Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: July 29, 2020 FILE NO.: WR 164893
Assessed Person (s): Charlene Elizabeth Bell Appellant(s): Charlene Bell, Alexandra Trail and Ian Trail Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 06 Respondent(s): Township of Alnwick/Haldimand
Property Location(s): Concession 7 Part Lot 6 Municipality(ies): Township of Alnwick/Haldimand Roll Number(s): 1450-116-070-04500-0000 Appeal Number(s): 3389456 and 3397971 Taxation Year(s): 2019 and 2020 Hearing Event No.: 730005
Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31
| Parties | Representative |
|---|---|
| Charlene Elizabeth Bell | Charlene Elizabeth Bell |
| Ian Trail | Ian Trail |
| Alexandra Trail, Ian Trail | Alexandra Trail, Ian Trail |
| Municipal Property Assessment Corporation | Sarah Moll – Advocate Terri-Lyn Wright – Valuations Officer |
| Township of Alnwick/Haldimand | No one appeared |
HEARD: April 15, 16 and 20, 2020 by telephone conference call
ADJUDICATOR(S): Anthony LaRegina, Member
DECISION
OVERVIEW
1Ian Trail and Alexandra Trail (the “Appellants”), son-in-law and daughter of Charlene Elizabeth Bell, the owner of the Subject Property, filed an appeal for the 2019 taxation year with the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”). Pursuant to s. 40(26) of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c, A.31 (the “Act”), the Appellants are deemed to have brought the same appeal in respect of the 2020 taxation year. It is the Appellants’ position that the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation’s (“MPAC”) current value assessments of $92,000 and $126,000 are too high and that the correct current value should be $45,235 for both 2019 and 2020. At this hearing, MPAC takes the position that the correct current value should be reduced from $92,000 to $87,000 for the 2019 taxation year and reduced from $126,000 to $87,000 for the 2020 taxation year.
2MPAC takes the position that an equitable reduction is not required. The Appellants did not assert that an equitable reduction is required and presented no evidence in support of an equity argument. Therefore, in this proceeding, this ground for appeal is not in issue.
3The Appellants have taken the position that the soil of the Subject Property should be classified as a Class 6 soil while MPAC has taken the position that this property should be classified as a Class 5 soil. On behalf of the Appellants, Mr. Trail submits that the difference in soil classification impacts the current value of the property. Mr. Trail is currently the tenant farmer on the Subject Property.
[