Alexander Galushkin v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 14, 2021 CanLII 92530

Tribunals Ontario

Assessment Review Board

ISSUE DATE: September 21, 2021

FILE NO.: RD 20-065

Assessed Person(s): Alexander Galushkin, Olga Galushkina

Appellant(s): Alexander Galushkin, Olga Galushkina

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 14

Respondent(s): Town of Richmond Hill

Property Location(s): 52 Canterbury Court

Municipality(ies): Town of Richmond Hill

Roll Number(s): 1938-030-020-75700-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3379655

Taxation Year(s): 2019

Legislative Authority: Rules 101-103 of the Assessment Review Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure

Parties	Representative
Alexander Galushkin, Olga Galushkina	Self-represented
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation	Submission not received
Town of Richmond Hill	Submissions not received

REQUEST FOR: A review of the Board’s Decision WR 163343 issued on February 10, 2020

HEARD: In writing

ADJUDICATOR(S): Vincent Stabile, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1Alexander Galushkin and Olga Galushkina, (the “Requesters”), seek a review of the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) Decision WR 163343 by Member LaRegina issued February 10, 2020 (the “Decision”).

Background

Issues for the Review

2The Requesters submit that the Board “heard false or misleading evidence from a party or witness, which was discovered only after the hearing and would have affected the result”. Additionally, they submit that “there is new evidence that could not have reasonably been obtained earlier and would have affected the result”. Both of these grounds are provided in Rules 121(c) and (d) of the Board’s former Rules of Practice and Procedure effective April 1, 2017 and amended May, 2019 now Rules 102 (c) and (d) effective April 1, 2021 (“Rules”).

Result

3For reasons set out below, the Request for Review is denied.

ANALYSIS

Issue 1 – Did the Board hear false or misleading evidence from a party or witness, which was discovered only after the hearing and would have affected the result?

4The appeal at issue was in respect to a residential property in the Town of Richmond Hill for the 2019 taxation year.

5The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) had returned the assessment at $1,358,000. At the hearing, MPAC recommended a reduction to $1,348,000. The Appellants requested an assessment of $1,150,000.

6The parties agreed that the direct comparison approach to value was the appropriate method and that the valuation date was January 1, 2016. MPAC relied on five and the Appellants relied on eight comparable properties. All properties required to be time adjusted to January 1, 2016, depending on the date of sale.

7The parties disagreed with the sales proposed, with the time adjustment factor to be used as well as the percentage reduction for equity.

8In his clear and cogent reasons, Member LaRegina, considered all the evidence presented. He rejected some proposed sales suggested by either party for lack of comparability. He rejected the time adjustment study suggested by MPAC and accepted the Appellants’ submission of 34%, supported by two studies from Royal LePage.

9In the result, Member LaRegina, focused on two sales, 10 and 16 Sorrento Drive, relied upon both by MPAC and the Requesters (Appellants) and determined the correct current value at $1,503,000 (rounded), being the average of the total time adjusted sale values.

10In respect to the issue of equity Member LaRegina balanced his findings by including all properties proposed by MPAC and the Appellants, as well as the two sales on Sorrento Drive, neither of which had been included in either study, for a total sample of 39 properties. After careful consideration the Member made a 13.5% equitable reduction bringing the assessed value to $1,300,095, rounded to $1,300,000 for the taxation year 2019.

11The Decision is fully within the discretion of the Member.

Requesters’ Submission

12It appears that the Requesters are suggesting that the time adjusted calculations proposed by them at the hearing were wrong, based on statements made by the president of Royal LePage Signature Realty published by the Toronto Star on October 10, 2019.

Findings on Issue 1

13Both parties agreed that the Direct Sales comparison approach to value was the appropriate methodology.

14As a primary consideration, the Direct Sales approach to value considers sales of similar properties in the vicinity.

15Sales are market driven. The results are not an expression of ‘mathematical certainty’ by applying a specific mathematical formula. Rather they are an expression of agreements made between willing sellers and willing buyers.

16The record is clear that the Member considered all the evidence presented at the hearing and based his Decision on the best evidence presented.

17The threshold consideration relating to ‘false or misleading evidence’ is whether the evidence came from an opposing party or witness, not from the Requesters themselves. Interpreting the provision differently would simply facilitate a re-hearing by an aggrieved party who, as here, continues to extract mathematical results from data which may or may not be relevant in determining current value.

18The Board is not satisfied that the Requesters’ submission on this issue meets the threshold consideration of constituting false or misleading evidence. Such publications are not ‘opinion evidence’ that the Board generally would rely on to make findings of fact. In any event, the hearing Member would have unfettered discretion as to the weight placed on such publications.

19The Board is not satisfied that the information being relied upon by the Requesters on this issue would have affected the result at the hearing.

Issue 2 – Is there new evidence that could not have been reasonable been obtained earlier and would have affected the result?

20The Requesters appear to rely on specific adjustment factors, such as revised cost of construction and adjustments for living areas, finished and unfinished basement areas, years built and lot size to determine value. Further, applying those mathematical calculations to determine a different Assessment to Sales Ratio to determine the equitable adjustment.

21All of these factors were fully addressed by the Member as set out in paragraphs 7 – 20 of his Decision.

22As already noted, the Requesters appear to rely on information published in October 2019. The in-person hearing was held on December 6, 2019.

Findings on Issue 2

23There is nothing in these submissions to satisfy the Board that there is new evidence that could not have been obtained earlier. All of the references appear to be supported by public statements made or information available prior to the hearing held on December 6, 2019.

24The Board finds that this Request for Review is simply an attempt by the Requesters to re-litigate issues fully argued and determined at the hearing.

CONCLUSION

25The Board finds that the Requesters have not met the burden contemplated in Rules 102(c) and (d) effective April 1, 2021.

ORDER

26The Board orders that this Request for Review is denied.