788799 Ontario Limited v. City of Toronto, 2020 CanLII 24885

Assessment Review Board / Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: March 27, 2020 FILE NO.: WR 164192

Assessed Person(s): Salvati Holdings Inc. Appellant(s): 788799 Ontario Limited Respondent(s): City of Toronto Property Location(s): 665 and 657 College Street Municipality(ies): City of Toronto Roll Number(s): 1904-043-130-07100-0000 and 1904-043-130-07200-0000 Appeal Number(s): 3381555 and 3381556 Taxation Year(s): 2018 Hearing Event No.: 728976 and 728977

Legislative Authority: Section 323(7) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A

APPEARANCES:

Parties 788799 Ontario Limited City of Toronto

Counsel*/Representative Ronald Medoff, Donna Mogul Angus Mackay*, Melanie Shankar

HEARD: February 25, 2020 by telephone conference call

ADJUDICATOR: Subuola Awoleri, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

The Appeals

1Ronald Medoff, on behalf of 788799 Ontario Limited (the “Appellant”) has appealed the City council’s decisions regarding the applications filed under section 323(1)(d)(ii) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A (the “Act”) for the refunds of the 2018 property taxes for the period of June 17, 2018 to December 31, 2018, due to fire damages sustained on 665 and 657 College Street (the “Subject Properties”).

2The City council’s decisions granted the Appellant’s applications and reduced the Appellant’s property taxes for the Subject Properties.

3The Appellant appealed the decisions of the City council to the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) under section 323(7) of the Act, on the basis that the refunds were too low.

4Angus Mackay, representing the City requests that these appeals be dismissed, arguing that the Appellant has not provided any statutory ground upon which the Board can proceed with the appeals. He added that the Appellant has also not complied with Rule 38 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”).

PRELIMINARY MATTER – Combined Appeals

5The Appellant filed two separate appeals for the Subject Properties. The parties agreed to combine the hearing of the two appeals since the facts and the evidence for the two appeals are the same. This decision applies to the two appeals.

Issues for the Hearing

6The only issue to be determined is: Should there be an increase in the quantum of tax refunds to the Appellant for the 2018 taxation year?

RESULT

7For reasons that follow, the Board finds that the Appellant is not entitled to an increase in tax refunds for the Subject Properties for the 2018 taxation year and the City’s decisions remain in force.

ANALYSIS

8I find that there is no statutory ground for the Board to grant an increase in the amount of tax refunds to the Appellant.

9The Appellant argues that the land values of the Subject Properties apportioned by Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) are higher than estimated. The Appellant submits that since the City relied on MPAC’s incorrect assessment and valuation of the Subject Properties in calculating the amount of refunds of taxes, the amounts refunded are incorrect and the Appellant is entitled to higher refunds.

10Prior to the hearing, the Appellant did not provide the amount of property taxes owed and how these were calculated. During the hearing, the Appellant provided a quick calculation of the approximate amounts that should be refunded.

11Mr. Medoff did not understand the Board’s jurisdiction under s. 323 of the Act. He kept on referring to the fact that the land values of the Subject Properties used by the City was incorrect. The City relied on MPAC’s assessed current value returned on the roll in calculating the Appellant’s tax reductions. The City is entitled to rely on this information.

12If the Appellant wanted to challenge the land values of the Subject Properties, the Appellant would have to file appeals to the Board under section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31.

13Apart from the evidence pertaining to the land values of the Subject Properties, the Appellant has not provided new evidence or additional evidence relating to the fire to support additional refunds of property tax with the Board. The Appellant’s disagreement with the land values of the Subject Properties is not a statutory basis for the Board to proceed on these appeals under the Act.

14The Appellant is using these appeals to argue section 40 appeals under the Assessment Act for the incorrect assessments of the Subject Properties. This is the wrong forum to present this evidence and argument.

CONCLUSION

15The Appellant’s evidence and submission to challenge the City’s decisions relates only to the land values of the Subject Properties. The Board cannot change the land values of the Subject Properties in appeals under section 323(7) of the Act.

16The Board finds that the Appellant is not entitled to an increase in the amount of refunds, as it did not present any additional evidence beyond what was presented to the City Council to show justification for this increase. The City’s decisions remain in force.