Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: August 12, 2020
Assessed Person(s): 1677 Aimco Properties Inc
Appellant(s): City of Mississauga
Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 15
Respondent(s): 1677 Aimco Properties Inc.
Property Location(s): 1677 Aimco Boulevard
Municipality(ies): City of Mississauga
Roll Number(s): 2105-050-115-19736-0000
Appeal Number(s): 3162364, 3247523, 3305796, 3359285 and 3406038
Taxation Year(s): 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020
Hearing Event No.: 731465
Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel*/Representative
City of Mississauga
Robert Ryan*
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
Christeen Mattat
1677 Aimco Properties Inc.
Justin Zigante and Daniel Zigante
HEARD: June 26, 2020 by telephone conference call
ADJUDICATOR(S): Joanne Laws, Member
DECISION
OVERVIEW
1The Appellant is the City of Mississauga (the “City”). It seeks to change the property tax classification for 1677 Aimco Boulevard (the “Subject Property”) from Commercial to Industrial. The City filed two separate appeals with the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) pursuant to s. 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”). The first is dated March 30, 2016 for the 2016 taxation year and the second was filed on January 2, 2017 for the 2017 taxation year.
2Pursuant to s. 40(26) of the Act, the Appellant is deemed to have brought the same appeal in respect of the 2018, 2019 and 2020 taxation years as well.
3The Subject Property has been assessed at $4,426,000 for the 2016 taxation year and $5,096,000 for the 2017 through 2020 taxation years in the Commercial Property Tax Class.
4At the commencement of the hearing the Parties advised me that they had agreed on the current value for the taxation years under appeal, accepting the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation’s (“MPAC”) recommended assessments, but that the classification issue remained outstanding.
Background
5In February 2019, the Board issued a Schedule of Events (“SOE”) with a commencement date of March 15, 2019. The SOE set out deadlines for the Parties to, among other things, disclose their evidence to each other, inspect the Subject Property, and, participate in a Mandatory Meeting for the purpose of resolving some or all of the issues. The Board was advised that the appeals were not settled at the Mandatory Meeting and, in April 2020, the Board conducted a Settlement Conference with the Parties. However, the appeals remained unresolved, which resulted in the scheduling of this hearing.
6Both the City and MPAC take the position that manufacturing and processing have occurred at the Subject Property during the years under appeal and, as such, the correct property tax class is Industrial, not Commercial. The City and MPAC inspected the Subject Property on October 2, 2019.
7Justin Zigante, the owner of 1677 Aimco Properties Inc. (the “Assessed Person”) and his son, Daniel Zigante, attended the hearing. At the hearing they initially took the position that the change in classification was not warranted however, after the evidence and cross-examination portions of the hearing were concluded, both Messrs. Zigante abandoned that argument and instead asserted that the process leading to this hearing took too long and was, therefore, unfair. They argue that they cannot now recoup the retroactive increase in property taxes resulting from the change in classification from Commercial to Industrial.
Area of Agreement
8The Parties agree on the following:
a. for the 2016 taxation year, the current value should be reduced from the returned assessment of $4,426,000 to $4,404,000.
b. for the 2017 through 2020 taxation years, the current value should be reduced from the returned assessment of $5,096,000 to $5,079,000.
c. equity, pursuant to s. 44(3)(b), is not an issue.
Issues for the Hearing
9At issue in this proceeding is:
the correct property tax class; and,
whether there was undue delay before this hearing occurred.
Results
10The correct current value is: $4,404,000 for the 2016 taxation year and $5,079,000 for the 2017 through 2020 taxation years.
11I find that the property tax classification should be changed from Commercial to Industrial for the 2016 through 2020 taxation years.
ANALYSIS
Description of Property
12The Subject Property consists of Units A and B. Unit A is occupied by the owner-operated businesses and is the larger of the two units. The City’s evidence is that the companies associated with Unit A are Just Aluminium & Glass, Bigfoot Doors, and Trillium Windows & Doors. Both the City and MPAC describe Unit A as containing businesses that design and manufacture windows and doors.
13Unit B is tenanted, leased to Emergency Door Services and Bradley Doors. Both the City and MPAC describe Unit B as containing businesses which assemble, manufacture, sell and install garage doors.
Issue 1 - Classification
14Both the City and MPAC presented oral and documentary evidence in support of their position that the Subject Property’s classification should be changed from Commercial to Industrial for the taxation years under appeal.
15No documentary evidence was submitted by the Assessed Person. However, some oral evidence was advanced.
16After the City and MPAC completed their evidence-in-chief and cross-examination was completed, both Messrs. Zigante stated they no longer contest the Industrial Property Tax Class but contest the length of time it took for these appeals to be heard.
Findings on Classification
17Ontario Regulation 282/98 (“O. Reg. 282/98”) provides property class definitions. Section 6 of that Regulation provides the following:
(1) The industrial property class consists of the following:
Land used for or in connection with,
i) manufacturing, producing or processing anything,
ii) research or development in connection with manufacturing, producing or processing anything, \
iii) storage, by a manufacturer, producer or processor, of anything used or produced in such manufacturing, production or processing if the storage is at the site where the manufacturing, production or processing takes place, or
iv) retail sales by a manufacturer, producer or processor of anything produced in manufacturing, production or processing, if the retail sales are at the site where the manufacturing, production or processing takes place but are not on land to which section 44 applies.
18Based on the City and MPAC’s evidence regarding the nature of activity taking place and the oral submissions by Messrs. Zigante, I am satisfied that manufacturing has taken place in both units of the Subject Property during the taxation years under appeal. Therefore, the correct property tax class is Industrial. The character of use is in line with the Industrial Property Class as defined by s. 6 of O. Reg. 282/98.
Issue 2 - Whether there was undue delay before this hearing occurred
Timely Process of Resolving the Appeals
19Messrs. Zigante objected to the length of time taken between the initial 2016 appeal and the date this hearing occurred. They argued that the appeals should have been resolved in a more efficient manner, closer to the dates the appeals were filed, and that they would not be able to recoup the costs related to a higher tax class.
20Justin Zigante argued that they have never hidden anything, completing documents as required and providing the opposing Parties with requested information including their Tenant’s leases, and that they now feel penalized for their openness.
21They argue that none of the communication received explained that the process might take more than four years. They argue that they have a business to run and are not lawyers or experts in the property assessment process. They argued that they ought to have received communications in the interim and been advised of the tax implications. They did not say they have not received written communication from the City, MPAC or the Board.
Findings Regarding a Timely Process
22I have carefully considered the Assessed Person’s arguments regarding a timely process for resolving the appeals and acknowledge that it has been a lengthy process. However, it was not a hidden process. Both the City and the Board sent written communications to the Assessed Person. The Board’s records show that it acknowledged the City’s appeals; the first communication to the Assessed Person occurred on April 14, 2016 when it acknowledged receiving the City’s initial appeal. The Board also sent all the Parties the SOE, setting out each step of the process that may be required, including the deadlines to complete these steps, before a hearing would occur. The record indicates that the Assessed Person took part in both the Mandatory Meeting and the Settlement Conference and the Assessed Person took part in this hearing. I am satisfied that the Assessed Person received communications between the dates the appeals were filed and the hearing date. It is reasonable to expect the Assessed Person, given these communications and opportunities, ought to have prepared for any possible outcome of the process.
23It is important for the Parties to know that they are welcome to request a shorter process. I note that the Parties submitted the Mandatory Meeting form earlier than the deadline set out in the SOE and that this resulted in the Settlement Conference occurring earlier as well. However, I received no evidence at the hearing that the Assessed Person had contacted the Board to request an earlier hearing.
24While I appreciate the point that Messrs. Zigante are making and the Board acknowledges that the process for these appeals was long, the hearing date does not reflect a delay in the process. There is no indication that this matter should have been heard earlier than the timeline set out in the SOE. Without a request for an earlier hearing date, which it appears none of the Parties requested, I am not in a position to do anything about the timing of the hearing.
CONCLUSION
25The Parties agree that the current value should be reduced from $4,426,000 to $4,404,000 for the 2016 taxation year and from $5,096,000 to $5,079,000 for the 2017 through 2020 taxation years.
26The property tax class is Industrial for 2016 through 2020 taxation years.
27There was no evidence that the appeal process resulted in a delayed hearing.
ORDER
28The current value is reduced from $4,426,000 to $4,404,000 for the 2016 taxation year and from $5,096,000 to $5,079,000 for the 2017 through 2020 taxation years.
29The property tax classification is changed from Commercial to Industrial for the 2016 through 2020 taxation years.
"Joanne Laws"
JOANNE LAWS
MEMBER
Assessment Review Board
A constituent tribunal of Tribunals Ontario
Website: www.arb.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248```