Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: October 28, 2020

FILE NO.: ID 166743

Assessed Person(s): Tso Atl-Tor Propco GP LLC and Vondrau Holdings Ltd.

Appellant(s): Tso Atl-Tor Propco GP LLC c/o Ascent and Vondrau Holdings Ltd.

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 21

Respondent(s): City of Cambridge

Property Location(s): 700 Maple Grove Road

Municipality(ies): City of Cambridge

Roll Number(s): 3006-140-022-11260-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3408966, 3409316, 3343741, 3365083, 3311588, 3236704, 3157360, 3274254, 3090333, 3176956, 3025647, 3053646, 3053647, 3053648, 3053649, 3136089, 2953274, 3053642, 3053643, 3063644, 3053645, 3053639, 3053640, 3053641, 3053637 and 3053638

Taxation Year(s): 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020

Hearing Event No.: 736993

Legislative Authority: Sections 33 and 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 and sections 364(14) and 364(15) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25.

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel*/Representative

Tso Atl-Tor Propco GP LLC

David Fleet*

Vondrau Holdings Ltd.

Kim Van Vliet

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation

Doug Keyes

City of Cambridge

David Hotson

HEARD: October 22, 2020 by telephone conference call

ADJUDICATOR(S): Jean-Paul Pilon, Member

INTERIM DECISION

OVERVIEW

1The parties to these appeals filed two Expedited Board Direction Forms (“EBDF”) with the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) in which they requested procedural orders on consent in these appeals. The requests in those two EBDFs were denied by the Board.

2The parties then requested that the Board convene a teleconference call to discuss the Board’s dispositions in the EBDFs. That request was granted by the Board.

3At that teleconference, the parties presented revised requests for procedural orders, and those requests were granted. This interim decision summarizes those requests and the Board’s dispositions at the teleconference.

Background

4There were 24 appeals and applications before the Board for this property at 700 Maple Grove Road in Cambridge that were both filed and deemed pursuant to the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Assessment Act”) and the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. M. 25 (the “Municipal Act”).

5The appeals under the Assessment Act were initially in both the Board’s legacy stream, which carries with it an abbreviated Schedule of Events, and the much longer general stream Schedule of Events, a template of which is set out in Schedule A of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”).

6In June 2020, the parties, on consent, requested that all the appeals be transferred to the legacy stream so that the parties could address them together under a shorter legacy Schedule of Events. That request was granted by the Board.

7By way of the first EBDF described above and dated September 22, 2020, the parties requested that all of the appeals revert back to the lengthier general stream Schedule of Events. That request was denied on October 9, 2020 without prejudice to a resubmission of the request because the EBDF lacked sufficient particulars for it to be decided.

8On October 13, 2020, the parties renewed their request by way of the second EBDF described above, which included those particulars. That request was denied by the Board on the next day.

9At the parties’ further request, a teleconference was scheduled so that information could be provided regarding the EBDF endorsements.

10At the teleconference, the Board determined that the parties’ further, revised requests were reasonable ones and they were granted. The parties also requested that the Board confirm in this interim decision the areas of agreement between the parties that are set out below.

Areas of Agreement

11The parties agreed that all appeals will be consolidated into a single hearing. In fact, the Board confirms that this would have been the case in any event since all of the appeals were and will continue to be in a single stream and Schedule of Events.

12The parties agreed that the City of Cambridge’s participation in the appeals will be limited to monitoring their progress.

13The parties agreed that they will use the cost approach to determining value.

14The parties agreed to the revised timelines below. The Board granted the request to alter timelines because it concurred with the parties as to the existence of exceptional circumstances pursuant to Rule 82. The timelines proposed were also significantly shorter than those that had been set out in the EBDFs.

15The parties agreed that their respective assessors and/or valuators can communicate with each other prior to the hearing of these appeals.

16The parties agreed that all of the Municipal Act applications should be dismissed.

17Other issues relating to the timing of the hearing and the number of witnesses each party will call at the hearing can be addressed at the settlement conference to be scheduled.

18The Board makes the order that follows on the consent of the parties.

ORDER

19As to the timelines to be extended, the Board orders that:

a. MPAC shall serve and file its responding expert report(s) upon which it intends to rely at the hearing, as well as any amendment to MPAC’s Statement of Response to address any additional evidence or issues raised in any expert’s report, on or before December 11, 2020;

b. Each appellant must then serve any supplementary reports by its experts in reply to any expert reports served by a responding party on or before January 8, 2021;

c. All parties shall file all of the documents that would normally be filed in weeks 101 to 104 in the extended general stream Schedule of Events set out in Schedule A of the Rules on or before January 8, 2021;

d. The settlement conference will be scheduled for a date after January 8, 2021; and

e. The hearing month for these appeals will be amended to February, 2021.

20Municipal Act applications 3274254, 3176956 and 3136089 are all dismissed on consent.