12978 Yonge Street Inc. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 14, 2025 CanLII 19712

Tribunals Ontario Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario Assessment Review Board Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: March 06, 2025 FILE NO.: DM 2025M01

Assessed Person(s): 12978 Yonge Street Inc. Appellant(s): 12978 Yonge Street Inc. Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 14 Respondent(s): City of Richmond Hill

Property Location(s): 12978 Yonge Street Municipality(ies): City of Richmond Hill Roll Number(s): 1938-080-010-83800-0000 Taxation Year(s): 2017 to 2022 Hearing Event No.: 786467

Legislative Authority: Section 40.1(b) of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31

Parties	Counsel/Representative
12978 Yonge Street Inc	Jonas Perov
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation	Jaime Shevchuk, Soussanna Karas
City of Richmond Hill	Lawrence Villanueva

REQUEST FOR: An order extending the time for bringing appeals and directing the assessment corporation to be the appellant pursuant to s. 40.1(b) of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.A.31

HEARD: March 4, 2025 in writing

ADJUDICATOR(S): Christopher Voutsinas, Vice-Chair

MOTION DECISION

OVERVIEW

Background

112978 Yonge Street Inc. (the “Property Owner”) is asking the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) for an extension of time to bring assessment appeals for the 2017 to 2022 taxation years for 12978 Yonge Street in the City of Richmond Hill (the “Subject Property”) pursuant to s. 40.1(b) of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.A.31 (the “Act”).

2The Property Owner argues that there are palpable errors in the assessment roll and the Board should extend the time for bringing these appeals. The alleged error presented by the Property Owner is that the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) made an error in calculating the Subject Property’s effective lot size for each of the taxation years in question. There is no dispute among the parties that the Subject Property’s lot size is 0.55 acres. However, the Property Owner asserts that 0.32 acres is unbuildable due to floodplain.

3Per the Property Owner’s Palpable Error Application submitted to the Board on October 29, 2024 (the “Application”), MPAC is shown as opposing the Application and the Municipality as taking no position on the Application. As such, the matter was set to this written motion.

4All Parties filed submissions on this motion with the Board.

Result

5For the reasons that follow, the Board denies the application.

ISSUES

6The Act has a framework that permits the Board to extend statutory deadlines for bringing assessment appeals where it appears that there are palpable errors in the assessment roll. The applicable statutory framework is set out in s. 40.1 of the Act:

Correction of errors

40.1 If it appears that there are palpable errors in the assessment roll,

(a) if no alteration of assessed values or classification of land is involved, the Board may correct the roll; and

(b) if alteration of assessed values or classification of land is involved, the Board may extend the time for bringing appeals and direct the assessment corporation to be the appellant.

7The error alleged by the Property Owner engages s. 40.1(b) of the Act, as it would involve alteration of assessed value. Therefore, there are two issues the Board must decide:

1. Does it appear that there are palpable errors in the assessment roll for the applicable taxation years?
2. If the answer to Issue 1 is “yes”, should the Board extend time for bringing appeals for the applicable taxation years?

ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Does it appear that there are palpable errors in the assessment roll for the applicable taxation years?

Applicable Law

8The first step of the analysis requires a determination that there appears to be an error in the assessment roll, and the error must be “palpable”: see 388210 Ontario Limited v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 15, 2023 CanLII 64028 (ON ARB) (“Centre Street”) at paragraph 132.

In determining whether there appears to be an error in the assessment roll, “an “error” is a “matter of fact, and like any other fact, can be proved based on circumstantial evidence” Centre Street at paragraph 132 and “…the sole test is whether it is a factual error of conspicuous magnitude; plain, evident, obvious, and easy to understand”: Centre Street at paragraph 132.

The Property Owner’s Submissions

9The Property Owner submits that MPAC originally calculated the Subject Property’s land value by applying the same land rate to the entire 0.55 acres lot, based on the assumption that the entire lot was buildable land. However, the Property Owner submits that this assumption was incorrect as 0.32 acres of the 0.55 acres lot is unbuildable floodplain, and that this resulted in MPAC significantly overvaluing the Subject Property by overstating its effective lot size.

10The Property Owner asserts that the error made by MPAC was in using the wrong effective land area in calculating total land value and that this “plain and obvious” error is a palpable error.

11Further, the Property Owner states that MPAC corrected this error through agreed Minutes of Settlement (“MOS”) for the 2023 and 2024 taxation years, and that as a result the Property Owner should be allowed the opportunity to correct the error for the 2017 – 2022 taxation years.

MPAC’s Submissions

12MPAC submits that while the Property Owner argues that there is a river passage through the Subject Property that might affect buildability, the Property Owner has not provided affidavit evidence nor any other evidence in support of the motion, and specifically has provided “no evidence of the measurement of the river passage, how it affects buildability of the property, or any prejudice suffered by the Applicant”.

13Further, MPAC submits there is no change in the Subject Property’s lot size and there is no error regarding the lot size.

14MPAC argues that the Property Owner’s failure to submit evidence on either point as required by Rule 69 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”), which requires that “evidence in support of a motion must be provided in an affidavit and include transcripts of any cross-examination on the affidavit, unless the Board directs otherwise”, should lead to the dismissal of this Motion.

15MPAC takes the position that the Property Owner has not identified a palpable error in the assessment roll.

16Further MPAC asserts that the Property Owner is attempting to apply the outcome of a negotiated settlement as reflected in the MOS, which is not a palpable error, but rather a compromise amongst the parties, to previous years in the same assessment cycle.

17MPAC submits affidavit evidence outlining the steps it took and the basis for the agreed compromise (rather than the existence of a palpable error) per the MOS reflecting among other things “possible restrictions for development of the Subject Property” and calculations to determine the affected area. MPAC’s states in its affidavit that there was “no change to the Subject Property’s lot size or effective lot size…”.

Municipality’s Submissions

18The Municipality submits that consideration should be given to systemic prejudice to the municipal tax system and instability to the Municipality’s annual tax base in applying palpable error legislation to this matter.

Findings on Issue 1

19The error alleged by the Property Owner is that MPAC made an error in calculating the Subject Property’s effective land area given that a portion of the total land area is not buildable. The Property Owner did not provide sufficient and satisfactory factual evidence in support of the same. While the Parties do not dispute the total lot size, arguments and sufficient and satisfactory evidence supporting the definition, calculation, delineation, and characterization of the “unbuildable” portion of the total land area i.e. the effective land area, and associated restrictions and impacts on buildability were not provided by the parties.

20The Board finds that the determination and conclusion presented by the Property Owner of the “unbuildable” land area and resultant effective land area is not supported by sufficient and satisfactory evidence.

21The determination and conclusion of the effective land area requires an interpretation, determination, and analysis including, among other things, the nature of the land, identification of potential uses and restrictions, conclusions around whether or not one may build or not build on certain portions of the land, identification of those portions of land and determination of relative sizes, and a subsequent calculation of land value based upon the foregoing factors and outcomes.

22This is more appropriately characterized as a matter requiring judgement and opinion, research, interpretation and calculation, and an understanding and application of the same, rather than a “factual error of conspicuous magnitude; plain, evident, obvious, and easy to understand”. See Applicable Law above.

23Further, the Board does not accept that the agreed MOS proves the existence of a palpable error – MOS are just that, minutes summarizing a settlement amongst parties, and are not supported by detailed analysis or reasons of the negotiated and agreed outcome. Particularly, in the context of MPAC’s affidavit evidence described above. Again, this does not prove a “factual error of conspicuous magnitude; plain, evident, obvious, and easy to understand”.

24As a result of the above, the Board does not find a palpable error in the assessment roll for the taxation years in question.

Issue 2 – Should the Board extend time for bringing appeals for the applicable taxation years?

Applicable Law

25Section 40.1(b) of the Act provides that the Board “may” extend the time for bringing appeals where it appears that there are palpable errors in the assessment roll.

Findings on Issue 2

26The Board has considered the relevant factors including its determination that there is no palpable error and as such there is no need to address the exercise of its discretion to extend the time for bringing appeals.

CONCLUSION

27In this matter, the Board does not find the existence of a palpable error in the assessment roll for the 2017 to 2022 taxation years.

ORDER

28The Board orders this Application dismissed.