Tribunals Ontario

Assessment Review Board

ISSUE DATE: March 30, 2021

FILE NO.: WR 167893

Assessed Person(s): Charles Alexander McArthur; Edana Sarah Porter

Appellant(s): Charles Alexander McArthur

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 28

Respondent(s): Municipality of Whitestone

Property Location(s): 1055 Highway 124

Municipality(ies): Municipality of Whitestone

Roll Number(s): 4939-010-008-00200-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3416680, 3420485 and 3433661

Taxation Year(s): 2019 and 2020

Hearing Event No. 739078

Legislative Authority: Sections 32 and 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Representative

Charles Alexander McArthur and Edana Sarah Porter

Self-represented

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation

Charmaine Siddle and Paul Milligan

Municipality of Whitestone

No one appeared

HEARD: January 6, 2021 by telephone conference call

ADJUDICATOR(S): Subuola Awoleri, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1Charles McArthur (the “Appellant”), the owner of 1055 Highway 124 (the “Subject Property”), appealed the 2019 classification of the Subject Property to the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) under s. 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”) on the grounds that the classification is incorrect. The Appellant argues that the Subject Property should have been classified in the farm property class, and not in the residential property class, because he engaged in the farming activity of beekeeping. The Appellant is deemed to have brought the same appeal in respect of the 2020 taxation year, pursuant to s. 40(26) of the Act.

2For the 2019 and 2020 taxation years, the returned assessment for the Subject Property was $165,000 in the residential property class, as it had only 20 beehives on it, which the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) determined is not sufficient for classification as farm property. However, for the 2020 taxation year, the Appellant increased the number of beehives on the Subject Property to at least 50. MPAC then issued a Post Roll Assessment Notice (PRAN), assessing the Subject Property as a farm property with a residence and secondary structures, which reduced the assessed value from $165,000 to $119,000, apportioned as $39,800 FL RT (farmland portion) and $79,200 FRU RT (farm residential portion) because it had at least 50 beehives at that time. The Appellant specifically requests that for the 2019 taxation year, the Subject Property should be classified and apportioned as: 1 acre in the residential property class and 72 acres in the farm property class. MPAC requests that the Board confirm the returned classification in the residential property class.

3Jurisdiction to adjudicate whether land should be classified in the farm property class is divided between the Board and the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal (“AFRAAT”). The Board’s role is limited to determining whether the land is farm land used only for farm purposes under s. 19(5) of the Act. After the Board makes that determination, any further issue as to whether the land should be classified in the farm property class is referred to AFRAAT.

Areas of Agreement

4The parties agree with the Current Value Assessment (“CVA”) of the Subject Property for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years, being $165,000 and $119,000 respectively and the classification for the 2020 taxation year.

Issue

5Should the Subject Property be considered as farm land used only for farm purposes pursuant to s. 19(5) of the Act where it had less than 50 beehives situated on it in the 2019 taxation year?

Result

6The Board finds that for the 2019 taxation year, the Subject Property was not farm land under s. 19(5) of the Act.

PRELIMINARY ISSUE

7The Appellant introduced Bernie Wiehle, the president of the Ontario Beekeepers Association (“OBA”) as his witness.

8MPAC advised the Board that it was not aware that the Appellant would have a witness at the hearing. The Appellant admitted that he did not advise MPAC or the Board of the appearance of a witness to testify at the hearing. MPAC submitted that the testimony of the witness will be prejudicial to it since it did not have knowledge of the nature and content of the witness’s testimony.

9The Appellant submitted that the testimony of the witness would be restricted to a letter dated May 26, 2020 from the OBA, which was served on MPAC prior to the hearing.

10Rule 37 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure provides that:

On or before the filing deadline set out in the schedule of events for a proceeding, each party must file all materials that they intend to rely on at a hearing event, including:

(a) all evidence, including expert reports;

(b) statements of issues and responses; and

(c) witness statements.

11The purpose of this rule is to ensure procedural fairness at a hearing, to enable parties to adequately prepare for hearings and to eliminate the element of surprise at a hearing. However, the witness would be testifying about the content of a letter that was disclosed to MPAC. The disclosure of this letter prior to the hearing eliminates the element of surprise since MPAC had knowledge of its content.

12MPAC further raised the issue that Mr. Wiehle was not the author of the letter, therefore the Board should consider the weight to be given to his testimony. The letter was written by Melanie Kempers, the General Manager of OBA.

13The Board ruled that Mr. Wiehle’s testimony shall be restricted to the content of the letter. Mr. Wiehle is the current president of OBA and is deemed to have knowledge of the operation of beekeeping in Ontario.

14At the completion of the hearing, the Board reserved its decision.

ANALYSIS

Description of the Subject Property

15For the 2019 taxation year, MPAC assessed the Subject Property at $165,000, as a single-family detached dwelling (not on water) located in the Municipality of Whitestone. In the 2019 taxation year, it had 20 beehives situated on it. The structure was built in 1965 with construction quality of 5.0. It has a site area of 73 acres and building total area of 1,331 square feet (“sq. ft.”). It has a detached garage built in 1990 with building total area of 528 sq. ft. and construction quality of 2.0.

16For the 2020 taxation year, MPAC assessed the Subject Property as a farm with residence and secondary structures since it had at least 50 beehives situated on it to be assessed by MPAC as farm land. In the 2020 taxation year, MPAC assessed it at $119,000 in the farm property class.

Issue: Should the Subject Property be considered as farm land used only for farm purposes pursuant to [s. 19(5)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-a31/latest/rso-1990-c-a31.html#sec19subsec5_smooth) of the [Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-a31/latest/rso-1990-c-a31.html) where it had less than 50 beehives situated on it in the 2019 taxation year?

Jurisdiction of the Board

17The requirements for classification in the farm property class are set out in s. 8 and 8.1 of the General Regulation under the Act, O. Reg. 282/98 (the “Regulation”). One of those requirements set out in s. 8(2)2 of the Regulation, is that s. 19(5) of the Act applies to the land. Subsection 19(5) of the Act provides special rules for valuing farm lands used only for farming purposes, and states as follows:

19.(5) Farm lands and buildings. -- For the purposes of determining the current value of farm lands used only for farm purposes by the owner or used only for farm purposes by a tenant of the owner and buildings thereon used solely for farm purposes, including the residence of the owner or tenant and of the owner's or tenant's employees and their families on the farm lands,

(a) consideration shall be given to the current value of the lands and buildings for farm purposes only;

(b) consideration shall not be given to sales of lands and buildings to persons whose principal occupation is other than farming; and

(c) the Minister may, by regulation, define "farm lands" and "farm purposes".

18Pursuant to paragraph 1 of s. 31 of the Regulation, if the application of s. 19(5) of the Act to the land is in issue on an appeal, the Board must determine the issue and if necessary as a result of this determination, redetermine the current value of the land. This section further states that “the application of subsection 19(5) of the Act shall be deemed to be in issue if the current value of the land was not determined in accordance with that subsection”.

19In the 2019 taxation year, MPAC did not assess the Subject Property in accordance with s. 19(5). Paul Milligan, MPAC’s witness, testified that the CVA of $165,000 was derived from sales analysis of single-family homes that were not assessed as farm land. Therefore, the application of s. 19(5) is deemed to be in issue in this appeal and the Board is required to determine it.

20Paragraph 2 of s. 31 of the Regulation does not provide the Board with jurisdiction to make a determination on whether land should be classified in the farm property class. If after the Board makes a determination in s. 19(5) of the Act and there is still an issue of whether the land should be classified as land in the farm property class, the Board has to refer this issue to AFRAAT.

21AFRAAT will then determine whether the remainder of the requirements in s. 8 and 8.1 for classification in the farm property class are met. Section 8(1) of the Regulation provides in part:

8. (1) The farm property class consists of land determined in accordance with this section and section 8.1 to be farmland.

(2) Land used for farming, including outbuildings is farmland for a taxation year if the following requirements are satisfied:

1. A farming business, within the meaning of the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act, 1993, is carried out on the land.

2. Subsection 19 (5) of the Act applies to the land for the taxation year but the land is not land to which section 44 applies.

3. The land is owned by,

i. an individual who is a Canadian citizen or has been lawfully admitted to Canada for permanent residence,

22The Appellant consents to the assessed value of the Subject Property as returned on the roll for the 2019 taxation year at $165,000. Therefore, the Board only has to determine if the Subject Property was farm land used only for farm purposes by the owner, the Appellant, in accordance to s. 19(5) of the Act.

The Requirements of s. 19(5) of the [Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-a31/latest/rso-1990-c-a31.html)

23As determined in Delta Bingo Inc. v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region No. 18, 2013 CanLII 104841 (ON ARB) (“Delta Bingo”), the Board has to determine whether the Subject Property was farm land and if it was used only for farm purposes.

Was the Land Farm Land?

24The Board finds that the Subject Property was not farm land because it did not have at least 50 beehives situated on it in the 2019 taxation year.

25The Act does not define farm land. For a land to be determined as farm land, there are several factors that the Board considers as determined in Delta Bingo, at paragraph 36:

…the law as it currently stands holds that there are two elements to the determination of whether lands can qualify as “farm lands used only for farm purposes.” The Court of Appeal has approved the proposition that while the use of the lands for farming remains a predominant determinant, other factors such as those listed must be considered in order to characterize lands as farm lands in the first instance.

26The other factors referred to in Delta Bingo are: whether the land has physical characteristics of a farm, if it is carried out by a bona fide farmer, the surrounding uses and history of uses. In this present appeal, the farming activity of beekeeping differs from the farming activity in Delta Bingo of cultivating crops, therefore the evidence did not address all the factors identified in Delta Bingo. However, there was sufficient evidence on a balance of probabilities for the Board to find that in the 2019 taxation year, the Appellant was not a bona fide farmer of commercial beekeeping as he did not have at least 50 beehives situated on the Subject Property.

27MPAC argued that the Subject Property was not farm land in the 2019 taxation year, since it did not meet the minimum threshold of having 50 beehives situated on it. To support its argument, MPAC cites the decision of the Board in Fury v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 22, 2020 CanLII 21745 (ON ARB) (“Fury”).

28In Fury, the Board had to determine whether the property’s apportioned classification should include farm land due to the existence of two beehives situated on the property. The Board summarized the testimony of Brian Rath, MPAC’s expert witness at paragraph 5:

…land has to have "50 or more hives" before MPAC will assess it as a commercial bee keeping operation. Keeping less than 50 hives is not considered a bona fide farming operation and is considered to be recreational or hobby farming. He advised that the 50 bee hive limit is not arbitrary as it is consistent with the bee keeping industry, which includes the Ontario Beekeepers' Association, the Canadian Association of Professional Apiculturists, the Canadian Honey Council and Ontario's Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and Agricorp.

29The Board determined at paragraph 41 that:

The existence of only two hives was a significant barrier, in the Board's view, to having the SP's classification partitioned. MPAC requires 50 bee hives on land for an operation to be considered as a farm and considers all others to be recreational or hobby farms.

30The Board denied the application to designate one hectare as farm land and found that “the land is not farm land and while keeping two beehives may be a farming activity or purpose it only raises to the level of a recreational or hobby farm” (sic) (para. 44).

31In response to MPAC’s submissions that there is a minimum requirement of 50 beehives to be considered farm land, the Appellant makes submissions on what he believes to be the requirements for classification of farm property, relies on correspondence from various regulatory bodies which he says refutes the 50-beehive minimum, and submits that 50 beehives is an arbitrary number. For the reasons set out below, the Board rejects these arguments.

Classification Requirements Outside the Board’s Jurisdiction

32In this appeal, the Appellant argued that MPAC misinterpreted the decision in Fury. He submitted that all provincial laws and statutes governing MPAC, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (“OMAFRA”) and Agricorp, “for classification of farmlands and farm businesses state they are determined by meeting gross farming income requirements”. He added that the minimum gross farming income requirement is $7,000. He testified that he met this gross income requirement in the 2019 taxation year, with a gross income of $7,500, therefore, the Subject Property should be classified in the farm property class.

33The Board disagrees with the Appellant. The Appellant did not present the Board with any provision of the Act or Regulation that provides that the classification of farm land should only be determined by a minimum gross income of $7,000. Assuming there is such a requirement, as stated earlier in this Decision, the Board lacks jurisdiction to make a determination on whether the various requirements for the farm property class listed in ss. 8 and 8.1 of the Regulation are met, other than the issue of whether s. 19(5) of the Act applies to the land.

34The Appellant referred the Board to s. 8(2)1 of the Regulation, which provides that land used for farming is farm land if “a farming business, within the meaning of the Farm Registration and Farm Organizations Funding Act is carried out on the land”. This is one of the requirements. Pursuant to s. 8(2)2 of the Regulation, another requirement is that s. 19(5) of the Act must also apply to the land. The Appellant’s argument is irrelevant because it does not meet the requirement of s.19(5).

35The Appellant may be unclear about the requirement for registering a farm business and the determination of land as farm land. The Appellant testified that while carrying out his research on how to start a farm business, he was not advised about the minimum requirement of having 50 beehives for commercial beekeeping. The eligibility to register a farm business which is not part of the issue in this appeal is different from the determination of land as farm land under s.19(5) of the Act.

Evidence from Regulatory Bodies

36The Appellant argued that the regulatory bodies that Mr. Rath cited in the decision in Fury are inconsistent with Mr. Rath’s testimony of having a minimum threshold of 50 beehives for land to be assessed as farm land. These regulatory bodies such as OBA, OMAFRA and Agricorp, are not charged with the responsibility of assessing land in Ontario. The Appellant presented evidence from these organizations, which the Board does not find as persuasive to the determination of whether the Subject Property is farm land, for the reasons that follow.

a. Ontario Beekeeping Organization – (“OBA”)

37Bernie Wiehle, the current president of OBA, testified on the content of a letter dated May 26, 2020, written by Melanie Kemper, the General Manager of OBA. Ms. Kemper stated that:

Beekeepers with less than 50 colonies can still be able to successfully acquire a gross profit of $7000 through various avenues. The different levels of membership simply allow the tracking of changes in the size of operations over the years and to keep statistics consistent and comparable

So, even though the OBA may deem a beekeeper with more than 50 colonies as “commercial/large scale” for membership purposes, this is no way reflects on whether or not a beekeeper with less than 50 colonies could be considered a farming business.[emphasis added]

38Mr. Wiehle testified that the 50 beehive requirement is an arbitrary number that was established a few years ago to attract more membership. During cross-examination, Mr. Wiehle admitted that the letter does not mean that if a beekeeper makes $7,000, the land should be assessed as farm land.

39The Board finds that this letter does not support the Appellant’s argument, it only suggests that a beekeeper with less than 50 beehives can still be considered a farming business, provided the minimum gross income requirement of $7,000 is met. This is different from whether the land is farm land for the purpose of s. 19(5) of the Act.

40MPAC presented as evidence an OBA membership form. This form has different membership levels. It provides a selection of membership for small scale beekeepers (fewer than 50 colonies) and commercial beekeeper (50 colonies or more). The OBA letter dated May 26, 2020, presented in evidence by the Appellant stated that:

the delineation between the levels of membership (young, new, small-scale, large/commercial & supplier) within the Ontario Beekeepers Association is meant to help with statistics, annual member reports and industry-related support. Membership levels do not indicate whether or not the beekeeper is a verified farm business.

41Accordingly, regardless of the level of membership, a beekeeper might not be carrying out a farm business. However, the OBA still has a delineation between membership levels, using the number of colonies to differentiate between small scale and commercial beekeepers.

b. The Canadian Association of Professional Agriculturist- (“CAPA”)

42The Appellant presented in evidence a letter dated June 2, 2020, written by Dr. Shelley Hoover, the president of CAPA. Ms. Hoover stated that:

The Canadian Association of Professional Agriculturist does not have a set definition of “commercial beekeeper”. The definitions of commercial beekeeper, farmer and farm land are determined differently in each province. [emphasis added]

43Ms. Hoover’s letter further directs the Appellant to contact a provincial agriculturist for Ontario’s specific definitions. This letter clearly does not indicate how land is assessed as farm land.

c. The Canadian Honey Council – (“CHC”)

44The Appellant also presented as evidence an email dated May 27, 2020, where CHC advised that:

Each province has provincial legislation that determines what they would consider commercial operations. Ontario is fifty but other provinces have different numbers. Personally, its not the number of hives but the revenue you make which should be a deciding factor, but this is just my take”. (sic) [emphasis added]

45Although CHC is not charged with the responsibility of assessing land as farm land, it acknowledged that in Ontario a beekeeper should have at least 50 beehives to be considered a commercial beekeeper, which is distinct from a hobbyist.

d. Ministry of Agriculture, Farm and Rural Affairs – (“OMAFRA”) & Agricorp

46The Appellant submitted that before the decision in Fury was issued in November 2019, OMAFRA on February 25, 2019 indicated on its website that program inquires on farm property class tax rates can be directed to Agricorp.

47The Appellant presented as evidence an email dated May 4, 2020 from Agricorp, which he argued states that to be classified as farm land only a gross farm income of $7,000 is required and there is no requirement in the quantity of beehives. In this e-mail, Agricorp clearly indicated that there are four eligibility requirements to receive the farm property tax rate:

a. MPAC has assessed your property as farmland

b. Your property is used for a farm business

c. The farm business on your property has a valid FBR number

d. The property is majority owned by Canadian citizens or permanent residents.

48The email further provided that:

Please note to qualify for a farm business registration (FBR) number the requirement is that you declare a gross farm income of $7,000 or more to Canada Revenue Agency for tax purposes. There are no requirements in regards to the quantity of hives as you stated below, the program requirement is based on the gross farm income.

Once the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) classifies your land as farm land they will automatically notify Agricorp.

49The first eligibility requirement is for MPAC to assess the land as farm land. This email further acknowledges MPAC as the entity charged with the responsibility of assessing land as farm land. Clearly, in order to obtain the farm business registration (“FBR”) number, the taxpayer has to declare a gross income of $7,000 and not the quantity of beehives. This is just one of the eligible requirements. This is irrelevant to the determination of whether land is farm land for the purpose of s. 19(5) of the Act. The Appellant cannot choose which eligible requirement applies to him. According to Agricorp, all four eligible requirements must be fulfilled to receive the farm property class tax rate.

50MPAC also presented in evidence a document from OMAFRA titled “2018 Ontario Apiculture Winter Loss Survey”. This documents states:

During the spring of 2018, the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs’ (OMAFRA) Apriary program surveyed Ontario beekeepers to estimate honey bee colony mortality during the winter of 2017-2018. The survey was distributed to 186 registered commercial beekeepers (defined as operating 50 colonies or greater) and 400 randomly selected small-scale beekeepers (defined as operating 49 colonies or fewer).[emphasis added]

51This further supports MPAC’s argument, as determined by the Board in Fury that for a beekeeper’s land to be assessed as farm land, it should have 50 beehives situated on it and considers all others recreational or hobby farms.

Fifty Beehives is not an Arbitrary Number

52The Appellant argued that MPAC has used an arbitrary number of 50 beehives on whether land should be assessed as farm land.

53The Board finds that using 50 beehives to be considered as a commercial beekeeper is not arbitrary.

54In Union Gas Limited v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2016 CanLII 22809 (ON ARB), at paragraph 8, the Board stated that a decision of the Board “that is directly on point should be followed unless there is a significant change in circumstances or there are reasons to doubt that the previous decision is correct”.

55The Board finds that the issues in the decision in Fury are almost identical with the issues in this appeal. The Board in Fury had to determine if the appellant’s land is farm land used only for farming purposes. The farming activity (beekeeping) is the same in this appeal, and the appellant in Fury asked the Board to classify a portion of the land as farm land. The difference is in the number of beehives situated on the appellant’s land in Fury and in this appeal. In Fury, the appellant had 2 beehives, and in this appeal the Appellant had 20 beehives. Neither had 50 beehives on the lands to be assessed by MPAC as farm land.

56In Delta Bingo , the Board referred to the decision in Slough Estates Canada Limited v. Regional Assessment Commissioner, Region No. 15, 2000 CanLII 5705 (ON CA) , where the court recognized the common sense approach in the case of Re Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of the Diocese of Hamilton and Town of Stoney Creek10, 1970 CanLII 282 (ON SC) (“Roman Catholic Episcopal Corp. (Hamilton)”). In Roman Catholic Episcopal Corp. (Hamilton), at paragraph 10, the court stated:

…Certainly common sense would impel an assessor not to treat as farm lands, a parcel of vacant lands at the corner of King and Yonge Sts. in Toronto or at the corner of King and James Sts. in Hamilton, merely because the owner, for whatever reason, may have decided to plant it in tomatoes…

57This reasoning was also discussed in Fury at paragraph 21:

The Board asked the Appellant if she believed that a person who partitioned a small part of their property, for example the backyard of a residential property and planted fruits and vegetables, ought to be able to claim a farm land partition because of growing produce. Ms. Waddon answered no but could not give a clear answer why she thought this.

58MPAC eliminated recreational and hobby beekeeping by adopting the 50 beehives requirement as the minimum threshold to be situated on land to be assessed as farm land.

59MPAC also cited the Federal Court decision in Paradis Honey Ltd. v. Canada, 2017 FC 199, [2018] 1 FCR 275 (“Paradis”). In Paradis, the plaintiffs were seeking damages for losses that resulted from a ban on the importation of honeybees from U.S.A. since 1987. In line with this, a motion was filed to certify the underlying action as a class action on behalf of Canadian beekeepers. The plaintiffs sought to amend the class definition to “all persons in Canada who keep or have kept more than 50 bee colonies at a time for commercial purposes since December 31, 2006”. Specifically, paragraphs 40 and 41 of the decision states:

On their website, the Honey Council states that commercial beekeepers in Eastern Canada and British Columbia operate small to medium sized operations of 50-50 000 colonies. Mr. Gibeau, one of the proposed representative plaintiffs, testified that a person needs to have at least 50 colonies to significantly augment their income, and to qualify for most federal or provincial government agricultural safety net programs. Mr. Gibeau explained that, in setting the minimum number, the Beekeepers were trying to ensure that hobbyists were excluded from the Class, because they have different interests from commercial beekeepers. Therefore, the Beekeepers assert that the minimum of 50 colonies is logical, and is neither over- nor under-inclusive. [emphasis added]

I find the Federal Crown's argument that the number of colonies is an arbitrary cut-off unpersuasive. As the Beekeepers show, the number 50 is tied to both representations made by the Honey Council about the size of commercial beekeeping operations in the Eastern Provinces and British Columbia, and government assistance programs that require a beekeeper to have at least 50 colonies to qualify. The Beekeepers acknowledge that requiring beekeepers to have 50 or more colonies may prevent some commercial beekeepers from taking part in the Action. However, as Madam Justice Martine St-Louis said recently, in Rae v. Canada [page295] (National Revenue), 2015 FC 707, [2015] 6 C.T.C. 135, at paragraph 56, "[o]ver-inclusion and under-inclusion are not fatal to the certification as long as they are not illogical or arbitrary". In this case, I find that setting the cut-off for the Class at 50 colonies is both logical and non-arbitrary. [emphasis added]

60The Federal Court determined that 50 colonies is not an arbitrary number. The Subject Property did not have up to 50 beehives in the 2019 taxation year. The Board notes that the Appellant increased the number of beehives situated on the Subject Property in the 2020 taxation year and the land was assessed by MPAC as farm land.

Timing of the Acquisition of 50 Beehives

61During cross-examination, the Appellant confirmed that he received the farm business registration number in July 2019. MPAC submitted that as of June 30, 2018, the classification date for the 2019 taxation year, the Appellant did not have the minimum of 50 beehives situated on the Subject Property. Section 19.3 of the Act provides that “the day as of which land shall be classified for a taxation year is June 30 of the previous year”. The Board does not have the jurisdiction to determine whether the Subject Property should be classified in the farm property class.

62MPAC further submitted that on December 11, 2018, the state and condition date of the Subject Property for the 2019 taxation year, the Appellant did not meet the required threshold of 50 beehives. The decision cited by MPAC further explains the meaning of state and condition date. MPAC referred the Board to its decision in General Motors of Canada Ltd. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp., Region No. 27, [2017] O.A.R.B.D. No. 13, at paragraph 11, where the Board stated that:

Property is assessed each year as it was when the tax roll was returned to the municipality. The roll must be returned by the second Tuesday following December 1 of the previous year, so the state of the property on that date is determinative of the assessment.

63Section 36(1) of the Act states that …assessment of land shall be made annually at any time between January 1 and the second Tuesday following December 1. Section 36(2) provides that the roll shall be returned not later than the second Tuesday following December 1 in the year in which the assessment is made.

64Having made determinations that:

a. 50 is not an arbitrary number in accordance with paragraph 40 and 41 of the decision in Paradis;

b. The state and condition date for the 2019 taxation year is December 11, 2018; and

c. The Subject Property did not have 50 beehives situated on it.

the Board finds that the Subject Property is not farm land pursuant to s. 19(5) of the Act.

Was the Subject Property Used Only for Farm Purposes?

65In the 2019 taxation year, beekeeping was the only farming activity carried out by the Appellant. However, this farming activity was carried out only to the level of recreation or hobby farming, as the Subject Property did not have at least 50 beehives situated on it.

CONCLUSION

66The Board finds that in the 2019 taxation year, the Subject Property was not farm land pursuant to s. 19(5) of the Act, because it did not have at least 50 beehives situated on it.

ORDER

67The Board orders as follows:

a. For the 2019 taxation year, that the assessment of the Subject Property is confirmed as returned in the residential property class;