Assessment Review Board
ISSUE DATE: June 26, 2019
Assessed Person(s): Joseph C. Dimicoli and Lucy A. Dimicoli
Appellant(s): Township of Prince
Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation ("MPAC") Region 31
Respondent(s): Joseph C. Dimicoli and Lucy A. Dimicoli
Property Location(s): 326 Ironside Drive
Municipality(ies): Township of Prince
Roll Number(s): 5766-000-000-49820-0000
Appeal Number(s): 3342155, 3342157, and 3342158
Taxation Year(s): 2012, 2013, and 2014
Hearing Event No.: 715865
Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended
Heard: June 3, 2019 by written submission
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel+/Representative |
|---|---|
| Township of Prince | J. Paul R. Cassan+ |
| MPAC | David Zhao |
| Joseph C. Dimicoli and Lucy A. Dimicoli | No one appeared |
DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY SCOTT McANSH
1These appeals were brought by the Township of Prince (the "Township"), challenging the classification of the property at 326 Ironside Drive over five years ago. The appeals have had some procedural history. I granted the Township's appeals in reasons issued on March 6, 2015 in ID 130637. I decided that a portion of the property was in the commercial property class for the 2012, 2013, and 2014 taxation years due to the storage and maintenance of heavy machinery on the property. I had not heard any evidence on the value to be assigned to the commercial property class and directed the parties to make submissions on that issue if they could not come to an agreement.
2MPAC and the Township made submissions on the portion of the property that should be in the commercial property class in 2015, but this Assessment Review Board (this "Board") misplaced those submissions. I was only provided with the Township's submissions on value in 2017. Based solely on the Township's submissions I made a determination of value in Dimicoli v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 31, 2017 CanLII 70654 (ON ARB). MPAC sought a review of that decision on the basis that its submissions had not been considered. Associate Chair Muldoon granted that review request in Dimicoli v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 31, 2019 CanLII 14342 (ON ARB), and ordered that I rehear the issue of the value of the portion of the land in the commercial property class.
3I held a procedural conference call with the parties on May 1, 2019. I ordered that the parties resubmit their argument from 2015, that the Township could respond to MPAC's submissions, and that MPAC file a limited reply. MPAC filed an affidavit with its reply and the Township filed a sur-reply arguing that fresh evidence was not appropriate in a limited reply submission.
Issues
4I must first determine the appropriate weight to give MPAC's reply submissions and the Township's sur-reply. I must then determine the value of the land that was used for non-residential purposes on June 30, 2011, June 30, 2012, and June 30, 2013.
Reply and Sur-Reply
5MPAC was permitted to file a limited reply to the Township's submissions. It included the affidavit of Brett McGuire, the assessor that inspected the property in 2012. The Township then filed a sur-reply objecting to MPAC entering evidence on reply. The Township says that if evidence was permitted it should also be permitted to enter evidence and that it did not have an opportunity to cross-examine Mr. McGuire on his affidavit.
6I will not consider MPAC's affidavit evidence. The Township is correct that the order was limited to submissions on the material filed in 2015. That order was to limit the degree to which this dispute was open, given that the main decision was released over four years