Tribunals Ontario

Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: May 13, 2022

FILE NO.: DM 178142

Assessed Person(s): Maple Lodge Farms Ltd.; Robert Joseph May; John Wesley May; Margaret Elizabeth May

Appellant(s): Maple Lodge Farms; City of Brampton

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 15

Respondent(s): City of Brampton and Assessed Persons

Property Location(s): 8301 Winston Churchill Boulevard and 8217 Winston Churchill Boulevard

Municipality(ies): City of Brampton

Roll Number(s): See Schedule A

Appeal Number(s): See Schedule A

Taxation Year(s): 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022

Hearing Event No.: 763964

Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, S.O. 1990, c. A.31

Parties	Counsel
Maple Lodge Farms Ltd.; Robert Joseph May; John Wesley May; Margaret Elizabeth May	Anna Lu, Sarah J. Turney
City of Brampton	John L. O’Kane
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation	Melissa VanBerkum, Melissa Wright

REQUEST FOR: New Schedule of Events

HEARD: April 22, 2022 in writing

ADJUDICATOR(S): Christopher Voutsinas, Vice-Chair

MOTION DECISION

OVERVIEW

1Maple Lodge Farms Ltd. (“Maple Lodge”) is the owner of the two properties located at 8217 Winston Churchill Boulevard (“8217”) and 8301 Winston Churchill Boulevard (“8301”) (and collectively, “Subject Properties”). The Subject Properties are located adjacent to one another in the City of Brampton (“City”) and operate together as Maple Lodge Farms, a poultry processing and sales business.

2Maple Lodge filed appeals on 8217 for the 2017 to 2021 taxation years pursuant to s. 40 of the Assessment Act, S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (“Act”). The City also filed its own s. 40 appeal on 8217 for the 2021 taxation year and on 8301 for the 2021 taxation year. Pursuant to s. 40(26) of the Act, the Parties are deemed to have brought the same appeal in respect of the 2022 taxation year.

3For each appeal filed with the Assessment Review Board (“Board”), the Board sets a commencement date for the appeal and assigns a corresponding schedule of events which sets out: (i) the various steps parties must undertake during the life cycle of an appeal and, (ii) the associated due date for each step (“Schedule of Events”).

4As such, there are three different Schedules of Events relating to the three different appeal proceedings in connection with the Subject Properties.

5In this motion, the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) is requesting that the appeals follow a common Schedule of Events for the remaining due dates.

6The Parties have provided submissions regarding MPAC’s motion request. The City supports MPAC’s request. Maple Lodge opposes the request.

RESULT

7The Motion is granted.

ISSUE

8The issue to be addressed in this Motion Decision is:

• Should the Board grant MPAC’s request that the appeals follow a common Schedule of Events for the remaining due dates?

ANALYSIS

9The following table provides a summary of the current remaining due dates of the three different Schedules of Events. The remaining due dates for the City’s appeal on 8217 have yet to be set.

Property	Appellant	Tax Year	Respondent Report	Reply Report	Filing Date
8217	MLF	2017-2021	March 4, 2022	April 19, 2022	May 17, 2022
8217	City	2021	TBD / pending
8301	City	2021	March 8, 2022	Mar 29, 2022	Apr 26, 2022

10In its motion, MPAC requests the following common Schedule of Events for the remaining due dates:

• Respondent Reports due date of June 21, 2022
• Reply Reports due date of July 12, 2022, and
• Filing due date of August 29, 2022

11In considering whether the Board should grant MPAC’s request for a common Schedule of Events for the remaining due dates, the Board’s following Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”) apply.

Rule 3: Interpretation of Rules and Powers of the Board

These Rules shall be liberally interpreted to ensure the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of every proceeding.

Rule 4: Proportionality

These Rules shall be applied in a manner proportionate to the importance and complexity of the issues in a proceeding and with a view to resolving appeals within the assessment cycle.

MPAC’s Submissions

12MPAC brings its motion on the basis that the Subject Properties operate as one facility, the appeals are based on the common question of valuation, the same parties are involved in the appeals, and the assertion that a common Schedule of Events is consistent with the facts and is not prejudicial to the parties.

13MPAC submits that the Subject Properties have a single occupant and are used together as part of the same business operation.

14MPAC asserts that three Schedules of Events for two parcels (that were consolidated into a single parcel) within the same current value assessment cycle is not the most expeditious scheduling approach.

15MPAC submits that there is no prejudice to Maple Lodge in having a single Schedule of Events as it may continue to rely on its expert report already served on 8217 or it may revise it to meet a new report deadline, should the Board grant MPAC’s motion request.

16MPAC further submits that if the current Schedules of Events are enforced, MPAC will be prejudiced by:

i. The very real possibility of findings of inconsistent land rates between the two parcels. ii. The fact that it will have to advance the same evidence three separate and unique times for two related parcels and two separate current value assessments.

Appellant’s Submissions

17In its submissions, Maple Lodge asserts that it stands in two different positions in the appeal proceedings – as appellant in its appeal and as respondent in the City’s appeals – and that this may cause confusion at a hearing.

18Maple Lodge asserts that it presented its Statement of Issues, instructed its lawyers and its experts on the basis of two separate parcels and to “consolidate all of the appeals” at this late stage has the potential to cause it serious prejudice as it may have made different strategic decisions and instructed its lawyers and experts differently had the “appeals been combined” from the outset or earlier than March 2022.

19Maple Lodge also refers to the Board’s Rule 40 that states the Board will not alter any due date set out in the Schedule of Events other than in exceptional circumstances. Maple Lodge submits that MPAC has not presented any exceptional circumstances.

Findings

20The Board does not accept the argument that a common Schedule of Events for the remaining due dates prejudices Maple Lodge. Maple Lodge’s arguments are based on a combination or consolidation of the appeal proceedings. This is not the motion request in this case. MPAC is not requesting to combine nor consolidate the appeal proceedings, rather they request that the appeals track along the same timeline for the remaining due dates.

21Aligning the Schedule of Events under a common schedule for the remaining due dates avoids the duplication of effort by all parties and the Board, enables administrative efficiency, allows for coordinated proceedings, reduces costs to the parties, improves the efficient deployment of the Board’s resources, and importantly, supports consistency in decision outcomes across the separate appeals.

22While a common Schedule of Events for the remaining due dates results in the extension of the various current due dates ranging from 58 to 87 days – this is not the basis of MPAC’s request, but rather this is a consequence of MPAC’s request for a common Schedule of Events. Given the relatively short impact on due dates, the Board does not consider this excessive nor prejudicial to the parties in the context of these matters.

23While Maple Lodge argues the absence of exceptional circumstances in the context of the Board’s Rule 40, the Board considers the request for a common Schedule of Events for the remaining due dates as fundamentally different than an extension request of a due date in a Schedule of Events. As such, the Board need not address the question.

24Further, the Board views the need to ensure the consistency of decision outcomes in these s. 40 appeals in the context of Rule 3, ensuring the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination, and Rule 4, proportionate to the importance and complexity of the issues, as a fundamental consideration in this Motion Request.

25The Board finds that a common Schedule of Events for the remaining due dates results in the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of the proceedings, without prejudice to any of the Parties, and reduces the likelihood of inconsistent decisions being made at different times.

ORDER

26The Board orders that the subject appeals be set to a common Schedule of Events with the following remaining due dates:

• Respondent Report due date of June 21, 2022
• Reply Report due date of July 12, 2022
• Filing due date of August 29, 2022.

27Further, the Board orders that the subject appeals be set to a common settlement conference, if required.