Tribunals Ontario
Assessment Review Board
ISSUE DATE: June 2, 2022
FILE NO.: DM 178993A
AMENDED CASE MANAGEMENT REPORT AND ORDER ISSUED ON: June 17, 2022
Assessed Person(s): Bell Canada
Appellant(s): Bell Canada
Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 09
Respondent(s): City of Toronto
Property Location(s): 11 Asquith Avenue
Municipality(ies): City of Toronto
Roll Number(s): 1904-101-010-01000-0000
Appeal Number(s): 3288598, 3320302, 3353000, 3399136, 3441399 and 3486863
Taxation Year(s): 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022
Hearing Event No.: 766164
Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Bell Canada | Robert Minster and Daniel Rosman |
| Municipal Property Assessment Corporation | Melissa VanBerkum |
| City of Toronto | No one appeared |
HEARD: May 26, 2022, by video conference
ADJUDICATOR(S): Jennifer Griffith, Member
AMENDED CASE MANAGEMENT REPORT AND ORDER
In accordance with Rule 99 of the Assessment Review Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, effective April 1 2021, related to the correction of minor errors and in accordance with Rule 21.1 of the Statutory Powers and Procedure Act regarding the correction of errors, this Amended Case Management Report and Order is issued to correct error(s) in the Case Management Report and Order regarding written submissions in paragraph 11. The amendments have been underlined for ease of reference. There are no other changes in this Amended Case Management Report and Order.
OVERVIEW
1May 26, 2022, the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) held a settlement conference pursuant to its Rules of Practice and Procedure effective April 1, 2021 (the “Rules”) and the Schedule of Events in this proceeding.
2This Case Management Report and Order summarizes the non-confidential aspects of the discussions that took place on May 26, 2022 and sets out any orders made.
3This proceeding involves appeals relating to the property at 11 Asquith Avenue, in the City of Toronto (“City”). The Subject Property is a Bell switching station, located near the intersection of Yonge and Bloor Streets. The Subject Property is improved by 244,351 square feet (“sq. ft.”) office building and situated on a lot size of 35,002 sq. ft.
CASE MANAGEMENT
Issues Resolved
4The parties agree on the following:
I. That the Subject Property should be valued on the current use.
II. That the Replacement Cost New Less Depreciation (RCNLD) should be $3,528,309 based on the Cost Approach.
III. That the Capitalization Rate is 6% based on the Income Approach.
Issues in Dispute
5The following issues remain in dispute:
Correct Current Value: i. What is the correct Fair Market Rent? ii. What is the correct Vacancy Allowance? And iii. What is the correct Expense Allowance?
Equity
Hearing Details
6On consent, the proposed hearing will take place on September 14, 2022, for 3 days, or on such other date(s) as advised by the Board, from 9:30 am to 4:30 pm.
7The hearing will take place by video conference.
8The parties having reviewed their respective availability, were unable to confirm three consecutive days within the next three months due to other scheduled hearings, vacation etc. and proposed the earliest dates, pending confirmation of one of the witnesses. The party is instructed to file an Expedited Board Direction Form requesting the proposed dates and confirming that all parties are available for the hearing within one week of the date of this case management report.
9The Board will issue a Notice of Hearing setting the date(s), location and format of the hearing as soon as the proposed dates are confirmed.
10No adjournment(s) of the hearing will be granted before or during the hearing except in accordance with the Board’s Rules.
11The parties are reminded that Closing Submissions will be in writing. MPAC will file its Closing Submissions two weeks after the conclusion of the hearing, the Appellant will provide its Response two weeks after MPAC files its closing submissions and MPAC will file its Reply one week after the Appellant provides its Response. These timelines are subject to the hearing adjudicator’s discretion.
Witnesses
12Each party’s witness(es), including their expert(s), were identified at the settlement conference.
13Counsels argue that the Board’s timelines allowed for the witnesses (4) are not sufficient time for presenting the volume of evidence in support of their respective issues/arguments. Counsels confirm that the timelines indicated on Attachment 1 are reasonable because of the complex nature of the appeals.
14No party raised any challenge to the qualifications of another party’s expert witness(es).
15The hearing shall be limited to the testimony of the witness(es) listed in Attachment 1 to this Report and Order. Subject to the hearing adjudicator’s discretion, the parties agreed to the timetable as set out in Attachment 1 to this Report and Order.
Municipality
16The City in which the property is located did not serve a Statement of Response and no one appeared on behalf of the City. The City remains a statutory party to the appeal(s) and shall be entitled to notice of all future events and service of all material, but it shall not be entitled to raise issues or present evidence at the hearing without leave of the Board. Limited cross-examination may be permitted.
OTHER PROCEDURAL MATTERS
17If a party or their representative, if any, fails to attend the hearing, the Board may proceed in their absence and may make any decision deemed appropriate. If the Appellants do not appear at the hearing, the Board may dismiss the appeal(s) in their absence.
18If the parties resolve the issue(s) in dispute, the Appellants shall immediately advise the Board in writing.
19The above orders are subject to the hearing adjudicator's discretion.
"Jennifer Griffith"
JENNIFER GRIFFITH MEMBER Assessment Review Board Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb
ATTACHMENT 1 DM 178993
WITNESS LIST AND SCHEDULE
| PARTY | ORDER OF APPEARANCE | NAME OF WITNESS: (*indicates that the witness will be appearing as an expert witness) | EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF | CROSS-EXAMINATION | RE-EXAMINATION |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MPAC | 1st | Blake Brown* | 4 hours | 3 hours | 15 minutes |
| Appellant | 2nd | Hassan Ostadi* | 1.5 hours | 45 minutes | 15 minutes |
| Appellant | 3rd | Monika Cholewa | 1.5 hours | 45 minutes | 15 minutes |
| Appellant | 4th | Robert Allen* | 3 hours | 2 hours | 15 minutes |