Danny Saltzman v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 09, 2020 CanLII 19340

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

March 02, 2020

FILE NO.:

DM 162643

Moving Party (ies):

Danny Saltzman

Respondent(s):

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 09

Property Location(s):

2131 Weston Road

Municipality(ies):

City of Toronto

Roll Number(s):

1914-064-200-00300-0000

Appeal Number(s):

3264394, 3298134, 3353662

Taxation Year(s):

2017, 2018, 2019

Hearing Event No.

725574

Legislative Authority:

Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31

Parties

Representative

Moving Party Danny Saltzman

Self-represented

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation

Drew Samuels

City of Toronto

No one appeared

HEARD:

In writing

ADJUDICATOR:

Dirk VanderBent, Vice-Chair

DECISION MOTION

OVERVIEW

1Danny Saltzman is the owner of a property located at 2131 Weston Road, City of Toronto (the “Subject Property”), which is described as Property Code 105 – Vacant Commercial Land. Mr. Saltzman (the “Appellant”) has filed an appeal for the 2017 taxation year with the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”), pursuant to s. 40 of the Act, which now includes deemed appeals for 2018 and 2019.

2In this proceeding, the Appellant has filed a Motion for Disclosure with the Board, pursuant to Rule 45 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”), requesting that MPAC provide additional initial disclosure.

Background

3These appeals are being heard by way of general proceeding. The Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”) provides for a Schedule of Events which sets out due dates for completion of pleadings and exchange of disclosure. Regarding disclosure, the Schedule of Events provides that within the first five weeks after an appeal commences, MPAC is to provide initial disclosure and other parties may request additional disclosure. Any dispute respecting a request for additional disclosure is to be resolved by way of a Motion for Disclosure.

Issue

4The issue in the motion is whether the Board should grant the Appellant’s request that MPAC provide additional initial disclosure.

5In his motion, the Appellant requests “additional information because MPAC has failed to provide relevant information on determining a fair and accurate value for the property”. The Appellant further states that it is “looking for information that would support a fair and accurate valuation.” In response, MPAC asserts that it has provided extensive initial disclosure which Mr. Saltzman can access on MPAC's on-line information database ‘AboutMyProperty’.

6The Board directed that the Motion be heard in writing. MPAC has provided a Response to the Motion, but the Municipality has not.

Result

7The Motion is denied.

ANALYSIS

8The Board first notes that, in his motion, the Appellant has not provided a request for any specific documents. Rule 45 states:

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.

9If a request for disclosure does not identify a specific document, it is impossible for the Board to determine whether the document is relevant. A party is only required to disclose a document if it is relevant to an issue in dispute.

10The question of whether the MPAC has provided sufficient initial disclosure, has been addressed in Accu Servo Technology Inc. v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 15, 2019 CanLII 32436 (“Accu Servo”), where the Board stated:

12In order to better understand the issue before the Board, it is also necessary to provide a description of the purpose of initial disclosure. The Board has issued a Guideline entitled “How to Interpret the Schedule of Events for General Proceedings” (the “Guideline”) which confirms that the purpose of initial disclosure is to provide “sufficient disclosure for an appellant to submit a clear and concise Statement of Issues”.

11The Guideline also describes what information is to be produced by MPAC when providing initial disclosure:

The Board has consulted with representatives from the Board’s stakeholder community respecting the development of the Schedule of Events and the provision of disclosure. There is consensus that MPAC has provided comprehensive initial disclosure in its “About My Property” online database system. This initial disclosure has three main components:

• Methodology Guides which explain assessment methodologies;

• Analytics, which are Market Valuation Reports that explain how an assessment methodology is applied to value property; and

• Property Specific Valuation Information.

12It is also important to note that the specific issues in dispute will not be clearly identified until the Statement of Issues and Statement of Response have been prepared and further requests for disclosure may be made at that time.

13In Accu Servo, the Board also observed:

30In an appeal under s.40 of the Act, when preparing its Statement of Issues, an appellant is not required to “verify” the disclosure on MPAC’s database, because an appellant will not know what MPAC’s evidence and analysis will be until MPAC serves its Statement of Response.

31Instead, the Appellant is only required to provide its evidence and analysis to support its position respecting the correct current value of the Subject Property and whether there should be an equitable reduction of this value. MPAC will then, in its Statement of Response, detail where MPAC disputes the Appellant’s evidence and analysis, and provide its evidence and analysis in support of its position. As explained in the Guideline, under the Schedule of Events, an appellant has the right to serve a Reply to MPAC’s Statement of Response. If, upon service of a Statement of Response, an appellant concludes that additional disclosure is required, such disclosure may be requested at that time. At that stage in the proceeding, the issues in dispute will be clear, and any dispute regarding relevancy can be properly determined at that time.

32The purpose of requiring MPAC to provide initial disclosure is, as stated in the Guideline, to provide sufficient disclosure for an appellant to submit a clear and concise Statement of Issues. There is nothing in the Appellant’s Motion materials to a support a conclusion that the disclosure provided by MPAC in its “AboutMyProperty” website is insufficient to explain how MPAC arrived at its assessed value of the Subject Property.

Finding

14The Board finds that the analysis and findings in Accu Serve are applicable to the Appellant’s request for initial disclosure in this motion. The Appellant has not requested any specific documents or information, and there will be further disclosure exchanged as the appeal proceeding progresses.

CONCLUSION

15The Appellant’s request for initial disclosure is denied.

16As 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.