Tribunals Ontario
Assessment Review Board
ISSUE DATE: May 08, 2023 FILE NO.: WR 183592
Assessed Person(s): Stonewater Properties Brockville Inc. Appellant(s): Stonewater Properties Brockville Inc. Respondent(s): City of Brockville Property Location(s): 100 Central Avenue West Municipality(ies): City of Brockville Roll Number(s): 0802-030-070-26000-0000 Appeal Number(s): 3500779 Taxation Year(s): 2021 Hearing Event No.: 778964
Legislative Authority: Section 357(1)(d)(ii) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25
APPEARANCES:
Parties Stonewater Properties Brockville Inc. City of Brockville
Representative W. Paul Davis No one appeared
HEARD: April 5, 2023 by telephone conference call
ADJUDICATOR(S): Dan Weagant, Member, Paul Brennan, Member
DECISION
OVERVIEW
1Stonewater Properties Brockville Inc. (the "Appellant") filed an appeal from a decision of the Council of the City of Brockville (the "City") denying its application to cancel, reduce or refund its 2021 property taxes for 100 Central Avenue West (the "Subject Property"). Section 357(1)(d)(ii) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25 (the "Act') provides that a municipality may cancel, reduce or refund taxes levied on land if a building was "damaged by fire, demolition or otherwise so as to render it substantially unusable for the purposes for which it was used immediately prior to the damage." The Appellant claims that the East Wing building of the Subject Property experienced mould damage and disrepair, rendering the building unusable for any purpose in 2021.
2Applications under s. 357 are filed with the City. The City Council may either grant or deny the application. In this case, the City denied the application for the 2021 taxation year and in its notice to the Appellant stated that the City "cannot offer an opinion on what is deemed 'substantially unusable'".
3The Appellant appealed this decision to the Assessment Review Board ("Board") under s. 323(7) of the Act. The City did not participate in the appeal.
Background
4Several years ago, the Appellant discovered water and mould damage in the Subject Property's East Wing building, which was ultimately sealed off from use so it would not contaminate other parts of the Subject Property. Concluding that the damage could not be repaired and the East Wing building could not be used for any purpose, the Appellant decided in 2020 to demolish the building.
5The Appellant claimed that the East Wing building "suffered damage resulting from being rendered unusable for many years and has reached a level of disrepair as to render it completely unusable for any purposes" in 2021.
6The Appellant sought a property tax refund of $7,941 for the 2021 taxation year.
Issues for the Hearing
7At issue in this proceeding is:
Was the East Wing building damaged by fire, demolition or otherwise so as to render it substantially unusable for the purposes for which it was used immediately prior to the damage?
If so, what amount of taxes levied in 2021 should be cancelled, reduced or refunded?
Result
8The Board finds that the Appellant has failed to demonstrate that the East Wing building was damaged by fire, demolition or otherwise so as to render it substantially unusable for the purposes for which it was used immediately prior to the damage. The appeal is dismissed.
ANALYSIS
Description of Subject Property
9The Subject Property is a 40.33-acre site improved with a multi-tenanted industrial building with a total improved area of approximately 510,879 square feet, including the East Wing building of 58,246 square feet. The Subject Property was built in 1965 and housed Black & Decker for many years.