Tribunals Ontario
Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario
Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: January 20, 2022
Assessed Person(s): 1576626 Ontario Inc. and BSN London Corporation
Appellant(s): 1576626 Ontario Inc. and BSN London Corporation
Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 23
Respondent(s): City of London
Property Location(s): 369 York Street
Municipality(ies): City of London
Roll Number(s): 3936-050-010-13300-0000
Appeal Number(s): 3240138, 3312336, 3366245, 3410179 and 3448270
Taxation Year(s): 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021
Hearing Event No. 755071
Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Representative
1576626 Ontario Inc. and BSN London Corporation
Steve Pocrnic
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
Michael Radan
City of London
No one appeared
HEARD: November 9 and 10, 2021 by video conference call
ADJUDICATOR(S): Subuola Awoleri, Member, Jennifer Griffith, Member
DECISION
OVERVIEW
11576625 Ontario Inc. the previous owner for the 2017 taxation year and BSN London Corporation the new owner for the 2018 through 2021 taxation years (the “Assessed Persons”) are the owners of 369 York Street (the “Subject Property”). 1576625 Ontario Inc. the previous owner (the “Appellant”), appealed the 2017 assessment 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 ground that the assessment is too high.
2The Appellants argued that the current value of the Subject Property should be $1,100,000. The previous owner filed the appeal in 2017 and is deemed to have brought the same appeal in respect of the 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021 taxation years, pursuant to s. 40(26) of the Act.
3The Subject Property was assessed by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) at $3,804,000 for the 2017 to 2021 taxation years, apportioned as $3,120,100 in the industrial property class and $683,900 in the commercial property class. MPAC requests that the Board confirm this current value assessment (“CVA”).
4At the completion of the hearing, the Board reserved its decision.
Issues for the Hearing
5The issues to be determined are:
What is the correct current value of the Subject Property for the 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021 taxation years?
Whether there should be an equitable reduction of the current value pursuant to s. 44(3)(b) of the Act, and, if so, what the amount of this reduction should be?
Result
6We determine the correct current value of the Subject Property to be $3,804,000 as returned, apportioned as $3,120,100 in the industrial property class and $683,900 in the commercial property class.
7We find that there is no evidence to support a conclusion that the Subject Property requires a reduction in its determined current value in order to make it equitable with the assessment of similar properties in the vicinity.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE
8MPAC submitted that the Appellants should be prevented from raising any issues at the hearing, due to their non-compliance with the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the former Rules Effective April 1, 2017 and Amended May 2019) (The “Rules”), by not serving and filing their Statement of Issues (“SOI”) and expert report in accordance to the Schedule of Events (“SOE”).
9The Appellants argued that the SOI was properly served and filed and that the expert report served on MPAC on March 24, 2021 was supplemental to the issues raised in the SOI.
10The SOE provides a detailed timely process for an appeal from its commencement date to the date of the hearing. It sets out what the parties need to do to perfect the appeals prior to the hearing date. Rule 34, along with Schedules A and B to the Rules, provide the SOE for the summary and general streams. These appeals are in the general stream, and accordingly the SOE is set out in Schedule A.
11The SOE was amended by the Board to extend the timelines for the parties to file their expert reports, based upon a request by the parties in their mandatory meeting form. The commencement date assigned by the Board for these appeals was March 15, 2019.
Late Serving and Filing of the Appellants’ SOI
12We find that the Appellants’ delay in serving and filing the SOI in accordance to the SOE is deemed cured by MPAC’s agreement to accept the late serving of the SOI on the agreed date, October 25, 2019.
13In accordance with the amended SOE, the deadline for the Appellants to serve their SOI was August 9, 2019. MPAC did not receive it on this date. The Appellants submitted that MPAC sent an e-mail on October 21, 2019, agreeing to an extension of time for the Appellants to serve the SOI on or before October 25, 2019, failing which it will request for a dismissal of the appeals. The Appellants served it on October 25, 2019. MPAC confirmed receipt of the Appellants’ SOI on this date.
14Pursuant to Rule 49 of the Board’s Rules, issues can only be raised if included in a SOI served on all parties and filed in accordance with the Rules, unless there are exceptional circumstances. The Appellants’ SOI was filed late, therefore not in accordance with the Rules. However, pursuant to Rule 7, the Board will determine the appropriate consequences of non-compliance with the Rules. In light of MPAC’s agreement to accept the Appellants’ SOI on or before October 25, 2019, we find that it is fair and appropriate for the Appellants to be permitted to raise the issues in their SOI. Moreover, MPAC’s agreement to the time extension cured the delay and there was no prejudice to MPAC, since MPAC was aware of the issues raised in the Appellants’ SOI.
Late Serving and Filing of the Appellants’ Expert Report
15We find that the Appellants’ expert report is inadmissible, since it was served contrary to the timelines in the SOE and the Appellants did not provide the Board with any exceptional circumstances for extending the SOE.
16Rule 48 of the Board’s Rules provides:
A document, including an expert report, will only be admitted into evidence at a hearing event if it has been disclosed, and filed with the Board, in accordance with these Rules, unless the Board determines that there are exceptional circumstances.
17In accordance with the SOE, the deadline for the Appellants to serve their expert report on all the parties was December 18, 2020. Responding Parties must then serve on all other parties any expert reports on which the Responding Party intends to rely on at the hearing, as well as any amendments to the Responding Party’s statement of response to address any additional evidence or issues raised in an expert report on or before April 9, 2021. The Appellants must then provide any supplementary reports by their expert in reply to any expert reports served by a Responding Party on or before May 21, 2021.
18On March 15, 2021, due to the Appellants’ failure to file its expert report by the due date of December 18, 2020, MPAC filed an Expedited Board Direction Form (“EBDF”) with the Board requesting for the following orders:
i.That the Appellant be restricted from entering documentary evidence at the hearing event;
ii.In the alternative, that the Appellant be restricted from raising any new issues at the hearing event;
iii.In the further alternative, an amendment to the SOE to allow for an extension of MPAC’s deadline to file its expert report in response to the Appellant’s expert report.
19Pursuant to Rule 82, which provides that an alteration to the timelines in the SOE will only be granted in exceptional circumstances, the Board made a disposition directing the Appellants to serve and file an EBDF on all the parties, requesting for an extension and also to include full submissions explaining the exceptional circumstances, if it intends to seek an extension of the due date in the SOE. The due date to serve and file the EBDF was March 26, 2021. The Appellants did not file an EBDF with the Board to seek an extension of the SOE to file their expert report.
20At the hearing, the Appellants submitted that they believed that the Board’s reference to expert report was a valuation report, which they did not intend to file, therefore it was not necessary to comply with the direction. The Board’s direction from the EBDF filed by MPAC did not make any reference to the nature of the expert report. Furthermore, the main issue addressed by the Appellants in their SOI was the contamination on the Subject Property, which was further referenced by the executive summaries of the expert report attached to their SOI. Moreover, the Appellants’ second representative, James Betteto, had provided a response to MPAC’s request in the EBDF filed with the Board, in which he admitted and confirmed that the Appellants’ expert report was not served by the due date in the SOE and that he consents to MPAC’s EBDF for a further amendment of the SOE to allow the Appellants serve the expert report.
21On March 19, 2021, MPAC served and filed its valuation report. On March 24, 2021, the Appellants served a response to MPAC’s valuation report attaching various documents, arranged in 8 Schedules, which included the Appellants’ full expert report dated February 3, 2017, August 9, 2017 and October 3, 2017, prepared by Pinchin Ltd. containing issues MPAC did not refer to in its valuation report. All these documents including the Appellants’ expert report were not properly disclosed in accordance with the SOE. The Appellants argued that the full expert report served on MPAC was supplementary to the executive summary in their SOI and it was augmented with an estimated cost of remediation.
22The issues raised in the Appellants’ SOI, primarily addressed contamination on the Subject Property and the Appellants attached two executive summaries of its expert report dated February 3, 2017 and August 9, 2017 respectively to the SOI, which were served on MPAC on March 24, 2021. Furthermore, In response to MPAC’s EBDF, the Board directed the Appellants to file an EBDF requesting an extension of the due dates in the SOE, outlining the exceptional circumstances, which it failed to do.
23The Appellants’ representative is conversant with the Board’s Rules. Pleadings basically state the position of parties and it is not evidence. The Board gave the Appellants another opportunity to file an EBDF requesting for an amendment of the SOE, to extend the time to file its expert report, but it failed to comply with the Board’s direction. The Appellants did not provide the Board with any exceptional circumstances for extending the due date in the SOE. The fact that the Appellants did not file an expert report, there was no longer an obligation for MPAC to respond by the due date of April 9, 2021 as stated in the SOE. The Appellants’ action of not complying with the SOE is prejudicial to MPAC, since MPAC was unable to provide an expert report in response to the Appellants’ expert report, which was improperly served and filed.
24The Board did not admit the Appellants’ expert report into evidence and restricted the Appellant’s witnesses’ testimony to evidence of facts based on issues raised in its SOI.
Admissibility of other Documents Improperly Served and Filed
25The Appellants further requested that the Board admit the following documents into evidence, which were attached as schedules to the Appellants’ expert report that was rejected above by the Board:
i. Floor plans showing the drawings of the layout of the Subject Property (Schedule 2);
ii. Transfer deed of the sale of the Subject Property Schedule 1;
iii. Contract regarding remediation Schedule 7;
iv. Photographs of the Subject Property in Schedule 8; and
v. Robert Watters’ remediation estimates included in the Appellant’s Expert Report.
The Board notes that the Appellants did not provide any reason at the hearing for the late disclosure of these documents.
26MPAC also objected to the admissibility of these documents, as being improperly disclosed.
27We find for the same reasons as provided above, that these documents are inadmissible, being evidence, which should have been disclosed properly in accordance with the SOE and no exceptional circumstances were presented by the Appellants to extend the due date in the SOE.
ANALYSIS
Description of the Subject Property
28The Subject Property is a standard industrial building located in the City of London. It was purpose built for a newspaper printing facility. The Subject Property has an effective year built of 1979.
Issue 1 - What is the correct current value of the Subject Property for the 2017 to 2021 taxation years?
29In accordance with s. 44(3)(a) of the Act, the first mandate of the Board is to determine “the current value of the land.” Section 1 of the Act defines current value as “the amount of money the fee simple, if unencumbered, would realize if sold at arm’s length by a willing seller to a willing buyer.” That is, for the 2017 to 2021 taxation years, the Board must determine what the Subject Property would have been sold for in an arm’s length transaction on the January 1, 2016 valuation day set by the Act.
30The Board finds the current value of the Subject Property for the 2017 to 2021 taxation years to be $3,804,000.
Sale of the Subject Property
31The best evidence the Board can receive of current value is an arm’s length and market-tested sale of the property on the valuation date or close to it. If no such transaction took place, the next best measure of current value is arm’s length and market-tested sales of comparable properties located nearby, as close as possible to the legislated valuation date of January 1, 2016.
32Jeff Langford, MPAC’s witness, provided oral testimony based on evidence contained in MPAC’s valuation report, dated February 26, 2021, prepared by Brittney Hook, a Property Valuation Analyst, employed by MPAC. Ms. Hook was unable to attend the hearing due to medical reasons.
33Mr. Langford testified that he has 28 years of valuation experience including costing of industrial properties. He added that his role as a Property Valuator is the same as a Property Valuation Analyst and although he did not prepare the valuation report, he reviewed it and he agrees with the findings of the report.
34Mr. Langford testified that the Subject Property and another property located at 405 York Street were sold to BSN London Corporation (the “Assessed Person” and new owner) on September 13, 2017. He further added that according to the Land Transfer Tax Affidavit, Registration ER11228106 dated September 13, 2017, the sale price paid for both properties was $10,500,000. The transfer document was signed by Shmuel Farhi, President of Farhi Holdings Corporation acting for the Assessed Person. The Board notes that MPAC did not present the Land Transfer Tax Affidavit into evidence.
35Mr. Langford testified that in order to bring the sale price to what the Subject Property could have sold for on January 1, 2016, MPAC applied a time adjustment factor of 0.92384 to the sale price of $10,500,000, which provides a time adjusted sale price (“TASP”) of $9,700,000. He added that deducting the CVA of the second property, at $2,675,000, from the TASP of $9,700,000 provides a value of $7,025,000, which should be the CVA of the Subject Property. However, it was not clear to us why MPAC did not use this sale, other than testifying that it would be higher than the returned CVA of the Subject Property. The Appellants did not dispute the sale price of the two properties, however, the Appellants suggested that the conditions of the sale made it a non-market sale. There was no evidence presented by the Appellants to indicate that this was an invalid sale.
36The best indicator of current value is the relevant sale of the Subject Property. See 802700 Ontario Inc. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp., Region No. 19, [2003] O.A.R.B.D. No. 68 at paragraph 81. However, we did not use the sale of the Subject Property to determine its current value, due to the lack of corroborating documentary evidence about the sale. MPAC did not present evidence on how it arrived at its time adjustment factors to bring the sale of the Subject Property to the valuation date of January 1, 2016. Furthermore, we find that MPAC’s arbitrary calculation of the apportioned value of $7,025,000 for the Subject Property derived from its sale less the CVA of the second property is speculative and not based on evidence. Neither party presented evidence on the current value of the second property. Therefore, we cannot speculate or arbitrarily calculate the purchase price allotted to the Subject Property, without any valid corroborating documentary evidence about the sale.
Valuation Methodology - Cost Approach
37The Appellants and MPAC agree on the methodology of valuing the Subject Property. In the cost approach, the theory of substitution is used to estimate the value of the buildings/structures. The theory is based on the principle that a purchaser will not pay more for a property than it will cost to build a new one that performs the same function. However, the purchaser is not buying the replacement property but the Subject Property with its defects, therefore the cost approach takes into consideration the depreciation on the Subject Property, in order to arrive at the correct value of the Subject Property. The value of the building and the estimate value of the land will result in an estimate current value of the Subject Property.
38MPAC used the cost approach to obtain the CVA of the Subject Property at $3,804,000. MPAC used the Automated Cost System, a component-based cost system, to value major building components in place, which was not presented into evidence. Mr. Langford, MPAC’s witness testified that the building replacement cost new (“RCN”) is $17,851,860. He testified that MPAC applied a negative 74% depreciation to the 1965 portions of the Subject Property, a negative 51% depreciation to the 1979 portions of the Subject Property, and a negative adjustment in the range of 5% to 10% for obsolescence to arrive at a replacement cost new less depreciation (“RCNLD”) of $3,541,915. MPAC submitted that the value of the building is $3,541,915. Mr. Langford further testified that the land value of the Subject Property is $262,534. According to MPAC, this provides a total current value of $3,804,000 (rounded).
39Apart from its viva voce evidence from its witness, MPAC’s valuation report does not contain any evidence to corroborate the CVA of $3,804,000. In fact, MPAC admitted during cross-examination that the valuation report presented by MPAC was not signed by Ms. Hook who authored the report. Although the Appellant cross-examined MPAC about its valuation report not conforming to the Canadian Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal, the Appellants still used part of the valuation report in providing the Board with what it believes to be the correct current value of the Subject Property.
40MPAC’s evidence of the building’s RCNLD was uncontested by the Appellants. However, the Appellants argue that a further 15% deduction is warranted due to contamination.
41Robert Watters, owner of Watters Environmental Group Inc. was called as a witness for the Appellants. Mr. Watters provided a brief summary of his professional background and work experiences. He testified that for the past 17 years he has been running his own company and that his company buys and sells properties, carries out property management for hotels and other companies which may include investigating environmental issues such as asbestos, mold, nuclear waste etc.
42Mr. Watters testified that he is familiar with the Subject Property because he was engaged with Farhi Corporation, who was acting for the Assessed Person, after the purchase of the Subject Property in 2017. In advance of planned renovation on the Subject Property, a strategy was developed for removing hazardous materials (asbestos, lead etc.) and for regular inspection, testing and communication with contractors based on reports done by Pinchin Ltd. According to Mr. Watters, the first Pinchin report dated February 3, 2017 was for Supplemental Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, the second Pinchin report dated August 9, 2017 was for Hazardous Building Materials Assessment, for Former London Free Press, 369 York Street, London, Ontario. He further testified that the Pinchin reports offered three fire-proofing options, and removal of hazardous materials was the option selected.
43Mr. Watters testified that the first time he was on the Subject Property was May 2018 when he inspected the property at the commencement of the work. He further testified that at that time, the first floor (industrial space) was evacuated and there were occupied spaces in the offices on the second floor. During that period, he testified that samples were developed, contractors were retained, the Ministry of Environment was notified of the scheduled remediation dates (September 9, 2019, and January 2021).
44Mr. Watters also testified that the onsite remediation of the offices on the second floor started October 2019 and finished May 2020 and that complete containment occurred over the period May 2020 to June 2021, meaning that the mechanicals were shutdown, windows sealed, fire resistance removed, floors removed, bare spaces and the building was empty. The first and second floors were not useable and no longer met fire code standards.
45Mr. Watters further testified that the Pinchin reports also included issues of soil contamination, which he believes is still present on the Subject Property. He also testified that the report cited likely sources of the contamination (gas, hydrocarbons and other chemicals stored underground in tanks). Mr. Watters testified that he believes that the ground water has similar contamination.
46Mr. Watters also testified that he assisted Mr. Farhi in obtaining quotes from contractors to have the remedial work done. He received three quotes (including disposal and labour) which was $1 million, $1.2 million and $1.8 million. However, he added that Mr. Farhi did not choose any of the quotes and elected to go with another contractor.
47During cross examination, Mr. Watters admitted that Mr. Farhi was aware of the contamination on the Subject Property prior to its purchase, since Mr. Farhi provided him with a copy of the expert report on the contamination, which Mr. Farhi had obtained prior to the purchase of the Subject Property.
48Mr. Watters viva voce evidence addressed in detail the contamination on the Subject Property, based on the three full expert reports prepared by Pinchin Ltd., which was not before the Board as they were determined inadmissible in evidence. According to him, the first Pinchin Report dated February 3, 2017 was the Supplemental Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, the second dated August 9, 2017 was for Hazardous Building Materials Assessment. The executive summaries of these two reports were attached to the Appellant’s SOI, which the Board deemed as properly served on MPAC. The third Pinchin Report - Remedial Excavation Report dated October 3, 2017, was attached to the Appellants’ response to MPAC’s valuation report and not the Appellants’ SOI.
49The two executive summaries of the expert report attached to the Appellant’s SOI, which summarized some of the findings in the full expert reports provides that there are hazardous building materials on the Subject Property and there may also be soil contamination, which Mr. Watters’ testimony referred to, although to a greater extent based on the full expert report. We find that based on part of Mr. Watters’ testimony, which specifically corroborates the facts in the executive summary, that there are hazardous building materials on the Subject Property, and there may be soil contamination on the Subject Property. The executive summary of the reports dated February 3, 2017 and August 9, 2017 provide that: “This Executive Summary is subject to the same standard limitations as contained in the report and must be read in conjunction with the entire report”. The executive summary does not provide us with the cost-to cure/remedial costs for the Subject Property. Without a cost to cure, we are unable to determine the adjustment to be made against the CVA of the Subject Property, especially when the Appellants submitted that the cost to remediate the contamination is greater than the CVA of the Subject Property.
50Furthermore, Mr. Watters admitted during cross examination that if he had access to only the executive summaries in the Appellants’ SOI and not the full report he would not have been able to provide an extensive testimony on the nature and extent of the contamination on the Subject Property. Due to the Appellants’ breach of the Board’s Rules, MPAC did not have an opportunity to provide a response to the Appellants’ expert report, which is contrary to the rules of procedural fairness. We note that these expert reports are dated in 2017, which is more than ample time to serve the reports with the parties and the Board and there were no extraordinary circumstances presented by the Appellants for an extension of the due date in the SOE to properly serve and file these expert reports.
51Had the Appellants served the expert report properly pursuant to the SOE, according to MPAC, these expert reports would have been considered by its contamination department and an expert report would have been filed by MPAC to respond to this issue.
Condition of the Subject Property
52The Appellants further submitted that the value of the improvements provided by MPAC should have been adjusted to consider the contamination issue, as there is a requirement to reflect the assessment of the Subject Property based on the state and condition of the property pursuant to section 36(1) of the Act.
53Section 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.
54The Appellants argued that on December 10, 2019 and December 8, 2020, which are the state and condition dates of the Subject Property for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years, the contamination issue had impacted the use of the Subject Property, especially the office space, such that upon remediating the contamination it rendered parts of the Subject Property unusable. However, the Appellants presented no evidentiary evidence to demonstrate the impact of the unusable area on the assessed value of the Subject Property.
55The Appellants argued that the cost to remediate the contamination on the Subject Property is greater than the CVA of the Subject Property. The Appellants relied on the RCN of $17,851,860 and the land value of $262,534 which were presented by MPAC. However, the Appellants are of the view that the remaining total economic life of 19.84053% (after depreciation and obsolescence) should be further reduced by 15% for environmental issues affecting the Subject Property. Based on this further reduction of 15%, the Appellants are of the opinion that the correct current value for the Subject Property should be $1,100,000.
56The Appellants submitted that the correct current value should be $1,100,000 for the 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021 taxation years.
57The Appellants further presented us with the following decisions, where the Board determined that there was contamination on the appealed properties and reduced the assessment to nominal values:
i. Linamar Corp. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp. Region No. 22, [2015] O.A.R.B.D. No. 124;
ii. Mifran Investments Ltd. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp., Region No. 15, [2002] O.A.R.B.D. No. 437 and;
iii. Ubavin v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp. Region No. 27, [2008] O.A.R.B.D. No. 178 (“Ubavin”)
58We find that these three decisions are distinguishable from the present appeal. In these decisions the appellants had appropriately served and filed their evidence in accordance with the Board’s Rules, which included the cost of remediating the environmental issue. In fact, in Ubavin at paragraph 28 the Board stated:
absent a complete Environmental Assessment Report for the subject property, it is not possible to determine the extent of the contamination or the exact cost of site remediation.
The Board determined that the appellant had presented the best evidence of the remediation cost, and this evidence was not refuted by the other parties.
59In the present appeal, the Appellants did not properly present into evidence any cost of remediation. MPAC argued that the Appellants did not plead the state and condition of the Subject Property in its SOI, therefore it should be barred from raising this issue at the hearing. The Appellants submitted that the state and condition of the Subject Property changed after the SOI was served, that the SOI will only show the extent of the impact that the contamination had on the Subject Property and not the cost of remediation, which was provided as a response to MPAC’s valuation report.
60In 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.
61The Appellants’ SOI did not explicitly provide the state and condition dates, however, it indicated that there was contamination on the Subject Property, which indicates that the Appellants had issues with the condition of the Subject Property. In order to investigate further, the Appellants were to serve MPAC with the expert report in accordance with the SOE, which the Appellants failed to do. According to the Appellants, MPAC overstated the value of the improvements and believes that there should be a further reduction to the value of the improvements based on the contamination issue, to provide a value of the improvements as $837,466 and not $3,541,915 as valued by MPAC. The Appellants are asserting a reduction, based on the contamination but have not provided any evidence to quantify the reduction. The executive summaries corroborate part of Mr. Watters’ testimony that there is contamination on the Subject Property, but no cost to cure was presented by the Appellants.
Finding on Current Value
62We find that MPAC presented the best evidence in support of the correct current value of $3,804,000 as determined by the Cost Approach to value. We find that the RCN of $17,851,860; the remaining total economic life of 19.84053% and land value of $262,534 were uncontested. We also find that the Appellants did not properly present into evidence any professional, quantitative and detailed cost-to-cure evidence in support of an additional fifteen percent adjustment for contamination. Therefore, we determine that the correct current value of the Subject Property is $3,804,000 for the 2017 to 2021 taxation years.
Issue 2 - Whether there should be an equitable reduction of the current value pursuant to [s. 44(3)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-a31/latest/rso-1990-c-a31.html)(b) of the [Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-a31/latest/rso-1990-c-a31.html), and, if so, what the amount of this reduction should be.
63Section 44(3)(b) of the Act directs that after determining current value, the Board shall have reference to the value at which similar lands in the vicinity are assessed and:
adjust the assessment of the land to make it equitable with that of similar lands in the vicinity if such an adjustment would result in a reduction of the assessment of the land.
64The goal of the Act is to determine the correct current value of properties. Any equitable reduction in the current value results in an incorrect current value. Consequently, an equitable reduction should only be made where there is clear evidence to support that such a reduction is warranted. In this regard, the burden of proof rests with the party that alleges that it would be inequitable to assess the Subject Property at its current value, and in this appeal is the Appellant. The Appellant has to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that an equitable reduction is required.
65The Appellants did not raise this issue in the Statement of Issues and did not present any evidence on the appropriate reduction based on equity.
66The Board finds that the correct current value of the Subject Property is $3,804,000 (rounded) with no equitable adjustment.
CONCLUSION
67The Board determines that the correct current value is $3,804,000.
ORDER
68Therefore, the Board orders the returned assessment of $3,804,000 be confirmed for the 2017 to 2021 taxation years, apportioned as:
Industrial Property Class $3,120,100
Commercial Property Class $683,900
TOTAL $3,804,000
“Subuola Awoleri”
SUBUOLA AWOLERI
MEMBER
“Jennifer Griffith”
JENNIFER GRIFFITH
MEMBER
Assessment Review Board
Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb