Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE:
May 08, 2020
FILE NO.:
WR 164892A
AMENDED DECISION ISSUED ON: June 17, 2020
Assessed Person(s):
Stanislaus Joseph Sokol and Jacqueline Christiane Sokol
Appellant(s):
Stanislaus Joseph Sokol and Jacqueline Christiane Sokol
Respondent(s):
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 17
Respondent(s):
Town of Bracebridge
Property Location(s):
1252 Spring Lake Road
Municipality(ies):
Town of Bracebridge
Roll Number(s):
4418-060-001-01100-0000
Appeal Number(s):
3393362, 3389267 and 3407736
Taxation Year(s):
2018, 2019 and 2020
Hearing Event No.:
730016
Legislative Authority:
Sections 33 and 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel*/Representative
Appellant/Assessed
Stanislaus Joseph Sokol
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
Donna Ridley
Town of Bracebridge
No one appeared
HEARD:
April 28, 2020 by telephone conference call
ADJUDICATOR(S):
Jean-Paul Pilon, Member
AMENDED DECISION
AMENDED DECISION
In accordance with Rule 114 of the Assessment Review Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure as amended May 2019, related to the correction of minor errors, and in accordance with section 21.1 of the Statutory Powers and Procedure Act regarding the correction of errors, this Amended Decision is issued to correct clerical errors in the Decision regarding inadvertent calculation errors at paragraphs [15] and [19]. The amendments have been underlined for ease of reference. There are no other changes in this Amended Decision.
OVERVIEW
1There were three appeals before the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) at this hearing that were resolved on consent. Prior to receiving that consent at the hearing, the Board clarified with the parties attending the hearing which appeals were before it. This decision, issued at the request of those parties, summarizes that discussion which took place at the outset of the hearing.
Background
2Stanislaus Joseph Sokol and Jacqueline Christiane Sokol, (“the Appellants”) are the owners of property at 1252 Spring Lake Road in the Town of Bracebridge (the “Subject Property”).
3There were three appeals before the Board, two of which had been filed by the Appellants and one which had been deemed. These appeals related to an omitted assessment for the 2018 taxation year and regular assessments for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years for the Subject Property.
Areas of Agreement
4Appellant Stanislaus Sokol represented both Appellants at the hearing and filed written submissions prior to the hearing. Donna Ridley, whose valuation and equity reports were also filed prior to the hearing, represented the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) at the hearing. The Town of Bracebridge, a statutory party to the appeals, did not attend the hearing and made no written submissions prior to the hearing.
5The parties at the hearing agreed that the correct current value of the Subject Property for the 2018 taxation year was $250,000. For the 2019 taxation year, the parties agreed that the correct current value was $270,000, and for the 2020 taxation year, the parties agreed that the correct current value of the Subject Property was $290,000. The parties then consented to the order described in this decision.
Result
6The appeals before the Board were resolved on consent.
DISCUSSION
7The three appeals before the Board were as follows.
8For the 2018 taxation year, MPAC returned a current value assessment of $123,000 pursuant to section 19 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”) which was not appealed. MPAC then issued an omitted assessment in that taxation year pursuant to section 33 of the Act of $177,000, for a total current value assessment of the Subject Property of $300,000. The latter omitted assessment was appealed by the Appellants and was assigned appeal number 3393362.
9The Appellants then appealed the assessment for the 2019 taxation year pursuant to section 40 of the Act. The Board assigned appeal number 3389267 to that appeal. MPAC had returned a current value assessment of $300,000 for the 2019 taxation year.
10Section 40(26)(b) of the Act provides that “an appellant shall be deemed to have brought the same appeal in respect of a property…if the appeal is not finally disposed of by March 31 of the subsequent taxation year.” As the hearing of the 2018 and 2019 appeals did not take place until April 27, 2020, the Board deemed an appeal for the 2020 taxation year, assigning it appeal number 3407736.
11The reason the discussion summarized in this decision took place was because Mr. Sokol referred to earlier assessments for taxation years back to 2011 in his material filed prior to the hearing. He did so because he had the impression that MPAC would attempt to alter those earlier assessments at the hearing because of wording included in MPAC’s Property Assessment Notices.
12The Board confirmed at the hearing that this was not, in fact, the case, and that its jurisdiction was limited to considering only the appeals that had either been filed or deemed that are listed above.
13After that clarification, the parties briefly discussed the possible resolution of the appeals on their own, after which time they advised the Board that they had agreed to the resolve the appeals on the terms described in this decision.
14After the hearing they requested these written reasons.
CONCLUSION
15For the 2018 appeal, relating to the omitted assessment made pursuant to section 33 of the Act, the parties agreed that the two assessments for the Subject Property should total $250,000. Since MPAC had returned a 2018 current value assessment pursuant to section 19(1) of the Act that was not appealed of $123,000, the omitted assessment is reduced from $177,000 to $127,000, for a total current value assessment of $250,000 for that taxation year.
16For the 2019 taxation year, the parties agreed that the current value assessment should be reduced from $300,000 to $270,000.
17For the 2020 taxation year, the parties agreed that the current value assessment should be reduced from $300,000 to $290,000.
18The residential classification of the Subject Property was not in dispute at the hearing.
ORDER
19On consent, the Board orders that the current value assessments of the Subject Property should be reduced as follows with no change in classification:
the omitted assessment for 2018 is reduced from $177,000 to $127,000;
the assessment for 2019 is reduced from $300,000 to $270,000; and
the assessment for 2020 is reduced from $300,000 to $290,000.
"Jean-Paul Pilon"
JEAN-PAUL PILON
MEMBER
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