Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: June 02, 2020

FILE NO.: DM 164094

Moving Party(ies): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation

Respondent(s): Kraft Heinz Canada ULC

Respondent(s): Township of South Stormont

Property Location(s): 70 Dickinson Drive

Municipality(ies): Township of South Stormont

Roll Number(s): 0406-006-008-80000

Appeal Number(s): 3236725, 3288660, 3345150 and 3395731

Taxation Year(s): 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020

Hearing Event No.: 728279

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

Parties	Counsel
Kraft Heinz Canada ULC	Melissa Muskat
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation	Donald G. Mitchell
Township of South Stormont	No one appeared

REQUEST FOR: An Order for Disclosure

HEARD: December 16, 2019 in writing

ADJUDICATOR(S): Dirk VanderBent, Vice-Chair

MOTION DECISION

OVERVIEW

Background

1Kraft Heinz Canada ULC (the “Appellant” or “Kraft”) was the owner of 70 Dickinson Road, Ingleside, Township of South Stormont (the “Subject Property”), on which is located an industrial facility for cheese and whey/cheese by-product production (the “Ingleside Facility’). Kraft filed an appeal for the 2017 taxation year with the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”), pursuant to s. 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31. This appeal proceeding now also includes deemed appeals for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years.

2On July 2, 2019, Parmalat Canada Inc. ("Parmalat"), acquired Kraft’s Canadian natural cheese business for a purchase price of $1.62 billion. Under the terms of the transaction, Parmalat acquired the Subject Property, which includes the Ingleside Facility, as well as relevant volumes of milk quotas. Parmalat also became the employer of approximately 400 people who work there.

3The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) assessed the current value of the Subject Property at $6,789,000, as of the relevant Valuation Date, January 1, 2016. Kraft disputes this value, taking the position that the correct current value is $3,654,000.

Disclosure Motion – Relevancy of Requested Documents

4Kraft is the Appellant in this proceeding. MPAC has filed a motion requesting an order that Kraft disclose a number of documents, which Kraft opposes. The Township of South Stormont (the “Municipality”) supports MPAC's request, but it did not provide any additional submissions.

5In overview, a party must disclose all documents that are relevant to an issue in dispute. Therefore, it is necessary to describe the pertinent issues in dispute that have been raised by the parties.

6In its Statement of Issues, Kraft has indicated that it agrees that the valuation methodology to be applied is the Cost Approach, but further asserts that a Direct Sales Comparison approach and an equity analysis, are both supportive of Kraft's position respecting the correct current value of the Subject Property, which Kraft determined using the Cost Approach. The Cost Approach values the structures located on the property, to which is added a separate value for the land itself.

7Regarding the Cost Approach, MPAC disagrees with Kraft’s valuation of the Subject Property in the following areas:

1. the correct amount of functional obsolescence - excess capital costs to be allowed;
2. the correct amount of functional obsolescence - excess operating costs to be allowed; and
3. the correct amount of economic obsolescence.

8MPAC also takes the position that the sale value of Kraft’s sale to Parmalat is relevant when determining the correct current value of the Subject Property.

Additional Issues

9In its submissions, MPAC states that Kraft has not disclosed information that has been provided by its employees, relying instead on Jerry Grad, a property valuation specialist, who Kraft retained to conduct a valuation of the Subject Property. Mr. Grad obtained information from Kraft, which was then provided to MPAC. MPAC notes that, in some instances, Mr. Grad has indicated that he obtained information from management, without identifying who the individuals are, or that he does not know if Kraft possesses documents or whether they exist. MPAC argues that this approach does not fulfil Kraft’s obligation to provide disclosure of relevant documents.

10Kraft, in its submissions, notes that MPAC has filed an amended Statement of Response. Kraft argues that MPAC cannot unilaterally amend its Statement of Response before it serves its expert report in response to Mr. Grad’s Report.

Result

11The Motion is granted. The Board’s disposition for each disclosure request is provided below.

ANALYSIS

The Test to be Applied

12The Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure:

Proportionality

5. These Rules shall be applied in a manner proportionate to the importance and complexity of the issues in a proceeding and with a view to resolving appeals within the four year cycle.

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, or documents that cannot be disclosed by law.

13The test to be applied regarding disclosure has been set out in Walmart Canada Corporation and Target Canada Corporation v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 01, 2018 CanLII 67789 (ON ARB).

18Relevance is determined in relation to whether a document is relevant to an issue in dispute. However, this is not the only criteria that the Board will consider when determining whether a document, which may be relevant, should be disclosed. Rule 45, itself, provides an exception for privileged documents. In addition, Rule 5 provides that “These Rules shall be applied in a manner proportionate to the importance and complexity of the issues in a proceeding and with a view to resolving appeals within the four year cycle’. Therefore, the requirement to disclose relevant documents must also be applied in a proportionate manner. Rule 45 does not include specific criteria to assess proportionality. However, the Board finds that the criteria in Rule 29.2.03(1) and (2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure (Ontario) are applicable, namely:

1. the time required for the party or other person to answer the question or produce the document would be unreasonable;
2. the expense associated with answering the question or producing the document would be unjustified;
3. requiring the party or other person to answer the question or produce the document would cause him or her undue prejudice;
4. requiring the party or other person to answer the question or produce the document would unduly interfere with the orderly progress of the action; and
5. the information or the document is readily available to the party requesting it from another source.
6. whether an order for disclosure would result in an excessive volume of documents required to be produced by the party or other person.

The Board observes that this is a non-exhaustive list. There may be other criteria identified on a case by case basis.

19In applying the above criteria, the Board must balance these considerations against relevancy, i.e. the degree to which it appears that the document is relevant to an issue in dispute, and, if so, how probative this evidence may be. The onus to establish that a document should be disclosed pursuant to Rule 45 rests with the party who requests the disclosure.

20In addition to the above, it should also be noted that Rule 45 only requires disclosure of documents in a party’s possession, control, or power. A party is not required to produce new information, or obtain documents that are not within its possession, control, or power.

Disclosure Request No. 1

14As MPAC began numbering its requests at two, MPAC's motion does not contain a Request No. 1.

Disclosure Requests respecting the sale of the Subject Property

Disclosure Request Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5

15Regarding Kraft’s sale of the Subject Property to Parmalat, MPAC's property valuation specialist, Peter Dim states: “My appraisal training and expertise indicates that reference to the sale price of the subject property is an appropriate approach to value for that property and is the approach to which the most weight will usually be given.”

16Kraft disagrees, maintaining that Parmalat acquired the Ingleside Facility as part of a larger business acquisition. Kraft submits that as part of the acquisition, it and Parmalat entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement whereby Parmalat purchased the Subject Property at “book value”, which is $16,565,351. Kraft’s property valuation specialist, Gerry Grad, filed an affidavit stating:

Book value of an asset is its historical purchase cost, adjusted for any subsequent changes, such as for impairment or depreciation. Market value is the price that could be obtained by selling an asset on a competitive, open market. There is nearly always a disparity between book value and market value, since the first is a recorded historical cost and the second is based on the perceived supply and demand for an asset, which can vary constantly. This is consistent with accounting and appraisal theory, and finance.

17It is Mr. Grad’s opinion that the book values are irrelevant to the determination of market or current value. Mr. Grad also states that there were no other valuations or appraisals on which this sale value was derived.

18For this reason, and because the acquisition occurred in July 2019, which post-dates the Valuation Date, it is Mr. Grad’s opinion that the sale to Parmalat is not relevant to the determination of the correct current value of the Subject Property.

19In turn, Mr. Dim disagrees with Mr. Grad’s view. Mr. Dim states that the book value of the Subject Property is relevant because book value has been used as the agreed sale value. He further observes that the financial statements of Kraft are the basis of the book values used in the transaction. He states his opinion that these documents are relevant when ascertaining the reliability of using the sale price in determining the correct current value of the Subject Property.

20Given its position, MPAC makes the following disclosure requests:

2. The Agreement of Purchase and Sale with respect to the real property which is the Subject Property and the adjacent residential property.
3. All documents setting out the basis of the $16,565,351 as shown on the Land Transfer Tax Affidavit.
4. The financial statements of Kraft which are the basis of the book values used in the transaction.
5. All documents that are the basis of the book values.

MPAC’s Submissions

21MPAC asserts that Ontario courts have held that the sale of a property is very powerful evidence of the correct current value. More specifically, MPAC submits that the price paid in a recent free sale of the Subject Property itself, where, as in this case, there has been no subsequent change in the market nor to the property itself, must be very powerful evidence as to what is the market value of the property. It is for that reason that a recent free sale of the Subject Property is generally accepted as the best means of establishing the market value of that property.

22MPAC emphasizes that the Appellant’s expert, Mr. Grad, requested that Parmalat provide him with the Agreement of Purchase and Sale. MPAC submits that this is an admission of the appraiser's need to review it and also an admission of its relevance to determining the validity of this sale. MPAC maintains that, as a party to the sale transaction, Kraft would be in possession of the Agreement of Purchase and Sale, maintaining that the dearth of information that Mr. Grad obtained from Parmalat refers to what Parmalat, the purchaser, would provide to him, not what Kraft has in its possession, control or power.

23MPAC submits that Kraft has not provided any documents or information from any person at Kraft who has first-hand knowledge of the documents in Kraft’s possession. MPAC emphasizes that the affidavit of Kraft’s expert, Mr. Grad, does not set out the name, title and area of responsibility of any person at Kraft from whom Mr. Grad obtained his information and so there is no credible and reliable evidence that the Board can act on.

24MPAC submits that the basis for arriving at the sale value shown on the Land Transfer Tax Affidavit is essential to determining how much is to be allocated to the Subject Property. Thus, Kraft’s financial statements which are the basis of the book value are relevant to the determination of the correct current value of the Subject Property.

Kraft’s Submissions

25Kraft states that there is no Agreement of Purchase and Sale with respect to the Subject Property, emphasizing that it is a sale of Kraft’s operating business, more specifically, Kraft’s entire natural cheese business, part of which included the transfer of the Subject Property to the purchaser Parmalat.

26Kraft relies on the evidence of its expert, Mr. Grad, who states that while it is appropriate to investigate the sale of a business when valuing the property, it is his view that a sale that has occurred three years after the Valuation Date, has less probative value. For this reason, in his view, the sale is not relevant to the valuation of the Subject Property, as of the January 1, 2016 Valuation Date, and would be considered "hindsight".

27Kraft submits that the requested documents are not relevant, asserting that the book value of the Subject Property is not relevant to market value or current value. Kraft further submits that, it has produced the Land Transfer Tax Affidavit, maintaining that it is the only document available reflecting the basis of the $16,565,351 figure.

28Kraft also submits that MPAC’s request is not proportional to the importance and complexity of the proceedings. Kraft maintains that the request is vague and general and the reference to “all” is unreasonable and unjustified. Kraft asserts that the Agreement of Purchase and Sale has already been produced, and this disposes of MPAC's request.

Findings on Request Nos. 2 to 5

29The Board first turns to the issue of whether Kraft’s sale of the business to Parmalat has occurred so long after the Valuation Date that it cannot be considered relevant. The sale occurred in July 2019, which is three and one-half years after the January 1, 2016 Valuation Date. However, the Board notes that the sale of a business for $1.62 billion indicates that it was a complex business transaction, which would have been negotiated over a period of time prior to the date of the actual sale transaction. The Board also notes that Kraft’s expert, Mr. Grad, acknowledges that the sale has “less probative value”, not that it has no probative value.

30Furthermore, at this stage in the appeal proceeding, it is not the function of the Board to determine the merits of the appeal. Information related to the sale is relevant when determining the correct current value. If the sale date is too far removed from the Valuation Date this may impact the weight to be accorded to this evidence, which is a matter to be determined by the Hearing Member at the main hearing.

31MPAC has not disputed Kraft’s assertion that there is no ‘Agreement of Purchase and Sale’ document. Therefore, the Board finds that it is unnecessary to grant Request No. 2.

32Regarding Requests No. 3 to 5, the Board notes that Kraft has provided the Land Transfer Tax Affidavit, which only confirms the sale value of the Subject Property at the time legal title to the Subject Property was transferred to Parmalat.

33The Board notes that Kraft has also disclosed the particulars of the Asset Purchase Agreement, which is the probative document. However, Kraft is required to disclose all relevant documents in its possession, power, and control. Kraft has argued that any documents that might have been in its possession, assuming they exist at all, prior to July of 2019, are no longer in Kraft’s possession as the business was sold. However, the Board notes that Kraft continues to remain the corporate Appellant in this appeal, and there is no evidence to indicate that Kraft would not have retained it own records pertaining to the business sale transaction. Therefore, the Board does not accept this submission.

34There is clearly a difference of valuation opinion regarding the relevance of the book value of the Subject Property to the determination of correct current value. At this stage in the appeal proceeding, it is not the function of the Board to determine which opinion is correct or whether one opinion should be preferred over the other. As there clearly is an issue in dispute, relevancy must be determined in relation to this issue.

35In this case, MPAC is not just relying on the view that book value, in and of itself, is relevant to the determination of correct current value. Clearly, the ‘book value’ has been used as the sale value of the Subject Property in the sale transaction. Therefore, how the book value was derived is clearly relevant. The Land Transfer Tax Affidavit only provides the quantum of the book value, not how this quantum was derived. There is nothing in Kraft’s submissions to establish that production of the requested documents would not be proportional. Therefore, the Board finds that detailed financial records or other documents which indicate how the book value was calculated, or which were used in the calculation itself, are relevant to the issue in dispute and should be disclosed. Therefore, the Board grants MPAC's Request Nos. 3, 4 and 5.

Disclosure Requests respecting Functional Obsolescence - Excess Operating Costs - Insufficient Area - Cheese Packaging Room

Disclosure Request Nos. 6 to 11

36The relevant background to these requests is set out in the report authored by Kraft’s expert, Mr. Grad, entitled 2016 CVA Valuation Report, dated October 4, 2019 issued by Equitable Value, the firm with whom Mr. Grad is associated (“Grad Valuation Report” or “Report”). At page 55 of this Report, Mr. Grad states that, “through discussions with management” he was advised that there was insufficient area in the Ingleside Facility to allow for automation of the packaging function consistent with a modern facility. As a result, human labour is required to perform the packaging function. More specifically, Mr. Grad states that management advised him that “it was originally identified that an additional 23 Full Time Equivalents (“FTEs") were required to carry out the cheese packaging process at an estimated annual excess operating cost of $1,900,000. He then explained that: “Through continued discussion, this number of additional FTEs was increased from 23 to 45 although a revision to the excess cost was not provided by management.” His Report further provides a description of nine production lines, and the number of FTEs (people) required for each Line. Finally, Mr. Grad calculates the present value of the annual total FTE cost over a period of 15 years, which is $3,707,591.

37Kraft maintains that this is an excess operating cost, which, when applying the Cost Approach to valuation, will reduce the current value of the Ingleside Facility.

38MPAC disagrees. In its Statement of Response, MPAC states that in its inspection of the Ingleside Facility, the inspector observed assembly units, some of which were automated boxing units and others that were not, but both appeared to be the same size. On this basis, MPAC concludes there is sufficient area for the operations, and, consequently, there should be no adjustment for functional obsolescence.

39In light of this disclosure, MPAC makes the following disclosure requests:

6. The reports, studies, memoranda and other documents upon which Kraft determined that the number of FTEs required was 23.
7. The reports, studies, memoranda and other documents upon which Kraft determined that its cost was $1,900,000 including all documents setting out the details of the calculation of $1,900,000.
8. All documents setting out the communications from Kraft to Mr. Grad or notes by Mr. Grad or staff of Equitable Value of discussion with management.
9. The reports, studies, memoranda and other documents upon which Kraft determined that the number of FTEs required was 45.
10. The reports, studies, memoranda and other documents regarding Kraft’s cost including all documents setting out the details of that cost.
11. All documents setting out the communications from Kraft to Mr. Grad or notes by Mr. Grad or staff of Equitable Value of discussion with management.

MPAC's Submissions

40MPAC does not dispute that excess operating costs must be considered, but it asserts that the documentary details of the operation of the cheese packaging operation including the documentary details of any obsolescence regarding the cheese packing function, including the number of FTEs and their cost, is known only to Kraft and is not available from any public source. MPAC further states that Kraft has produced none of these documents.

41MPAC relies on the opinion of its expert, Mr. Dim, that it is necessary to review the requested documents in order to understand and respond to the issue of the determination of functional obsolescence.

Kraft’s Submissions

42Regarding Request Nos. 6, 9, and 10, Kraft asserts that the information was obtained verbally, and all relevant information has been set out in Kraft’s Reply and the Grad Valuation Report.

43Regarding Request No. 7, Kraft asserts that this information was obtained verbally and the details of the calculation were provided to MPAC by email dated May 23, 2018.

44Regarding Request Nos. 8 and 11, Kraft claims litigation privilege over any notes or communications between Kraft and Mr. Grad or staff of Equitable Value. Kraft asserts that, in any event, the conclusions of these discussions have been produced, and, therefore, this request is unreasonable and is disproportionate. Kraft maintains that whether Mr. Grad understood things correctly is not a relevant basis for ordering disclosure, and, therefore, MPAC's request is more appropriately dealt with in cross-examination.

45Regarding the information that was obtained verbally, Kraft also relies on evidence of its expert, Mr. Grad who states that:

… there were no documents, the information came from a discussion with management. I have produced whatever documents I received from Kraft and have nothing further. I do not even know whether any such documents exist.

Findings on Request Nos. 6 to 11

46Regarding the information that Mr. Grad verbally received from management at Kraft, the Board first observes that Rule 45 imposes the obligation on a party to provide disclosure of relevant documents to other parties, in this instance, Kraft to MPAC and the Municipality. A party’s legal representative will advise its client regarding the documents that are required to be disclosed, and to ensure that they are produced to the other parties.

47In conducting his valuation of the Subject Property, Mr. Grad may choose to rely on conclusions or opinions verbally expressed by other persons that are unsubstantiated by documented data. However, this is not determinative of Kraft’s obligation to disclose relevant documents as required by Rule 45. In this regard, the Board notes that Mr. Grad has candidly stated that he does not know whether any of the documents exist. Therefore, he does not know what relevant documents Kraft has in its possession, control or power.

48Kraft claims that the current value of the Subject Property is impacted by functional obsolescence, and MPAC disputes this claim. As such, whether there is functional obsolescence, and if so, its quantification, are clearly issues in dispute. Therefore, documents related to both issues are clearly relevant and should be disclosed. As Mr. Grad has relied on verbal information from “management”, the identity of the persons who provided the information is also relevant and should be disclosed.

49Regarding Request No. 7, and Kraft’s assertion that the calculations were provided to MPAC by email dated May 23, 2018, this email states:

Our estimate of these excess costs at $1,360,000 was based on $40,000 per year for each of 9 employees (Make Room) and $44,000 per year for each of 25 employees (Packaging Line). However, upon further investigation with our client, we have determined that we underestimated salaries and also had to account for senior and managerial staff. We also determined that slightly fewer employees are needed. Our revised excess costs figure for additional labour is based upon $800,000 in total for 8 employees (Make Room) and $1,900,000 in totally for 23 employees (Packaging Line) for a revised estimate of excess costs of $2,700,000.

50While the Board accepts that Kraft has further particularized the calculation, this email still provides only a summary. It does not provide documents to confirm the number of FTEs required, or the quoted costs for labour, nor does it document whether these labour costs are incurred due to functional obsolescence. The Board further notes that Kraft has provided changing estimates of the required FTEs (23, 45, and 31). This, in itself, makes the question of how Kraft has determined the FTE requirements all the more relevant.

51The Board now turns to Kraft’s claim of litigation privilege over any notes or communications between Kraft and Mr. Grad or staff of Equitable Value. It is not disputed that Mr. Grad has been retained by Kraft to provide expert opinion evidence. The materials filed by Kraft include a Board “Acknowledgement of Expert Duty” which has been executed by Mr. Grad. It is clear, therefore, that Mr. Grad was not retained to act as Kraft’s legal representative. As such, the Board does not accept that these communications are subject to litigation privilege. In further support of this conclusion, the Board notes that MPAC is not requesting communications between Kraft’s counsel and Mr. Grad.

52Regarding whether such communications are relevant, Mr. Grad obtained verbal information on which he relies in his valuation of the Subject Property, and on which Kraft, in turn, relies in this appeal proceeding, and which MPAC disputes. Therefore, these communications are clearly relevant to an issue in dispute and should be disclosed.

53Based on the above analysis and findings, the Board grants Requests No. 6 to 11.

Disclosure Request Nos. 12, 13, and 14

54The Grad Valuation Report confirms an alternate approach to determine functional obsolescence resulting from the cheese packaging operations, namely, to determine the cost of renovations to the existing facility that would be required to accommodate the automation of the packaging function. This is described as the “cost to cure” approach. The Report describes that, in March 2018, Kraft management prepared preliminary cost estimates, but never proceeded with the renovations. The Grad Valuation Report provides a “Budget Estimate Cost Summary” which provides a “High-Level Budget Estimate” of $9,112,135 (the “Budget Estimate”). This amount covers all project costs, not just real property costs. Using this data, Mr. Grad provides and applies percentage reductions for project management and equipment costs to derive the remaining real estate cost, which he calculates to be $2,362,500 (the “Cost Estimate”). However, his Report does not provide a description of how the percentage reductions were derived.

55Mr. Grad then compares the two approaches to determine functional obsolescence, i.e. staffing (FTE) costs ($3,707,591) versus cost to cure ($2,362,500) and states his conclusion that the reduction in current value of the Subject Property should be the cost to cure value.

56MPAC does not accept Kraft’s cost to cure estimate. Therefore, in order to respond to Kraft’s evidence, MPAC makes the following disclosure requests:

12. The instructions to the person preparing the Budget Estimate, including all documents provided to him or her in making the estimate and the report and/or covering communication and all documents provided by the person who made the estimates relative to the estimates made.
13. The documentary details of the design and construction of the plant.
14. All reports and documents of Kraft regarding the decision not to carry out the project.

57MPAC maintains that to understand the estimate, it is necessary to review the documents used in making the estimate and to understand the assumptions that the estimator was asked to make. MPAC emphasizes that, as the Budget Estimate is based on the design and construction of an addition to the Ingleside Facility, it is necessary to review documentary details of the design and construction.

58MPAC states that Kraft decided not to carry out the renovation project, allegedly due to high costs. MPAC asserts that Kraft’s reasons for not proceeding may be unrelated to cost considerations. If so, this does not support Kraft’s functional obsolescence claim. MPAC, therefore, submits that documents setting out the reasons for not proceeding with the project are relevant and should be disclosed.

Appellant’s Submissions

59Kraft states that “whatever documents were received” or “whatever documentation that was obtained” have been produced.

60Regarding Request No. 12, Kraft submits that instructions to a person preparing the Budget Estimate are not relevant to the issue in dispute. Kraft maintains that it is the estimate itself that is relevant, and this information has already been produced. Kraft further argues that this request is more appropriately dealt with in cross-examination.

61Regarding Request No. 13, Kraft emphasizes that the addition to the building was never built and the Budget Estimate was a “high level” estimate, so that anything further is not relevant.

62Regarding Request 14, Kraft submits that it is “an unreasonable request, is not decidedly relevant and is disproportionate”.

Findings on Request Nos. 12 to 14

63The Board re-iterates that the issue of functional obsolescence related to the packaging operation is in dispute. Kraft relies on Mr. Grad’s opinion that this functional obsolescence should be determined using the cost to cure approach, and his calculations of the quantum of the cost to cure is based on the Budget Estimate. Therefore, any information related to how the Budget Estimate was derived is relevant and should be disclosed.

64It is reasonable to suggest that the Budget Estimate would, at least in part, have been based on assumptions respecting the proposed design and construction of the addition to the Ingleside Facility. Accordingly, this information is relevant and should be disclosed. If the estimate was based on something other than design and construction plans, or in addition to it, then this information is similarly relevant and, again, should be disclosed. In support of this conclusion, the Board notes that disclosure of the requested documents may also serve to clarify the percentage reductions applied by Mr. Grad in his determination of the real estate portion of the Cost Estimate.

65The Board notes that Kraft’s assertion that the documents received or obtained have been disclosed, does not speak to the issue of whether there are any other documents that are in Kraft’s possession, control, or power that have not been disclosed.

66Regarding Kraft’s reasons for not proceeding with the renovation project, these reasons may provide additional information respecting the extent to which updated packaging operations are required, or whether Kraft considered that the Budget Estimate was based on design parameters that were in fact necessary to implement the required cost to cure. As such, the requested information is relevant to the disputed issue of functional obsolescence, and, therefore it should be disclosed.

67Regarding Kraft’s argument that the requirement to disclose is disproportionate, the Board notes that Kraft has not provided any analysis to establish any of the applicable criteria to be considered in making this determination. The quantum of the functional obsolescence claimed by Kraft is a significant amount, and, consequently, this is a significant issue. Therefore, the Board finds that it is proportionate to require that Kraft provide this disclosure.

68For the above reasons, the Board grants Request Nos. 12 to 14.

Disclosure requests respecting Cost Approach - Functional Obsolescence - Excess Operating Costs - Insufficient Area - Cheese Curing

Disclosure Request Nos. 15 to 18

69In the Grad Valuation Report, Mr. Grad states that “in discussions with management” he was advised: (i) there is insufficient area within the Ingleside Facility to cure the cheese produced, and, consequently, it is necessary to store the cheese off-site for curing; and (ii) the estimated annual cost of “off-site curing” is $3,200,000. Mr. Grad then provides a calculation of the present value of this annual cost over a period of 15 years, based on the assumption that 35.50% of the annual cost is attributable to the real property, and making deductions for income tax, to arrive at a value of $6,244,364 (“Excess Operating Costs”).

70In his Report, Mr. Grad also considers the cost to cure approach. As was done with the packaging operation, management prepared a preliminary estimate for the construction of an on-site cheese curing facility in the amount of $16,500,000. Mr. Grad then provides his calculations of the part of this amount that would be attributable to the real property, concluding that a total of $4,257,000 is attributable to real property.

71Finally, Mr. Grad concludes that the applicable quantum for functional obsolescence should be his calculation of the cost to cure ($4,257,000), as this value is lower than the Excess Operating Costs ($6,244,364).

72MPAC asserts that there is on-site storage at the Ingleside Facility and that Kraft has provided no reasons to indicate that additional storage is necessary. Therefore, in order to respond to Kraft’s evidence, MPAC makes the following disclosure requests:

15. The reports, studies, memoranda and other documents upon which Kraft determined that there is insufficient on-site area for curing, and that off-site area is required.
16. The reports, studies, memoranda and other documents upon which Kraft determined that the estimated annual Excess Operating Costs are $3,200,000 and documents setting out the details of the calculation of $3,200,000.
17. The reports, studies, memoranda and other documents upon which Kraft based the determination of an addition to cure the issue, the construction details of the building to cure the curing issue.
18. The reports, studies, memorandum and other documents that are the source of the $16,500,000 estimate.

73MPAC states that Kraft has not provided any financial or other records to support the allegation of the cost for off-site curing. MPAC submits that the documents setting out the details of the calculations set out in the Grad Valuation Report are relevant and should be disclosed, so that its expert, Mr. Dim, may review these calculations, and to review the documents on which Kraft determined that the addition to the Ingleside Facility would address the requirement for off-site curing.

74MPAC submits that, as the cost to cure calculations are based on the estimate to construct an on-site cheese curing facility, the details of the calculation of this estimate are relevant.

Appellant’s Submissions

75Regarding Request Nos. 15 and 16, Kraft maintains that it verbally provided this information, and the insufficiency of an on-site area for curing was evident when MPAC inspected the Ingleside Facility. Kraft relies on Mr. Grad’s affidavit evidence in which he indicates that it is not even known whether any of the requested documentation exists.

76Regarding Request Nos. 17 and 18, Kraft asserts that the documentation was obtained and produced. Kraft again relies on Mr. Grad’s affidavit evidence in maintaining that it is not even known whether any of the requested documentation exists. Kraft further argues that this request is vague, broad and disproportionate.

Findings on Request Nos. 15 to 18

77The Board concludes that the issues raised are similar to the issues raised respecting Request Nos. 12, 13, and 14, and, therefore, the Board’s analysis above applies to Request Nos. 15 to 18.

78In summary, Kraft claims that the current value of the Subject Property is impacted by functional obsolescence, and MPAC disputes this claim. As such, whether there is functional obsolescence, and if so, its quantification, are clearly issues in dispute. Therefore, documents related to both issues are clearly relevant and should be disclosed. As Mr. Grad has relied on verbal information from “management”, the identity of the persons who provided the information is also relevant and should be disclosed.

79Similarly, the Board has also already found that Kraft’s assertion that the documentation that was obtained has been produced, does not speak to the issue of whether there are any other relevant documents that are in Kraft’s possession, control, or power that have not been disclosed.

80The disputed issues are whether there is insufficient on-site area for curing and, if so, the monetary quantification of this obsolescence. Again, Mr. Grad’s analysis and calculations are based on conclusions regarding annual costs of off-site curing and estimated costs of construction of an on-site cheese curing facility. The requested documents clearly relate to these calculations. Accordingly, the Board finds that MPAC's requests are relevant, and, therefore, all such documents in Kraft’s power, possession or control should be disclosed.

81Regarding Kraft’s argument that the requests are disproportionate, the Board re-iterates its earlier finding that Kraft has not provided any analysis to establish any of the applicable criteria to be considered in making this determination. The quantum of the functional obsolescence is a significant amount, and, consequently, this is a significant issue. Therefore, the Board finds that it is proportionate to require that Kraft provide the requested disclosure.

Disclosure Requests respecting Cost Approach - Functional Obsolescence - Excess Operating Costs - Lack of On-site Storage - Shunting Costs

Disclosure Request Nos. 19 to 21

82In the Grad Valuation Report, Mr. Grad provided the following information. He states that insufficient space exists in terms of finished goods warehousing, ambient warehousing or staging area, as it relates to both shipping and receiving. He states that, as a result of a lack of on-site storage for finished goods, Kraft is required to use trailers as temporary storage as they await their next move. However, as of the Valuation Date, insufficient secure trailer space existed on-site. As a result, Kraft pays for third party shunting costs to move and store finished goods before transporting them to their final destination.

83Mr. Grad stated that, in 2017, the Ingleside Facility incurred an expense of $357,300 in excess shunting costs. The Grad Valuation Report attaches a document described as “2017 Annual Shunting Costs” which provides itemized expenditures for different time periods, presented in a spreadsheet format. However, the column heading descriptors on this spreadsheet are not defined. At the end of this spreadsheet, some of these costs are highlighted, and appear to relate to shunting costs. A summary is then provided which shows a value of $357,300.15 for “Shunting”.

84In his Report, Mr. Grad then calculates the present value of an annual cost for shunting of $357,300, over a 15 year period at a 10% discount rate. He further adjusts the allocation of this present value to reflect the real property component of this cost, to derive a value of $506,714. Mr. Grad also confirms that he did not do a separate cost to cure analysis.

85MPAC maintains that there is storage on-site. MPAC asserts that Kraft has not provided any reasons to substantiate its claim that additional storage is necessary or any financial or other records to support the allegation of the cost. Therefore, in order to respond to Kraft’s evidence, MPAC makes the following disclosure requests:

19. The reports, studies, memoranda and other documents upon which Kraft based the determination that there was a lack of on-site storage for finished goods.
20. The reports, studies, memoranda and other documents upon which Kraft based the determination to shunt the finished goods to off-site storage before transport to the final destination.
21. The reports, studies, memoranda and other documents upon which Kraft based the determination of the location of the place of off-site storage.

MPAC’s Submissions

86MPAC maintains that finished goods normally leave the plant and are sent by a manufacturer to their final destination. MPAC submits that, because Kraft is claiming off-site shunting costs as a factor in functional obsolescence, documents related to Kraft’s determination that there was insufficient on-site storage are relevant.

87MPAC submits that, as Kraft has claimed an allowance for off-site shunting costs as functional obsolescence, the documents “which set out the basis and reasoning by Kraft” are relevant.

88MPAC maintains that one factor in the costs for shunting the goods off-site will be the location where the goods are taken to. Therefore, MPAC submits that the documents setting out the determination of the location to which the shunted goods were taken are relevant.

Kraft’s Submissions

89Kraft asserts that whatever documentation that was obtained was produced. Kraft again relies on Mr. Grad’s affidavit evidence in maintaining that it is not even known whether any of the requested documentation exists. Kraft further argues that this request is vague, broad and disproportionate.

Findings on Request Nos.19 to 21

90The Board finds that, although Kraft did provide the spreadsheet information regarding shunting costs, this data does not address any of the substantive disclosure requests made by MPAC. Other than this finding, the Board finds that the issues and arguments raised respecting the shunting costs are substantively the same as the issues and arguments raised respecting Request Nos. 15 to 18 (off-site cheese curing), with the exception that Mr. Grad has not included a cost to cure analysis. Consequently, the Board finds that its reasons respecting Request Nos. 15 to 18, equally apply to Request Nos.19 to 21. For this reason, the Board grants Request Nos. 19 to 21.

Disclosure Requests relating to Functional Obsolescence - Excess Operating Costs - Settling Ponds

Disclosure Request Nos. 22 to 25

91The Grad Valuation Report describes settling ponds that were constructed to treat production effluent before the plant was hooked up to the municipal waste water treatment system in 1984. In his Report, Mr. Grad states that the ponds are no longer required, but the Ministry of the Environment will not allow the plant to close these ponds and requires that both ponds be kept operational. This means running two 200 horse power blowers all year, annual inspections and the occasional addition of tanker carloads of hydrogen peroxide.

92Mr. Grad further states that, as per discussions with management, an average of $313,358 is spent annually on waste water maintenance, supplies and chemicals, of which management allocates approximately 50% or $156,679 to be related to the excess costs of maintaining the settling ponds. The Report attaches a summary of total annual costs for chemicals and supplies for the years 2015 to 2017, from which the average annual cost was derived. However, it provides no supporting data for these annual costs.

93Mr. Grad then calculates the present value of this annual cost over a 15 year period, assuming a 35.5 % allocation of this cost to real property, to derive a value of $222,198. He points out that an alternative cost to cure approach cannot be considered because the Ministry of the Environment will not allow Kraft to close the ponds.

94MPAC questions Mr. Grad’s evaluation and, therefore, requests the following disclosure:

22. Kraft studies, reports, memorandum and correspondence regarding the uses and options for the settling ponds.
23. Correspondence to and from the Ministry of the Environment regarding the settling ponds respecting whether they can be closed.
24. Reports, studies, memoranda and documents on which the 50% allocation of waste water maintenance, supplies and chemicals to the settling ponds excess operational costs is based.
25. Documents identifying the chemicals used for the settling ponds and their costs and purposes as distinct from the other chemicals used at the subject property.

MPAC’s Submissions

95MPAC disputes Kraft’s allegation that the settling ponds are no longer used although they continue to exist. MPAC also disputes that this is a factor in functional obsolescence. MPAC submits that the documents which consider the uses and options for the settling ponds are relevant to this issue.

96Regarding waste water maintenance, including supplies and chemicals for the settling ponds and other parts of the property, MPAC disputes Kraft’s allocation of 50% of these costs to the settling ponds when determining the amount of this functional obsolescence allowance. Because some of the chemicals may be used exclusively for the settling ponds and other chemicals used exclusively for other areas and some for both, MPAC maintains that documents identifying which chemicals are used for the settling ponds and their costs are relevant. MPAC, therefore, submits that the documents respecting the maintenance activities, supplies and chemicals and the allocation of these costs between the settling ponds and the other areas of the plant are relevant.

Kraft’s Submissions

97Kraft submits that Request No. 22 is speculative and makes assumptions that have not been set out in evidence, maintaining this request is not relevant considering the issue relating to the preservation of the ponds.

98Respecting Request Nos. 22, 24 and 25, Kraft asserts that the documentation that was obtained was produced. Kraft again relies on Mr. Grad’s affidavit evidence in maintaining that it is not even known whether any of the requested documentation exists. Kraft further argues that this request is vague, broad and disproportionate.

99Respecting Request No. 23, Kraft asserts that it does not “have these available and referred to them as it was our understanding that they had been produced in previous assessment appeals for the subject property”. Kraft states that: “Presumably, MPAC can make requests of the Ministry of the Environment for this documentation.”

Findings on Request Nos. 22 to 25

100Kraft asserts that a functional obsolescence allowance applies in respect of the settling ponds, which MPAC disputes. This calls into question the use of the ponds, the allocation of the costs to maintain them, and confirmation whether Kraft is prohibited from closing them. Therefore, documents related to these questions are clearly relevant.

101Kraft’s submission that it does not have correspondence to and from the Ministry of the Environment “available”, is not a clear statement that it does not have these documents in its possession, power, or control. Clearly, this information is relevant, if for no other reason, because any requirement that the ponds must remain open, precludes consideration of an alternate cost to cure evaluation. Kraft’s statement that such documents have been provided in previous assessment appeal proceedings, is not a satisfactory response, as the issue is the status of these ponds for the current appeal proceeding. The suggestion that MPAC can presumably obtain documents from the Ministry of the Environment is speculative, at best. Again, under Rule 45, Kraft has the obligation to produce documents in its possession, power, or control. Its response does not indicate that it has done so.

102The Board has already addressed Kraft’s submissions that it does not know if the requested documents exist, and that the requirement to disclose the requested documents is not proportional. The Board finds that its reasons equally apply in respect of these disclosure requests.

103For these reasons, the Board grants Request Nos. 22 to 25.

Approach - External Obsolescence - Whey manufacturing operates at a loss due to changes in market. (Significant crash in whey commodity pricing)

Disclosure Request Nos. 26 to 29

104Kraft claims an allowance to reduce the current value of the Subject Property due to causes that are external to the Ingleside Facility and its operations.

105Regarding this allowance for external obsolescence, the Grad Valuation Report identified the following factors which Mr. Grad asserts warrant an adjustment:

1. A significant crash in whey commodity pricing [Note: whey is a cheese production by-product];
2. Costs to address noise complaints and Ministry of Environment noise abatement orders; and
3. A reduction in dairy market economic performance.

106In light of these three factors, Mr. Grad concludes that an allowance for external obsolescence should be in the range of 10 to 20%, and that he conservatively selects 10% as the appropriate allowance. While Mr. Grad describes and provides documentation to support each of these three factors, his Report does not provide any detailed analysis to explain how he determined that the range should be 10 to 20%.

107Regarding the crash in whey commodity pricing, MPAC’s expert, Mr. Dim, relies on the opinion of another valuation specialist, Deborah Sprenger, who asserts that to determine whether there should be an allowance for external obsolescence, the required information is a detailed analysis of Kraft’s annual income for the 10 year period preceding 2016. For this reason, MPAC requests the following documents:

26.1 A detailed income statement with respect to whey for fiscal 2016 and the 10 years preceding (any extraordinary, non-recurring and/or unusual revenue and/or expense amounts and/or non-arm's length transactions should be identified by fiscal year; for transactions not recorded at a fair market rate, indicate what a market rate should be) and a detailed costs of goods manufactured statement for the same years (any extraordinary, non-recurring and/or unusual amounts and/or non-arm's length transactions should be identified by fiscal year and for transactions not recorded at a fair market rate, indicate what a market rate should be).

26.2 The annual production volumes by product line for the same years.

108Regarding costs to address noise complaints, MPAC's expert, Mr. Dim, asserts that MPAC requires further information to understand and respond to this issue. For this reason, MPAC requests the following documents:

27. The correspondence and Orders from the Ministry of the Environment to Kraft regarding these complaints.
28. The reports, studies, memorandum of Kraft regarding the options for dealing with these complaints and the contracts regarding the options chosen.

109Regarding the dairy market economic performance Mr. Dim asserts that MPAC requires further information to understand and respond to this issue. For this reason, MPAC requests the following documents:

29.1 A detailed income statement with respect to cheese production, cheese packaging and whey production and the production of any other products at the Subject Property or the income stream for any activity not included in any of the above and whose revenue is not included in any of the above, for fiscal 2016 and the 10 years preceding (any extraordinary, non-recurring and/or unusual revenue and/or expense amounts and/or non-arm's length transactions should be identified by fiscal year; for transactions not recorded at a fair market rate, indicate what a market rate should be).

29.2 A detailed costs of goods manufactured statement for the same years (any extraordinary, non-recurring and/or unusual amounts and/or non-arm's length transactions should be identified by fiscal year; for transactions not recorded at a fair market rate, indicate what a market rate should be).

29.3 The annual production volumes by product line for the same years.

MPAC’s Submissions

110MPAC disputes that there should be an allowance for external obsolescence based on the three factors raised in the Grad Valuation Report. MPAC relies on the opinions of Ms. Sprenger and Mr. Dim that the requested information is necessary to determine whether there should be an allowance for external obsolescence. MPAC asserts that this information is only in Kraft’s possession.

Kraft’s Submissions

111Regarding Request No. 26, Kraft submits that it is not relevant, and that it is also disproportionate. Kraft relies on Mr. Grad’s assertion that:

… this is not a business valuation of the Kraft cheese operations or the Kraft whey operations. It is an external obsolescence study relating to the entire whey market of which Kraft is only one participant. Kraft asserts that, without the balance of the market, the study would not be relevant.

Kraft also asserts that all documents available on the whey issue have been produced.

112Regarding Request Nos. 27 and 28, Kraft relies on Mr. Grad’s statement that he has produced whatever documents he received from Kraft and he has nothing further. Kraft explains that it referred to these documents as it was Mr. Grad’s understanding that they had been produced in previous assessment appeals for the Subject Property. Kraft asserts that: “Presumably, MPAC can make requests of the Ministry of the Environment for this documentation.”

113Regarding Request Nos. 26 and 29, Kraft relies on Mr. Grad’s assertion that: “I have produced whatever documents I received from Kraft and have nothing further. I do not know whether any such documents exist.” Kraft also submits that Request No. 29 is vague, broad and disproportionate.

Findings on Request Nos. 26 to 29

114The document requests advanced by MPAC and the submissions of the parties indicate: (i) the issue of allowance for economic obsolescence is in dispute; and (ii) MPAC and Kraft’s experts have adopted, at least in part, differing approaches to determine whether there should be an allowance, and, if so, what the amount of the allowance should be.

115Kraft argues that MPAC's requests for Kraft’s detailed income, costs, and production volume statements are not relevant because an external allowance is based on a market study, not just a study of Kraft as one participant in the market. However, the Board notes that, even if there have been market downturns, there remains the question as to whether Kraft, as a participant in this market, has in fact experienced a market downturn, and, if so, whether it has experienced a downturn to the degree noted in the Grad Valuation Report.

116The Board further notes that, at this stage in the proceeding, it is not the Board’s function to determine whether one methodological approach is incorrect, or whether one approach is more reliable than another. Each approach is supported by expert opinion evidence.

117The Board accepts that the documents requested by MPAC are relevant and should be disclosed. Kraft has provided no evidence or analysis to establish any of the criteria to support a conclusion that the requirement to disclose would be disproportionate. However, the Board also notes that Kraft is not required to produce new information, or obtain documents that are not within its possession, control, or power. In this regard, the Board notes that MPAC has requested that “for transactions not recorded at a fair market rate, indicate what a market rate should be” [emphasis added]. If Kraft has information regarding ‘what the market rate should be’ then it must be disclosed. However, if Kraft does not have this information in its possession, power, or control, it is not required to produce new information.

118In his affidavit, Mr. Grad indicates that an expert valuation report was prepared for prior 2008 and 2012 assessment cycle appeals, which addressed the functional and external obsolescence issues raised in this proceeding. Therefore, he states his belief that MPAC “either has or had the opportunity to obtain information relating to these issues either now or in the past”. The Board finds this submission to be of limited assistance. To the extent that any of the documents/information that MPAC has requested in this Motion are already in MPAC's possession, Kraft is not required to re-submit them. However, the Board notes that neither MPAC nor Kraft have advised the Board whether allowances for functional and external obsolescence were applied in determining the Subject’s Property’s current value for the two previous assessment cycles. Therefore, it remains unclear to what extent, if any, the report to which Mr. Grad refers would be in MPAC's possession. In addition, the Board has reviewed the excerpts of the report, which Mr. Grad attached to his affidavit, and finds that these excerpts do not provide the specific information that MPAC has requested.

119The Board also notes that the report for the past cycle appeals will not address the requested information as it relates to the current assessment cycle.

120Regarding Request Nos. 27 and 28, the Board has already addressed the issue of production of documentation from the Ministry of the Environment and finds that its earlier analysis applies to these requests. The Board has similarly dealt with the issue of providing documents relating to cost estimates prepared by Kraft.

121Finally, the Board has also already found that Kraft’s assertion that whatever documentation that was obtained has been produced, does not speak to the issue of whether there are any other documents that are in Kraft’s possession, control, or power that have not been disclosed.

122For the above reasons, the Board grants Request Nos. 26 to 29.

Kraft’s submission regarding MPAC's amendment of its Statement of Response

123In its response, Kraft notes that MPAC refers to its Amended Statement of Response, noting that MPAC made this amendment one year after the due date for filing its response. Kraft relies on the Schedule of Events for this appeal proceeding, which specifies a due date for the following event:

Each Responding Party must then serve on all other parties any expert reports on which the Responding Party intends to rely at the hearing, as well as any amendment to the Responding Party’s Statement of Response to address any additional evidence or issues raised in an expert’s report;

124Kraft argues that MPAC cannot unilaterally amend its Statement of Response before it serves its expert report in response to Mr. Grad’s Report.

125The Schedule of Events sets a final due date for filing an amended Statement of Response. There is nothing in the Schedule of Events which prohibits MPAC from serving its amended Statement of Response prior to the due date for filing its response expert report. For this reason, the Board does not accept Kraft’s submission.

MPAC's submission regarding the role of the expert witness

126MPAC submits that, as an expert witness, Mr. Grad should not have assumed the role of managing Kraft’s disclosure of relevant documents. The Board has already touched on this issue when it addressed Kraft’s claim of litigation privilege over any notes or communications between Kraft and Mr. Grad or staff of Equitable Value.

127In support of its submission, MPAC emphasizes that Mr. Grad is not an employee of Kraft, and points out that no other person, such as a Kraft employee who has first-hand knowledge, has provided any evidence of the documents in Kraft’s possession power and control.

128In his affidavit, Mr. Grad explained his role under the title “Overall Response for Production of Documents”:

36In order to provide my opinion on the current value of the subject property and to conduct a proper cost valuation, I requested information from Kraft. Virtually all of the information was provided verbally and the facts upon which I relied were based on discussions I had with management. I was, and am, of the view, that their advice on operational issues are credible and reliable. I made a general request for supporting documents and if they were available, Kraft provided them to me. In response to MPAC's further requests for particulars and documents over the course of 2018 and 2019, I made further requests of Kraft and, again, provided whatever further information I was able to get from Kraft. Simply put, I have nothing further to produce.

129In addressing this submission, the Board notes that the Acknowledgement of Expert Duty clearly identifies that the expert witness is to be non-partisan, and that this obligation prevails over any obligation the expert may owe to the party on whose behalf the expert was engaged. Therefore, the Board has concerns regarding the role assumed by Mr. Grad, which, based on the evidence and submissions filed on this motion, appears to be that of an agent acting as an intermediary on Kraft’s behalf.

130In accepting the engagement to provide a professional opinion regarding current value, Mr. Grad is obviously entitled to select the valuation method that he considers is applicable, and to obtain and rely on any information or documents that he considers to be relevant to his valuation. However, this role does not extend to making determinations regarding what may or may not be in Kraft’s possession, power, or control, or to filter information by speaking with Kraft’s managers and then providing only a summary of the information obtained, without identifying the names of the informants, or the documents or data on which they relied. This role also does not extend to providing opinions to the Board on which documents are required to be disclosed under Rule 45. An expert’s view of whether a document is relevant to his/her valuation opinion is not synonymous with a legal determination under Rule 45 of whether a document is relevant to an issue in dispute.

131MPAC has not suggested that Mr. Grad has acted in a non-partisan manner, and the Board makes no such finding. The Board accepts that Mr. Grad’s efforts were made in good faith to facilitate the disclosure process. However, the Board notes that its findings should make it clear that Mr. Grad, in his capacity as an independent expert witness retained by Kraft, ought to avoid undertaking any activity beyond those required to perform his engagement to provide a professional opinion regarding the current value of the Subject Property. It is the duty of Kraft’s corporate representative(s) and its legal representative to ensure that all relevant documents in Kraft’s power, possession, or control are identified and disclosed in accordance with Rule 45.

ORDER

132Other than Request No. 2, the requests made in MPAC's motion for disclosure are granted.

133Kraft is directed to provide all documents in response to MPAC's requests within 30 days of the issuance date of this Decision.

134The due date in the Schedule of Events for the Respondents to serve their response expert witness reports is amended to the date that is 90 days from the date of issuance of this Decision. All other subsequent due dates are to be adjusted accordingly. Any further adjustments, which are required due to the Board’s suspension of the Schedule of Events in response to the COVID-19 emergency, will then be applied.

"Dirk VanderBent"

DIRK VANDERBENT VICE-CHAIR

Assessment Review Board A constituent tribunal of Tribunals Ontario - Environment and Land Division Website: www.elto.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248