Tribunals Ontario

Assessment Review Board

ISSUE DATE: August 21, 2025

FILE NO.: DM 188792

Assessed Person(s): 3000 Dufferin Street Limited

Appellant(s): 3000 Dufferin Street Limited

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 09

Respondent(s): City of Toronto

Property Location(s): 3000 Dufferin Street

Municipality(ies): City of Toronto

Roll Number(s): 1908-042-180-03200-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3523099 and 3534882

Taxation Year(s): 2024 and 2025

Hearing Event No.: 788094

Legislative Authority: Sections 36 and 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31

Parties	Counsel/Representative
3000 Dufferin Street Limited	Ian Andres
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation	Melissa VanBerkum
City of Toronto	Submissions not received

HEARD: July 10, 2025 in writing

ADJUDICATOR(S): Carly Stringer, Vice-Chair; Letizia Filippazzo, Member

MOTION DECISION

OVERVIEW

The Parties and This Motion

1The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation ("MPAC") is responding to appeals brought by 3000 Dufferin Street Limited (the "Appellant") relating to the 2024 and 2025 assessments of 3000 Dufferin Street in the City of Toronto (the "Subject Property").

2MPAC has brought this motion seeking disclosure from the Appellant of the items listed in the attached Schedule A (the "Disclosure Requests").

3The Appellant submits that MPAC is out of time to request disclosure, and that the Disclosure Requests are not relevant to the issues in dispute in these appeals.

4The City of Toronto is a statutory party to these appeals but has not made submissions on this motion.

Results

5For the reasons that follow and in accordance with the Order herein, the Assessment Review Board (the "Board") grants Disclosure Request Nos. 1 to 9 and 11. The Board denies Disclosure Request No. 10.

Background to the Appeals

6The Subject Property is roughly 4.04 acres is size and is improved by an 18-storey apartment building with 287 units and underground parking.

7The assessments of the Subject Property for the 2017 to 2023 taxation years reflected a current value of $47,868,000 ("2017 to 2023 Assessments").

8The City of Toronto enacted bylaw 1182-2002 (OLT) and by-law 1183-2022 (OLT) pursuant to a Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Decision issued January 27, 2020 3000 Dufferin Street Limited and Finch-Main Plaza Limited v Toronto (City), 2020 CanLII 7854 (ON LPAT) and the Ontario Land Tribunal Order issued March 25, 2022 3000 Dufferin Street Limited and Finch-Main Plaza Limited v Toronto (City), 2022 CanLII 23465 (ON LT) (the "2022 re-zoning"). The 2022 re-zoning permits an additional two new apartment buildings to be built on the Subject Property, although no development has occurred as of the date of this motion.

9The 2024 and 2025 assessments of the Subject Property were returned reflecting a current value of $66,895,000, with $19,122,000 attributable to land value, $46,470,000 to the apartment building, and $1,393,000 to the underground parking ("2024 and 2025 Assessments").

10The Appellant appealed these 2024 and 2025 Assessments, challenging the increase in current value from the 2017 to 2023 Assessments. The Appellant argues that MPAC had no legal authority to increase the current value by over $19,000,000 on the 2024 and 2025 Assessments and seeks the same current value as the 2017 to 2023 Assessments ($47,868,000).

11MPAC submits that it is entitled to change the January 1, 2016 current value assessment based on the 2022 re-zoning, relying on s. 31(1), 36(1) and 36(2) of the Assessment Act R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 ("Act"). MPAC argues that the 2022 re-zoning changed the Highest and Best Use of the Subject Property as well as the state and condition of the Subject Property, resulting in a higher current value.

ANALYSIS

Preliminary Issue – Timing of this Motion

12The Appellant submits that MPAC's disclosure requests are several months late based on the deadlines prescribed in the Schedule of Events ("SOE") applicable to the appeals. The Appellant submits that it refused MPAC's earlier requests for disclosure on the basis that the requests were not relevant to the issues in dispute. If MPAC was not satisfied with that response, says the Appellant, it ought to have brought a motion in accordance with the timelines prescribed in the SOE.

13The Board does not accept this submission. While the SOE deadline for disclosure passed before MPAC brought this motion, the Board finds there are exceptional circumstances warranting an extension. Specifically, despite the Appellant's stated position that current value is not in dispute, the Appellant served an expert report on March 6, 2025 that provides an opinion of current value for the 2024 to 2025 taxation years, including an opinion respecting the applicable Highest and Best Use of the Subject Property. Prior to this expert report, the Appellant had refused disclosure on the basis that current value was not in dispute.

14The Appellant has not sufficiently explained to the Board the relevance of the expert report if the current value is not in dispute – the stated purpose of the Appellant's expert report is to provide an opinion of value. The Appellant's expert conducts an income approach valuation and opines that the land value is included in the value of the apartment building. Notably, the Appellant's expert also inspected the Subject Property and relies on that inspection in his report, an inspection that was denied to MPAC's expert on the basis that the current value was not in dispute.

15The Board is satisfied that these circumstances warrant an extension to the disclosure deadline and grants it for the purposes of this motion.

Issues – Relevance and Proportionality

16The Board notes that both MPAC and the Appellant devoted extensive submissions to the primary substantive issue to be decided in the Subject Appeals; specifically, whether MPAC was permitted to increase the current value reflected on the 2024 and 2025 Assessments.

17On this motion, the Board is not tasked with determining whether MPAC was permitted to increase the current value for the 2024 and 2025 Assessments. That question will be addressed in the appeals. On this motion, the Board's sole task is to answer the following questions in relation to each Disclosure Request:

a. Is it relevant to the issues in dispute?

b. Is disclosure proportionate to the issues in dispute?

Disclosure Request No. 1 - December dated rent rolls for 2015-2017 to include unit number, unit type, rent for each unit and commencement dates/move-in dates

Submissions of the Parties

18MPAC submits that this information is relevant to the current value of the Subject Property as of January 1, 2016; the total unit count, and unit mix of the apartment building; and income parameters and the actual rents to assist in the determination of the fair market rents ("FMR") and the vacancy allowance.

19The Appellant submits this information is not relevant to an issue in dispute as no party is challenging the unit count/mix, vacancy allowance or fair market rents used to value the apartment building, and the Appellant has accepted the apartment building valuation as returned. The Appellant also submits that MPAC determines market rents based on data from other comparable properties and not the actual rents.

Findings on Disclosure Request No. 1

20The Board finds this information is relevant and its disclosure is proportionate to the issues in dispute. While the Appellant argues the information is not relevant because the current value is not in dispute, the fact is that the Appellant served MPAC with expert evidence in March 2025 that analyses this information as part of an income approach valuation. While the Appellant's expert may ultimately agree with the value returned by MPAC, the Appellant's position that the information is not relevant is belied by the fact that there is an income approach valuation in evidence that provides an opinion of value.

Disclosure Request No. 2 - Rent rolls for 2021 to 2025

Submissions of the Parties

21MPAC submits that the rent rolls for 2021 to 2025 are relevant to the state and condition and Highest and Best Use of the Subject Property as of December 2023 and December 2024 per s. 36 of the Act, as well as the income-earning potential of the Subject Property based on the redevelopment application and 2022 re-zoning. More specifically, MPAC argues that it wishes to compare the rent rolls of 2015-2017 to the rent rolls for 2021 to 2025 to see if they demonstrate some impact of the development approvals on rental stream and has bearing on the financial feasibility and timing of the redevelopment and, therefore, the Highest and Best Use conclusions.

22The Appellant submits that 2021 to 2025 rent rolls are not relevant because the state and condition has not changed since the 2016 current value was initially returned, and the earning potential of the Subject Property in 2023 and 2024 cannot be relevant to a January 1, 2016 Highest and Best Use Analysis.

Findings on Disclosure Request No. 2

23The Appellant's submission that information from 2021 to 2025 is not relevant to the Highest and Best Use as of January 1, 2016 is a question to be determined by the Board Member hearing the Subject Appeals. For the purposes of this motion, the Board must determine whether the disclosure is relevant to an issue in dispute. The Board finds that it is. Specifically, MPAC's position is that the Board must consider the Highest and Best Use as of December 2023 and December 2024. Moreover, the Appellant's expert specifically opined that the Highest and Best Use remained consistent in the 2024 and 2025 taxation years: see paragraph 49 of the Appellant's Expert Report. The Board finds Disclosure Request No. 2 is relevant to the Highest and Best Use determination. The Appellant has not raised any concerns with respect to proportionality and the Board is satisfied that Disclosure Request No. 2 is proportionate.

Disclosure Request No. 3 - Confirm which utilities (heat, hydro, water) are included/excluded in the rent

Submissions of the Parties

24MPAC submits that this information is relevant to whether any adjustments should be made to the FMRs and expense allowance in its income valuation.

25The Appellant makes the same submissions as Disclosure Request No. 1.

Findings on Disclosure Request No. 3

26Disclosure Request No. 3 is not a request for disclosure per Rule 45 of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure (the "Rules"). Disclosure Request No. 3 requests an answer to a question and is therefore governed by Rule 47 which governs orders for discovery.

27The Board is prepared to grant a Rule 47 order for discovery in relation to this information. The Board finds the information is relevant to an income approach valuation, which the Appellant has provided by way of expert evidence and to which MPAC is entitled to respond.

Disclosure Request No. 4 - Detailed audited financial operating statements for 2015-2017

Submissions of the Parties

28MPAC submits that this information is relevant to the fair market rents and expense ratio as part of the income approach valuation. MPAC submits that the property should be valued based on both the actual income and expenses as well as by comparison with other properties. Finally, MPAC submits that this information is contemplated by the Board's disclosure guideline.

29The Appellant submits that this information is not relevant because no party is challenging the income approach valuation of the apartment building, nor is any party asserting that the fair market rents, vacancy or expense rates should change based on actual financial performance.

Findings on Disclosure Request No. 4

30The Board repeats and relies on its findings in relation to Disclosure Request No. 1.

Disclosure Request No. 5 - Financial statements for 2018-2024

Submissions of the Parties

31MPAC submits this information is relevant to the state and condition of the Subject Property as of December 2023 and December 2024, including whether the 2022 re-zoning has impacted the income value of the existing apartment building. MPAC submits this is relevant to the Highest and Best Use.

32The Appellant submits this information is not relevant because any potential effect of the development on the income value of the existing apartment building is not relevant to a January 1, 2016 Highest and Best Use analysis or valuation.

Findings on Disclosure Request No. 5

33The Board repeats and relies on its findings in relation to Disclosure Request No. 2.

Disclosure Request No. 6 - Parking details (number and monthly rental information) for 2015-2017

Submissions of the Parties

34MPAC submits this information is relevant to the value of the parking garage as of January 1, 2016, including the number of parking spaces and rents.

35The Appellant submits this information is not relevant as no party is challenging the number of parking spaces or income valuation of the parking garage. The Appellant also submits that MPAC determines market rents based on data from comparable properties, not actual parking income.

Findings on Disclosure Request No. 6

36The Board repeats and relies on its findings in relation to Disclosure Request No. 1.

Disclosure Request No. 7 - Building drawings, parking layout and site plan

Submissions of the Parties

37MPAC submits this information is relevant to the Highest and Best Use and the impact of redevelopment on the current value. Specifically, MPAC notes that the Appellant's expert states in his report that "the placement of the current buildings and underground parking limit the development potential to areas where neither would be impacted" and makes reference to "complex construction staging considerations and associated expenses". MPAC submits that it is entitled to test the accuracy of these statements via productions associated with the underground parking structure that demonstrate the physical possibility of the redevelopment.

38The Appellant submits this information is not relevant as there have been no physical changes to the Subject Property since the 2017 to 2023 Assessments were returned and that, in any event, this information can be accessed on the City of Toronto Application Information Centre website.

Findings on Disclosure Request No. 7

39The Board finds this information is relevant and its disclosure proportionate to the issues in dispute. Specifically, the Board notes that the Appellant's expert relies on information received from the Appellant's representatives that the existing parking garage restricts where additional buildings can be located. This belies the Appellant's position that information relating to the site plan and parking layout are not relevant. The Board accepts MPAC's submission that it is entitled to test the accuracy of the Appellant's expert's statements via productions associated with the underground parking structure that demonstrate the physical possibility of the redevelopment, as this relates to MPAC's arguments relating to Highest and Best Use.

Disclosure Request No. 8 - An inspection of the Property, including units by bedroom type, common areas and all parking structures

Submissions of the Parties

40MPAC submits that an inspection is necessary to prepare a proper report, for credibility of MPAC's expert witness, and to ensure procedural fairness. MPAC submits that an inspection helps ensure the accuracy of a valuation. MPAC submits that the Appellant has consistently refused its requests for inspection yet provided access to its expert to prepare his report. MPAC submits that the Appellant's expert report includes photographs taken during this inspection, and that procedural fairness demands that MPAC's experts have the same opportunity to inspect.

41The Appellant submits that an inspection is unnecessary as no party challenges the income valuation of the apartment building, common areas or parking structures. The Appellant also submits that an inspection would not have bearing on the land value as MPAC has solely relied on the gross floor area in the 2022 re-zoning and the median rate derived from other land sales.

Findings on Disclosure Request No. 8

42A request for the Board to order an inspection is not the same as a request for disclosure. A request for an inspection is governed by Rule 47 of the Board's Rules which provides that a party may seek an order from the Board for discovery. Discovery is defined in the Rules to include an inspection of property.

43The Board finds it is appropriate to grant MPAC's request for an inspection. The fact that the Appellant's expert performed an inspection of the Subject Property belies the Appellant's position that the information is not relevant, and the Board is satisfied that, in the circumstances, procedural fairness requires that MPAC's expert be provided the same opportunity in order to respond to the Appellant's expert evidence.

Disclosure Request No. 9 - All source data in valuation reports prepared by it or on its behalf

Submissions of the Parties

44MPAC submits that it is entitled to know the case that it must meet and the Board's Rules require disclosure to prevent trial by ambush. MPAC submits that it requires disclosure of any source material that the Appellant's expert was provided – MPAC references a number of pages in the Appellant's expert report where he refers to discussions with the Appellant and relies on information he obtained by the Appellant in forming his opinion, including in relation to the financial feasibility of the redevelopment of the Subject Property.

45The Appellant submits that this information is neither relevant nor proportionate to the issues in dispute. The Appellant submits that it accepts the income valuation of the apartment building and that MPAC has already provided its expert report such that it will be ambushing the Appellant if it relies on additional information to justify its land value.

Findings on Disclosure Request No. 9

46The Board finds that the information is relevant and disclosure proportionate to the issues in dispute. Specifically, the Board finds that if information was provided to the Appellant's expert, this belies its position that the information is not relevant. Further, the Board does not accept the Appellant's argument that it would in fact ambush the Appellant if MPAC relies on information provided to the Appellant's expert – it is not an ambush if the information is already in the possession, power, and control of the Appellant, it is relevant to the issues in dispute, and the Appellant's expert was provided an opportunity to review and rely on this information.

Disclosure Request No. 10 - Any development or planning analysis in respect of the proposed plans for the Property

Submissions of the Parties

47MPAC submits this information is relevant to the Highest and Best Use of the Subject Property as well as its state and condition as of December 2023 and 2024. MPAC further submits that the Appellant's expert refers to the 2022 re-zoning and states that the development of the Subject Property remains subject to conditions being met, in addition to stating that there are cost considerations relating to the existing improvements and additional costs to ensure they are not disrupted. MPAC submits it is entitled to know the source of this information and it should be produced.

48The Appellant submits this information is not relevant to the Highest and Best Use as of January 1, 2016. The Appellant further submits that this information is available on the City of Toronto's Application Information Centre website.

Findings on Disclosure Request No. 10

49While the Board is satisfied that the information is relevant to the Highest and Best Use analysis (and in that regard repeats and relies on its findings in relation to Disclosure Request No. 2 regarding relevance), the Board finds that Disclosure Request No. 10 is overbroad, and therefore not proportionate. Specifically, MPAC has not limited its request to information within a particular timeframe. It is not the Board's responsibility to narrow an otherwise disproportionate request.

50Therefore, the Board denies Disclosure Request No. 10.

Disclosure Request No. 11 - Any pro formas or opinions of value, appraisals for any purpose, since 2016

Submissions of the Parties

51MPAC submits this information is relevant to the Highest and Best Use, including financial feasibility, as well as the state and condition as of December 2023 and December 2024.

52The Appellant argues that this information is not relevant to the Highest and Best Use as of January 1, 2016.

Findings on Disclosure Request No. 11

53The Board repeats and relies on its findings in relation to Disclosure Request No. 2.

ORDER

54The Board orders that the Appellant must disclose Disclosure Request Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 11 to all parties within 15 days of this Order.

55The Board orders the Appellant provide an answer to Disclosure Request No. 3 to all parties within 15 days of this Order.

56With respect to Disclosure Request No. 8, the Board orders that, within 30 days of this Order and at a reasonable time to be mutually agreed upon by the parties, the Appellant shall provide access to the Subject Property, and all parts thereof, to MPAC and its expert(s) for the purpose of inspecting the Subject Property. If the parties are unable to agree on the specific date for this inspection within seven business days of the date of this Order, either party may file an Expedited Board Direction Form ("EBDF") for directions on a particular date for the inspection to be carried out.

57With respect to the Schedule of Events, the Board orders that it will resume with the following amendments:

a. The deadline for each party to serve any supplementary reports by its experts in reply to any additional expert reports served by other parties, as well as any amendment to the party's Statement of Issues or Statement of response, to address any additional evidence or new issues raised in the expert's reports is October 31, 2025;

b. All subsequent deadlines will be amended accordingly.

"Carly Stringer" CARLY STRINGER VICE-CHAIR

"Letizia Filippazzo" LETIZIA FILIPPAZZO MEMBER

Assessment Review Board Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb

SCHEDULE A

MPAC'S DISCLOSURE REQUESTS

REQUEST NO.	DOCUMENT TITLE AND DESCRIPTION	ISSUE IN DISPUTE	DOCUMENT TO BE PROVIDED BY
1	2015 to 2025 rent rolls, to include unit number, unit type, rent for each unit and commencement date(s) / move-in date(s)	2016 CVA, in particular the valuation of the existing improvements	Appellant
2	Confirm which utilities (Heat, Hydro, Water) are included/excluded in the rent	2016 CVA, in particular the valuation of the existing improvements	Appellant
3	Confirm number and location of surface and underground parking stalls/spaces	2016 CVA, in particular the valuation of the existing improvements 2016 CVA, in particular the land valuation in relation to the continued use of the parking areas during the redevelopment of the new parcels	Appellant
4	Financial statements for fiscal year-end 2015-2024	2016 CVA, both in relation to the existing apartment building and the impact of the redevelopment of the new parcels	Appellant
5	An inspection of the property to include access to common areas, access to each unit type, renovated and non-renovated units no later than 20 days prior to the service deadline for its report	2016 CVA, both in relation to the existing apartment building and the impact of the redevelopment of the new parcels	Appellant
6	Any development or planning analysis in respect of the proposed plans for the Property	2016 CVA, both in relation to the existing apartment building and the impact of the redevelopment of the new parcels	Appellant
7	Any pro formas or opinions of value, appraisals for any purpose, since 2016	2016 CVA, both in relation to the existing apartment building and the impact of the redevelopment of the new parcels	Appellant
8	Any information regarding any pending or actual sale transaction(s) in progress	2016 CVA, both in relation to the existing apartment building and the impact of the redevelopment of the new parcels	Appellant
9	All information related to the appellant's land value, including its comparable sales analysis	2016 CVA, in relation to the land value	Appellant
10	Any other information on which the appellant relies, including any source data with respect to any valuation reports prepared by it or on its behalf	2016 CVA, both in relation to the existing apartment building and the impact of the redevelopment of the new parcels and for the purpose of preparing MPAC's expert reports	Appellant