Tribunals Ontario
Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario
Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: August 12, 2025
Assessed Person(s): Gav (1954) Holdings Limited
Appellant(s): Gav (1954) Holdings Limited; Daniel Dorigiola
Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 19
Respondent(s): City of Hamilton
Property Location(s): 1119 Barton Street East
Municipality(ies): City of Hamilton
Roll Number(s): 2518-003-110-34800-0000
Appeal Number(s): 3527864; 3527861; 3527860; 3527957; 3527862; 3527863; 3527958 and 3535690
Taxation Year(s): 2021 to 2025
Hearing Event No.: 787986
Legislative Authority: Sections 33, 36 and 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31
| Parties | Counsel/Representative |
|---|---|
| Gav (1954) Holdings Limited | Melissa Muskat |
| Municipal Property Assessment Corporation | No submissions provided |
| City of Hamilton | Dan Russell |
REQUEST FOR: An Order for Disclosure
HEARD: June 3, 2025 in writing
ADJUDICATOR(S): Carly Stringer, Vice-Chair
MOTION DECISION
OVERVIEW
1The City of Hamilton (the “City”) is responding to appeals brought by GAV (1954) Holdings Limited (the “Appellant”) related to the 2021 to 2025 assessments of 1119 Barton Street East (the “Subject Property”). The City has brought this motion within the appeal proceedings seeking an order for disclosure. Specifically, the City is asking the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) to order the Appellant to provide the documents listed in Appendix A.
2The Appellant asks the Board to deny the City’s request for disclosure.
3The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) has not provided submissions on this motion.
Result
4For the reasons that follow, the Board grants the City’s request for disclosure of the “Developer detailed costing contracts for FedTech Construction Corp who built the facility” (“Construction Contract”) and the appraisal outlined in Appendix A.
ANALYSIS
Issue 1 – Should the Board order disclosure of the Construction Contract?
Submissions of the Parties
5The City asks the Board to order the Appellant to provide the Construction Contract. The City says the Appellant has raised the cost of improvements at the Subject Property as an issue in dispute. The City relies on 11035380 Canada Inc v Hamilton (City), 2024 CanLII 7667 (ON ARB) where the Board found that documents pertaining to the specific costs of construction were relevant where the cost of improvements was an issue in dispute.
6The Appellant says the Construction Contract is not relevant to the issues in dispute which are land value and equity. The Appellant further submits that disclosure of the Construction Contract is not proportionate to the issues in dispute. The Appellant submits there is undue prejudice to unnecessarily prolonging the appeals by raising the issue of actual costs of construction when it is not relevant to or determinative of current value.
Findings on Issue 1
7The Board finds that the building value is an issue in dispute in these appeals. Specifically, paragraph 15 of the Appellant’s Statement of Issue (“SOI”) states that MPAC has over-valued the building structures, putting the building value in dispute. While the Appellant subsequently stated at paragraph 2 of its Reply that it “is prepared to revise its position on improvement value to align with MPAC’s opinion of improvement value as set out in MPAC’s valuation of the Subject Property as returned on the roll for taxation year 2025, in the amount of $6,442,650”, this does not mean that the building value is not an issue in dispute, for the following reasons:
a. MPAC has stated in its Statement of Response that the building value should be amended to $6,531,542. Therefore, MPAC disputes the building value.
b. The Appellant’s statement at paragraph 2 of its Reply relates only to the building value as returned for the 2025 taxation year.
c. The Appellant’s statement at paragraph 2 of its Reply is not unequivocal – the Appellant states it “is prepared to revise its position on improvement value” (emphasis added) to the value returned on the assessment. The Appellant does not state that it unequivocally accepts the building value in MPAC’s SOR such that building value is no longer in dispute.
8The Board finds that the Construction Contract is relevant to the building cost issue, noting that relevance is given broad interpretation at the disclosure stage and that disclosure of a document is not an admission of relevance or admissibility for the purpose of a hearing: see Rule 46 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. The Board also finds that the request is proportionate to the issues in dispute. The Appellant has not satisfied the Board that providing it will take an unreasonable amount of time, effort, or expense. The Board finds there is no undue prejudice to the Appellant in disclosing the Construction Contract. For these reasons, the Board orders that the Appellant must disclose the Construction Contract.
9With respect to the City’s alternative request that the Board order to Appellant to provide a detailed construction cost questionnaire relating to improvements at the Subject Property, there is no evidence that such a document is in the possession, power, or control of the Appellant. In fact, the Appellant has provided uncontested evidence that it is not. Accordingly, the Board denies the request for the Appellant to provide a detailed construction cost questionnaire relating to improvements at the Subject Property.
Issue 2 – Should the Board order disclosure of a March 2023 appraisal of the Subject Property?
Submissions of the Parties
10The City argues the relevance of this document is similar to First Gulf Don Valley Ltd. and Municipal Property Assessment Corp., Region 09, 2021 CarswellOnt 7449, and Loblaws Properties Limited v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 09, 2021 CanLII 10167 (ON ARB) where the Board heard a disclosure motion for appraisals or opinions of value for any purpose for the property under appeal. The City submits that in those cases, the Board determined the requesting party is entitled to review relevant information and determine whether they will seek to adduce all of part of it into evidence, and disclosure of appraisal valuations does not constitute an admission of relevance, or admissibility, for the purposes of a hearing.
11The Appellant submits that the appraisal dated March 1, 2023 is not relevant to the issues raised in these appeals. The Appellant submits that it was completed seven years after the statutory valuation date and was completed for the purposes of securing finances, such that it does not assist in informing the current value of the Subject Property.
12The Appellant further submits that disclosure would unjustly require the Appellant to expend unnecessary resources on an expert to provide an opinion on an irrelevant appraisal that has no bearing on the assessment value of the Subject Property.
Findings on Issue 2
13The Board finds the appraisal is relevant. The requested appraisal relates to the value of the property under appeal and is relevant to the issues in dispute irrespective of whether the parties and their experts ultimately rely on the appraisals when determining current value. Relevance is determined broadly at the disclosure stage, and the requesting party is entitled to review relevant information and determine whether they will seek to adduce it. While the Appellant may wish to argue that the appraisal is not a piece of evidence that supports a particular current value because it was prepared many years after the valuation day, that is a question to be determined by the hearing adjudicator rather than a question to be determined on a motion for disclosure. The Board again references Rule 46.
14With respect to proportionality, the Board repeats and relies on its findings in relation to disclosure of the Construction Contract above.
CONCLUSION
15The Board finds that the Construction Contract and the appraisal are relevant and their disclosure is proportionate to the issues in dispute.
ORDER
16The Board orders that the Appellant must disclose the Construction Contract and the appraisal listed in Appendix A to the parties in these appeals within 10 days of this order.
17By Expedited Board Direction Form issued April 16, 2025, the Board directed the parties to provide submissions with respect to any required extension of due dates in the Schedule of Events, specifying the event and the proposed new date. Neither party has made such submissions. Accordingly, the Board makes no order in relation to the timelines prescribed in the Schedule of Events. The parties are directed to file an Expedited Board Direction Form within 10 days of issuance of this Order if they require amendments to the Schedule of Events.
"Carly Stringer"
CARLY STRINGER
VICE-CHAIR
Assessment Review Board
Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb
APPENDIX “A”
REQUEST NO
DOCUMENT TITLE AND DESCRIPTION
ISSUE IN DISPUTE
DOCUMENT TO BE PROVIDED BY
BOARD DISPOSITION (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE BOARD)
Developer detailed costing contracts for FedTech Construction Corp who built the facility
Or in the alternative, should the Board deny the request for disclosure of the FedTech Construction contract, the City requests a detailed construction cost questionnaire be provided by the Appellant for the construction cost of the facility
Current Value – Cost to Construct the Subject Property
Current Value – Cost to Construct the Subject Property
GAV (1954) Holdings Limited
March 1, 2023, Appraisal associated with financing of the property
Current Value – Appraisal of the Subject Property
GAV (1954) Holdings Limited