Tribunals Ontario / Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario
Assessment Review Board / Commission de révision de l'évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: March 10, 2023
FILE NO.: DM 183395
Assessed Person(s): Robert Joseph May; John Wesley May; Margaret Elizabeth May; Maple Lodge Farms Ltd.
Appellant(s): Maple Lodge Farms; City of Brampton
Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 15
Respondent(s): City of Brampton
Property Location(s): 8301 Winston Churchill Boulevard, and 8217 Winston Churchill Boulevard
Municipality(ies): City of Brampton
Roll Number(s): 2110-080-012-08400-0000 and 2110-080-012-08405-0000
Appeal Number(s): 3266019, 3320261, 3359922, 3405583, 3444842, 3438005, 3489027, 3488937, 3438004 and 3488938
Taxation Year(s): 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022
Hearing Event No.: 778704
Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31
Parties Counsel
Maple Lodge Farms Sarah Turney, Anna Lu
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Melissa VanBerkum
City of Brampton Submissions not received
REQUEST FOR: An order to exclude evidence
HEARD: February 21, 2023 in writing
ADJUDICATOR(S): Carly Stringer, Member
MOTION DECISION
OVERVIEW
1Maple Lodge Farms Ltd. (the "Appellant") has brought this motion asking the Assessment Review Board (the "Board") for an order excluding a spreadsheet entitled "MPAC-14-Comparable Sales Workbook-2110-080-012-08400 and 08405" (the "Spreadsheet") from the documents that the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation ("MPAC") may rely on at the hearing of these appeal proceedings.
2The Appellant states that the Spreadsheet was filed on the filing deadline set out in the Board's Schedule of Events ("SOE") and contains new information that was not raised by MPAC in its Amended Statement of Response or contained in MPAC's expert report. The Appellant highlights two concerns with the Spreadsheet:
a. It contains a "summary" that was not in the expert report and contains material omissions that make the information incomplete and potentially misleading; and
b. It contains "locational adjustments" that appear for the first time in the Spreadsheet, and were not pled by MPAC or included in its expert report.
3MPAC opposes the motion. MPAC submits that the Spreadsheet does not raise new issues, nor is the evidence new as the information in the Spreadsheet was included in MPAC's initial disclosure. MPAC further submits that it did not make representations that the Spreadsheet is an exhaustive summary of all of the evidence.
4The City of Brampton has not made submissions on this motion and takes no position.
Result
5For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that the Spreadsheet may not be admitted into evidence at the hearing of these appeals because it was not served on all parties and filed with the Board in accordance with the Rules, and there are no exceptional circumstances.
APPLICABLE RULES
6Rule 48 of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure (the "Rules") provides that:
No New Documents
A document, including an expert report, may only be admitted into evidence at a hearing event if it has been served on all other parties and filed with the Board, in accordance with these Rules, unless the Board determines that there are exceptional circumstances.
ISSUES
7Given the wording of Rule 48, there are two issues before the Board on this motion:
Issue 1: Was the Spreadsheet served on all other parties and filed with the Board in accordance with the Rules?
Issue 2: If not, are there exceptional circumstances?
ANALYSIS
Issue 1 – Was the Spreadsheet served on all other parties and filed with the Board in accordance with the Rules?
Submissions of the Parties
8The Appellant submits that MPAC filed the previously undisclosed Spreadsheet on August 29, 2022, which is past the deadline in the SOE.
9MPAC agrees that it filed the Spreadsheet on August 29, 2022. However, MPAC submits that the information contained in the Spreadsheet is not new, but rather pulled from other documents that were previously disclosed to the Appellant in accordance with the Board's timelines for disclosure.
Findings on Issue 1
10The Board finds that the Spreadsheet is a document that was not disclosed to the Appellant prior to filing it with the Board on August 29, 2022. This is past the deadline in the SOE. The Spreadsheet was not served and filed in accordance with the Rules.
Issue 2 – Are there exceptional circumstances?
Submissions of the Parties
11Neither party made submissions regarding exceptional circumstances.
Findings on Issue 2
12In the absence of evidence or submissions relating to exceptional circumstances, the Board finds there are no exceptional circumstances to warrant admitting the Spreadsheet into evidence at the hearing of this appeal proceeding.
CONCLUSION
13The Board finds that the Spreadsheet was not served and filed in accordance with the Rules; there are no exceptional circumstances; and therefore the Spreadsheet will not be admitted into evidence at the hearing of these appeal proceedings.
ORDER
14The Board orders that the Spreadsheet will not be admitted into evidence at the hearing of these appeal proceedings.
"Carly Stringer"
CARLY STRINGER MEMBER Assessment Review Board
Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb