Tribunals Ontario
Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario
Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE:
November 21, 2023
FILE NO.:
WR 185494
Assessed Person(s):
Teresa Ellen Allan and Andrew Ross Allan, Richard Donaldson and 1650672 Ontario Limited, Leonina Dale and Dean Vincent Dale
Appellant(s):
Teresa Allan and Andrew Allan Richard Donaldson Leonina Dale and Dean Vincent Dale
Respondent(s):
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 18
Respondent(s):
City of Welland
Property Location(s):
322 Viger Drive, 312 Viger Drive, and 302 Viger Drive
Municipality(ies):
City of Welland
Roll Number(s):
2719-050-015-30049-000, 2719-050-015-30050-0000 and 2719-050-015-30051-0000
Appeal Number(s):
3509358, 3513342, 3509864, 3518760, 3518761, 3509357, 3513335
Taxation Year(s):
2021, 2022 and 2023
Hearing Event No.:
782275
Legislative Authority:
Sections 33 and 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Representative
Teresa Allan and Andrew Allen Richard Donaldson Leonina Dale and Dean Vincent Dale
Brianna Brady
1650672 Ontario Limited
No one appeared
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
Sheryl McRoberts
City of Welland
No one appeared
HEARD:
November 1, 2023 by telephone conference call
ADJUDICATOR(S):
Dan Weagant, Member
DECISION
OVERVIEW
1In 2021, the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) issued Property Assessment Change Notices (“PACNs”) to the owners of 302, 312 and 322 Viger Drive in the City of Welland.
2The effect of these PACNs was to increase the current value assessments (“CVAs”) of each of the three properties by approximately $70,000. The only change to the previous assessment represented by the PACNs was MPAC’s property description. Prior to the issuance of the PACNs the property description applied by MPAC was ‘Single Family Detached’. The PACNs changed the property description to ‘Waterfront Dwelling’.
3The effect of the PACNs was as follows:
Current Value assessment (CVA) Prior to PACN
2022 CVA After PACN
2023 CVA After PACN
302 Viger Drive
$327,000
$397,000
$411,000
312 Viger Drive
$293,000
$363,000
$363,000
322 Viger Drive
$324,000
$395,000
$395,000
4The Appellants disagree with the amended property description applied by MPAC and appealed the change and the resulting change in CVA for the 2022 and 2023 taxation years. The Appellants believe the correct property description is Single Family Detached and that the correct CVA is the value returned by MPAC prior to the PACNs.
Areas of Agreement
5The Parties agree that the sole issue in dispute is the correct property description applicable to the three properties under appeal.
Issues for the Hearing
6At issue in this proceeding is:
- A determination of the current values of the subject properties based on the correct property description applied by MPAC in assessing the subject properties for the 2022 and 2023 taxation years.
Result
7The Board finds that the correct property description of the three properties under appeal is ‘Single Family Detached’. Accordingly, the Board finds that the correct CVAs are as follows:
Address
Appeal Numbers
2022 Current Value
2023 Current Value
302 Viger Drive
3509357 (2022) 3513335 (2023)
$327,000
$341,000*
312 Viger Drive
3518760 (2022) 3518761 (2023)
$293,000
$293,000
322 Viger Drive
3509358 (2022) 3513342 (2023)
$324,000
$324,000
*The Appellant at 302 Viger does not dispute the added value of $14,000 for the 2023 taxation year. This value represents the addition of a swimming pool to the property that did not apply to the 2022 taxation year.
PRELIMINARY MATTERS
8At the outset of the hearing, the Appellant at 312 Viger Drive withdrew appeal number 3509864, a 2021 appeal of MPAC’s omitted assessment.
ANALYSIS
Description of Subject Property
9The three properties under appeal have street frontage on Viger Drive. The lot areas range from 0.14 acres to 0.15 acres. All three are improved by single family dwellings with square footages of 1391 (302 Viger Drive), 1183 (312 Viger Drive) and 1393 (322 Viger Drive).
10The lots lie between Viger Drive and an undeveloped strip of land that, in turn is adjacent to the Welland canal.
Issue 1 – What is the correct property description to apply to the three properties under appeal?
MPAC’s Position
11MPAC submits that the description applied in the PACNs correctly fits the attributes of the subject properties. MPAC acknowledges that the subject properties are separated from the Welland Canal by an intervening strip of land that is not developed or built upon.
12MPAC interprets its criteria for waterfront to mean that this strip of land is either a right-of-way, private road or unopened road. MPAC further submits that the subject properties have the benefits of waterfront because the intervening land is undeveloped and is not an impediment to access to the Welland Canal.
13Accordingly, MPAC applied the ‘waterfront’ description to the subject properties and believes it to be correct.
Appellants’ Position
14Firstly, the Appellants submit that the subject properties are not (and cannot) be considered ‘waterfront’ because they do not have direct access to the Welland Canal. The Appellants submitted a letter dated October 19, 2022 from the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation, indicating access to the canal from adjacent properties is prohibited. The Appellants submit that there is no direct access in any case because there is a privately owned strip of land between the subject properties and the canal.
15The Appellants submit that the intervening strip of land is neither a right-of-way, nor a private road, nor an unopened road. As a result, they submit that neither criteria cited by MPAC as being determinative for the ‘waterfront’ description has been met and that the result is that the subject properties are correctly described as ‘Single Family Detached’.
16The Appellants conclude that the ‘waterfront’ description is incorrectly applied for these properties and as a result, the assessments should be reduced to the values originally returned for the years under appeal, prior to the issuance of MPAC’s PACNs.
Findings on Issue 1
17According to MPAC’s valuation reports, a property is considered ‘waterfront’ if it meets one of these criteria:
it has direct access to a natural or man-made waterway such as a lake, river, channel, or canal or;
it is separated from the water by a right-of-way, private road, or unopened road.
18The physical evidence adduced at the hearing was clear. There is an intervening strip of land between the subject properties and the Welland Canal. The subject properties have no direct access to the Welland Canal. These properties do not meet the first of the criteria set out by MPAC to determine ‘waterfront’.
19The evidence at hearing adduced by the Appellants made it equally clear that this intervening land is privately owned by others, not connected with the Appellants. The issue then is whether the strip of land is a right-of-way, a private road or an unopened road.
20The Appellants submitted a Plan of Subdivision (registered in August of 2017 as 59M-440). This Plan of Subdivision created the lots that are now the subject properties. This Plan of Subdivision also created Block 74 which is the intervening lands between the subject properties and the Welland Canal. The Plan of Subdivision does not establish Block 74 as either a right-of-way, private road or unopened road allowance.
21The Appellants submitted a record of correspondence between themselves and the developer of the lands who confirmed that during the years under appeal, Block 74 was still owned by the numbered corporation that registered the Plan of Subdivision in 2017.
22Photo evidence adduced shows there is no road, private or otherwise on the intervening land; only scrub land with a row of trees that appear to be canal-side.
23None of this evidence of the nature of the intervening lands was refuted by MPAC.
24It is clear to the Board that the intervening land that lies between the subject properties and the Welland Canal is neither a right-of-way, a private road, nor an unopened road allowance.
25As a result, the Board finds that none of the criteria used by MPAC to consider property as ‘waterfront’ have been met.
26Accordingly, the Board finds that the correct property description of the subject properties is ‘’Single Family Detached”; the same property description that applied prior to MPAC’s PACNs, issued in 2021.
CONCLUSION
27The correct current value assessment is reduced from the values represented by MPAC’s PACNs, to the assessments prior to MPAC’s application of the PACNs.
ORDER
28The Board orders that the assessments of the subject properties are reduced to the following values:
Address
Appeal Numbers
2022 Current Value
2023 Current Value
302 Viger Drive
3509357 (2022) 3513335 (2023)
$327,000
$341,000
312 Viger Drive
3518760 (2022) 3518761 (2023)
$293,000
$293,000
322 Viger Drive
3509358 (2022) 3513342 (2023)
$324,000
$324,000