Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: August 28, 2019

FILE NO.: DM 161798

Moving Party(ies): Timestone Corporation

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region No. 30

Respondent(s): City of Sudbury

Property Location(s): 3098 Falconbridge Highway

Municipality(ies): City of Sudbury

Roll Number(s): 5307-210-003-11600-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3266122, 3314696 and 3367858

Taxation Year(s): 2017, 2018 and 2019

Hearing Event No.: 721575

Legislative Authority: Rule 45 of the Assessment Review Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure

Heard: August 9, 2019 by written submission

Parties	Counsel+/Representative	Submissions
Timestone Corporation	Gerard E. McAndrew+	Moving Party
MPAC	Brittany Kee	Received
City of Sudbury	No one appeared	Not Received

DISPOSITION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY JEAN-PAUL PILON

DISPOSITION OF MOTION

1Timestone Corporation (the “Moving Party”) is the owner of a property at 3098 Falconbridge Highway in the City of Sudbury (the “Subject Property”).

2The Moving Party filed an appeal for the 2017 taxation year with the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) and was deemed to have brought the same appeal with respect to the Subject Property for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years pursuant to subsection 40(26) of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31.

3The Moving Party brings this motion for disclosure because it is unsatisfied with the disclosure that had been provided to it by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”). The notice of motion describes it as a motion “for further and better disclosure.”

4For the reasons that follow, the Moving Party’s motion is dismissed.

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION OF MOTION

Background

5The Subject Property is neighbourhood shopping centre. There are two issues in the motion, and both have to do with MPAC’s initial disclosure to the Moving Party and Fair Market Rents (“FMR”).

6The first issue in the motion pertains to MPAC’s determination in its Property Profile that there are seven different Occupancy Codes for the Subject Property. MPAC provided a document to the Moving Party entitled “MVR Addendum – Summary of Reported Rents per square food used in retail FMR Analysis for the 510 Occupancy Code,” but the Moving Party requests the same document for the other six Occupancy Codes MPAC used for the Subject Property.

7The second issue in the motion relates specifically to MPAC’s determination of FMR for those parts of the Subject Property having Occupancy Code 510. The Moving Party’s motion record explains that the FMR for the type of property in question is indicated in MPAC’s generic documentation at $12.00 per square foot, while MPAC’s Property Profile for the Subject Property indicates that the FMR used is $14.75, less an adjustment of $3.25, to arrive at an FMR $11.50 per square foot. The Moving Party says that no explanation is given for the adjustment or the starting figure.

8The Moving Party goes on in its material to say that MPAC must have made adjustments to arrive at that FMR, but that it “has no idea as to what adjustments were made or as to the magnitude of those adjustments.” As a result, it “has no way of verifying and testing the applicability or accuracy of the adjustments that were made and the assessment arrived at.”

9Therefore and in summary, the Moving Party seeks specific documentation relating to MPAC’s determination of FMR values of six of the seven Occupancy Codes in the first part, and information as to what adjustments were made to the FMR used to arrive at MPAC’s opinion of current value for the seventh Occupancy Code, 510 in the second part.

10In response to the first request, MPAC says that the documents requested for the six Occupancy Codes do not exist, but it makes reference to page numbers in a report attached to its motion record for each of the Occupancy Codes. In response to the second request, MPAC says that it provided all documentation in its possession on the issue to the Moving Party, and that adjustments were for a “local neighbourhood adjustment.” MPAC goes on to say that “information regarding the adjustments beyond this does not exist and this issue can be plead (sic) in the Moving Party’s Statement of Issues.” It also says that “MPAC has provided the Property Specific Adjustment Document which outlines the adjustments that were made to the Fair Market Rents.”

11The Moving Party could have replied to MPAC’s submission in the motion, but it did not.

ANALYSIS

12Rule 45 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”) provides that:

All parties must serve 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, or documents that cannot be disclosed by law.

13In the first request, the Moving Party only seeks disclosure of documents that do not exist, and MPAC cannot be required to produce documents that do not exist because they are not in its “possession, control or power.” Instead, MPAC references pages in a document enclosed with its response which provides base rents by unit type for each of the six Occupancy Codes in question applying to the rental market area in which the Subject Property is located.

14MPAC’s response to the Moving Party’s second request is also that no documentation other than that which was previously provided to the Moving Party exists to be disclosed. As a result, this request is also denied.

CONCLUSION

15Timestone Corporation’s motion for disclosure is dismissed because documentation beyond what was already provided does not exist.