Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: August 28, 2019 FILE NO.: DM 161799

Moving Party(ies): Timestone Corporation Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region No. 30 Respondent(s): City of Sudbury

Property Location(s): 1107 Webbwood Drive Municipality(ies): City of Sudbury Roll Number(s): 5307-050-027-10500-0000 Appeal Number(s): 3233561, 3314475 and 3367968 Taxation Year(s): 2017, 2018 and 2019

Hearing Event No.: 721578 Legislative Authority: Rule 45 of the Assessment Review Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure Heard: August 12, 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 1107 Webbwood Drive 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 an industrial mall with tenancies.

6The issue in the motion relates to the contents of MPAC’s initial disclosure to the Moving Party, and specifically MPAC’s determination of Fair Market Rents at the Subject Property (“FMR”).

7The Moving Party’s motion record explains that the FMR for the type of property in question is indicated in MPAC’s generic documentation at $8.00 per square foot, while MPAC’s Property Profile for the Subject Property indicates that the FMR used is $5.75. The Moving Party says that no explanation is given for the reduction.

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.”

9The Moving Party therefore seeks information as to what adjustments were made to the FMR used to arrive at MPAC’s opinion of current value.

10In response, MPAC says that it provided all documentation in its possession on the issue to the Moving Party, and that adjustments made were 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.” Attached to MPAC’s response is its “Market Valuation Report Valuing Industrial Malls in Ontario,” which includes information about adjustments made to FMRs for various localities.

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.

13MPAC’s attachment is 125 pages long and the Board is uncertain that it contains the information requested by the Moving Party. It also appears that the Moving Party had been in possession of the attachment all along which it referred to in its motion material as “a voluminous document published by MPAC online which we have accessed.” Any deficiencies in MPAC’s response, if there were any, could have been pointed out in reply.

14In any event, MPAC indicated that further information does not exist, and MPAC cannot be required to produce documentation that does not exist because it is not in its “possession, control or power.” MPAC indicated in an email to MPAC’s representative prior to the filing of the motion that further documentation on this issue either did not exist, was not relevant or would be disproportionate to disclose at that point. Had MPAC simply said to the Moving Party what it said in its motion material, that there was nothing more to disclose, this motion would not have been necessary.

CONCLUSION

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