. Therefore, each property should be properly described by either municipal address or assessment roll number. A request may alternately refer to a specific class of properties, for example by geographic area or property code. However, where a disclosure request refers to specific class of properties, the party requesting the disclosure must provide an explanation of how the requested information for each property in the class is relevant to an issue in dispute. The Board cannot simply infer that information respecting a property within a property class is relevant to an issue in dispute respecting a Subject Property.

28In this case, the Appellants' use of the descriptor "PAD's" is clearly not specific. The Board would dismiss the Motion on this basis, but for the fact that the Appellants have provided examples of PAD sheets which they assert have been provided by MPAC in other cases. A review of these sheets indicates that they appear to provide data related to MPAC's mass appraisal method of property valuation.

29Regarding the Appellants' request for documents related to all of the residential properties in the homogenous geographical area, the Appellants have referred to a class of properties, but have failed to indicated how every property in this class would be relevant to the issues in dispute, i.e. how each property would be either comparable or similar to the Subject Property for purposes of determining the current value of the Subject Property or whether there should be an equitable reduction of the current value of the Property. On this basis alone, the Board cannot grant the request.

30The Appellants, however, argue that disclosure for this class of properties has been provided by MPAC in past cases, and, therefore, MPAC should be required to provide it in this case. In support of this submission, the Appellants rely on three previous decisions of the Board: Comete; Smith; and Joubarne v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 3, July 12, 2017 (unreported). However, in each of these cases, the Board notes that MPAC voluntarily agreed to provide the information respecting this class of properties. As such, the Board made no specific finding that the disclosure for each of the properties in this class is relevant. Furthermore, the Board notes that Rule 46 provides that the disclosure or production of a document is not an admission of its relevance or admissibility. Consequently, the Board does not accept the Appellants' submission that examples of past disclosure are binding on the Board in determining whether the requested disclosure should be granted in this case.

31The Board now turns to MPAC's argument that it is not required to disclose all potentially relevant documents prior to the exchange of disclosure. The Board notes that appeals heard by way of summary proceeding are less complex matters, and, therefore, procedurally, it is sufficient for the parties to concurrently exchange disclosure of relevant documents. For this reason, the Board does not accept MPAC's argument that, in a summary proceeding, some form of preliminary disclosure must be exchanged before a party may make a request for disclosure.

32The issue in this appeal is the determination of the current value of a residential property. It is axiomatic that, when considering values of other properties in order to determine current value, the properties must be comparable to the Subject Property, (or similar where the issue is whether there should be an equitable reduction of current value). The Appellants' request a listing of all residential properties in the homogenous neighbourhood, which would include any properties that are not comparable or similar to the Subject Property. For this reason, the Board finds that the Appellants' request, as drafted, fails to exclude irrelevant data. Conversely, there is the potential that some of the properties will be comparable or similar and, therefore this data should be disclosed. However, MPAC has described in detail how its on-line database AboutMyProperty provides an Appellant with access to this relevant information. The Appellants, in this Motion, has been afforded a right to reply to MPAC's response, but have chosen not to do so. Therefore, MPAC's submission regarding the sufficiency of its disclosure through its on-line AboutMyProperty database as its response to the Appellants' request has not been disputed.

33Furthermore, the Board notes that, in determining whether the request for disclosure is proportional, one of the factors to be considered is whether the information or the document is readily available to the party requesting it from another source. This is particularly important in this case, as MPAC has adduced evidence indicating that the production of the property list and property assessment detail sheets would be labour and time intensive. MPAC's description of AboutMyProperty indicates that a person using this on-line database may access snapshots of property data for 100 properties and a more detailed view for up to 24 properties. The user is free to select whatever properties he/she wishes to review. Consequently, the Appellants may review any property located in the homogenous neighbourhood. The Board finds that this level of access is proportional to the complexity and importance of the issues in dispute in a summary proceeding of an appeal respecting the current value of a residential property. In making this finding, the Board has considered that there may be an uncommon case where a 'detailed view' of more than 24 properties may be considered necessary. The Board expects that the parties would work co-operatively to address such a circumstance. If necessary, any unresolved dispute could then be resolved by way of motion to the Board.

34For these reasons, the Board concludes that it is unnecessary for the Board to grant disclosure Request No. 2.

Findings on Request No. 3

35Regarding Request No. 3, the Board notes that the Appellants' request to MPAC refers to all properties in the homogenous geographical area. However, in their submissions, they provide an additional qualifier, namely, all residential properties in the homogenous area that have lower assessments than the Subject Property. The Appellants assert this information is relevant and critical to the Board's ability to see which properties are comparable to the Subject Property and to "thereafter apply s. 44 of the Assessment Act." In addressing this submission, the Board first notes that this is a statement of their position. It does not provide any explanation of how this information is relevant to the issues in dispute. In property valuation methodology, there are a variety of property features and characteristics that are considered when determining whether on property is comparable or similar to another property. Whether one property is assessed at a lower value than another property, in and of itself, is not a determinative consideration.

36Regarding the Appellants' more general request for the production of property assessment details for all properties in the homogenous geographical area, the Board has already noted that the information in the "PAD" sheet appears to relate to data respecting MPAC's mass appraisal method of property valuation. The Board notes that the Appellants' have not provided an explanation of how this information would be relevant to the issues in dispute. MPAC has confirmed that the evidence it will adduce at the hearing is based on the comparable sale analysis method. This same issue has been addressed in Easterbrook v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 02, 2019 CanLII 32434 (ON ARB) ("Easterbrook") at paragraphs 22 to 24:

22While MPAC has not submitted that the disclosure of the requested information would be voluminous, it is clear that the information required to properly document the application of this valuation method to the properties listed by the Appellant, would be complex, as the method itself is mathematically complex. Because the issue in dispute is the valuation of a residential property, and MPAC does not seek to rely on the mass appraisal valuation method as part of its case, the Board finds that there is a significant concern that the time and resources required for MPAC to provide comprehensive information respecting the mass appraisal method and its application to the properties listed by the Appellant, would be unreasonable.

23The Appellant has not indicated that he has the expertise to provide opinion evidence regarding the application of MPAC's mass appraisal method to determine property values, nor that he has retained an expert who can. MPAC has confirmed that it will not rely its mass appraisal method in this proceeding and, therefore, MPAC would not be calling evidence on the mass appraisal method as part of its case. In these circumstances, the Board finds that it is, at best, unclear how the requested information would be of assistance to the Board in the hearing of these appeals. Therefore, the Board finds that it is questionable whether this disclosure is proportional to the importance and complexity of the issues in this appeal proceeding. The Board similarly finds that it also questionable how probative the requested information would be.

24In conclusion, the Board observes that the Appellant bears the onus that a document should be disclosed pursuant to Rule 45. In this case, the Board has found it questionable whether disclosure of the requested information would be proportional to the complexity and importance of the issue in dispute, and also whether it would be probative if adduced at the hearing. Based on these findings, the Board concludes that MPAC should not be required to provide the requested disclosure..

37The Board adopts the analysis and conclusion in Easterbrook and finds that it applies in this case.

38Based on the above findings and analysis, the Board concludes that the MPAC should not be required to provide the "PAD" sheets.

Disclosure Request No. 4

39The request is for a list of all properties in the geographical area that received reductions based on RfR's, Minutes of Settlement, or Orders of the Board and, if by RfR or Minutes, then a reason for the reduction in summary form.

Appellants' Submissions

40The Appellants' rely on the previous Board decision in Comete, noting that, in that case, the Board ordered MPAC to provide that Appellant with this information on 203 properties.

MPAC's Submissions

41MPAC submits that the issue raised lacks specificity and that the request for a list of all properties that received reductions via requests for reconsideration ("RfRs"), minutes of settlements, Board Orders and the reasons for the reductions in the homogenous neighbourhood are excessive and disproportionate to the issue raised.

Findings on Request No. 4

42In Comete, MPAC voluntarily agreed to provide any adjustments to the assessed values granted through the RfR process, showing both MPAC's original and amended assessed values. However, MPAC disputed whether it should be required to additionally provide reasons for the adjustment. The evidence before the Board was that MPAC's recorded reasons were summary in nature, citing, for example, reasons such as "equity adjustment", "functional obsolescence", "structure details", etc. At para. 14 of the Board found that "... the summary reasons for RfR are relevant to the issue in dispute, given that the basis of Mr. Comete's argument is that the age and condition of his property have not been taken into consideration."

43The reasons provided in Comete are brief. There is no explanation of how the requested information would be relevant to the issue of whether the age and condition of Mr. Comete's property were not taken into consideration. These are property specific factors. Therefore, it is difficult to ascertain how general information regarding the various reasons for a reduction of assessed values for a general list of properties would provide probative information to assist the Board in its determination an issue in dispute that is case specific. Consequently, although the Board strives for consistency in its decision making, the Board finds that the analysis in Comete is not persuasive.

44In any event, the Appellants have not identified a specific issue in dispute such as the issue before the Board in Comete. Consequently, the Board finds that the Appellants have failed to establish relevancy in this case. In this regard, the Board notes that, in a previous decision, Nichol v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp. Region 3, [2015] O.A.R.B.D. No. 162 ("Nichol"), the Board considered Comete and arrived at a similar conclusion. In Nichol, the Board stated:

40 If MPAC is not proposing to rely on a mass appraisal approach to demonstrate the correctness of an individual assessment, but will rely on a direct sales comparison approach, then the statistical data and methods used for mass appraisal may not be relevant to the issue before the Board on an individual property assessment appeal.

41 Most of the information sought by the Appellants relates to how MPAC has dealt with other properties either during the assessing process or in consideration of RFRs without establishing that the properties are comparable to the subject. These are not matters that are directly relevant to the determination of the current value of the Subject Property under appeal.

43 The Appellants rely on Board Decision DM126770 (Comete v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 9, [2014] O.A.R.B. No. 432, August 14, 2014) to support their request for release of RFR information. In examining this decision it must be remembered that the Board's decisions, particularly in pre-hearing motions, are rooted in the facts of the matter being decided. The decisions are not binding precedents, although the Board strives to be consistent in its rulings. The only issue in Comete was whether or not MPAC should be ordered to produce reasons why adjustments were granted through the RFR process. The Board's reasons for ordering disclosure of summary reasons for RFR in Comete was that the Board found some relevancy to the issue in dispute in that "the age and condition of his property have not been taken into consideration". This case cannot be interpreted to mean that the Board is bound to grant a request for such information in every case. The seeker of the information must relate the request to an issue at the hearing.

45The remaining question is whether MPAC should be required to provide original and amended assessed values for properties. The issue to which this disclosure relates is whether there should be an equitable reduction, pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act. This subsection requires that the Board compare the current value of the Subject Property (as determined by the Board) to the assessed values of similar lands in the vicinity. Where equitable reduction is in dispute, a party may provide the Board with a list of properties that the party asserts are similar to the Subject Property, together with the assessed values for each of these properties. Assuming the Board finds the properties to be similar, the Board will then compare their assessed values to the current value.

46It is, therefore, important that the Board be provided with the most up-to-date assessed value. Presumably, MPAC's AboutMyProperty is updated when a property's assessed value, as of the relevant valuation date, is amended by MPAC through the request for review process or otherwise. If not, the Board finds that MPAC is required to provide the updated assessed value for all properties that each party asserts is a similar property in the vicinity. In applying the test under s. 44(3)(b) of the Act, the Board must consider only the up-to-date assessed value. Therefore, the original value is not relevant and need not be disclosed. As there is no indication before the Board in this Motion to indicate that MPAC opposes this level of disclosure, the Board orders that MPAC provide any up-to-date assessed values if MPAC has not already done so.

Disclosure Request No. 5

47The request is for copies of any and all inspection reports in the homogenous geographical area.

Appellants' Submissions

48The Appellants' submissions do not specifically address this request for disclosure.

MPAC's Submissions

49MPAC asserts that it is not sufficient to simply claim that the requested information will assist the Board. In support of this submission, MPAC cites Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region No 15 v. Robic et al, 2018 CanLII 67820, ("Robic") at paras. 11 and 12.

Findings on Request No. 5

50As noted in Robic, the requesting party must show how the proposed disclosure relates to a specific issue that is in dispute between the parties. The Appellants have failed to provide any explanation on which to conclude that the requested documents are relevant. For this reason, the request is denied.

Disclosure Request No. 6

51The request is for the average assessment increase between 2012 and 2016 in the homogenous area.

Appellants' Submissions

52The Appellants assert that this requested information is relevant to calculating time adjustments, and for ascertaining errors in MPAC's time adjustment calculation.

MPAC's Submissions

53MPAC asserts that it is not sufficient to simply claim that the requested information will assist the Board. In support of this position MPAC again relies on the Board's decision in Robic.

54In affidavit evidence filed in support of MPAC's response, MPAC confirms that production of the requested information would require time intensive manual database searches to obtain the information, and time intensive work in manually producing electronic spreadsheets to provide this information.

Findings on Request No. 6

55The Board first notes that, although the above stated principle in Robic applies, the decision in Robic did not address a request for the average assessment increase, as detailed by the Appellants. The Appellants have provided a reason for their request, so the Board does not accept MPAC's submission that they have indicated only that the requested information will assist the Board.

56The Board, however, finds that the Appellants' request and their explanation of relevancy is unclear. Although they refer to MPAC's time adjustment calculation, nowhere in the Motion materials does either party specifically refer to the evidence that MPAC had provided respecting time adjustment factors. Therefore, the Board is unable to ascertain the specific issue in dispute. Consequently, the Board finds that there is insufficient information before the Board in this Motion to adjudicate the Appellants' request. On this basis, the Appellants' request is denied, subject to the proviso that, if there is an issue respecting any time adjustment calculation being adduced by MPAC as evidence, and there is a dispute respecting disclosure of information in respect of such calculation, the matter may be addressed by a further motion for disclosure.

Procedural Direction

57As the parties could not proceed to complete the exchange of disclosure under the Schedule of Events until the disposition of this Motion, the Board Registrar is directed to assign a new Commencement Date and associated Schedule of Events for the hearing of these appeals.