Tribunals Ontario

Assessment Review Board

ISSUE DATE: May 20, 2026 FILE NO.: DM 190242

Assessed Person(s): Investissements Immobiliers Prodige Inc Appellant(s): Metro Ontario Inc. Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation 20 Respondent(s): Haldimand County

Property Location(s): 107 Bridge Street Municipality(ies): Haldimand Country Roll Number(s): 2810-024-002-18700-0000 Appeal Number(s): 3524010, 3535722 and 3550088 Taxation Year(s): 2024, 2025 and 2026 Hearing Event No.: 792585

Legislative Authority: Rule 45 of the Assessment Review Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure

Parties	Counsel/Representative
Metro Ontario Inc.	James Brook
Investissement Immobiliers Prodige Inc	Kevin Henley
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation	Kashifa Aslam
Haldimand County	Rob Fleming

REQUEST FOR: An Order for Disclosure HEARD: March 30, 2026 in writing ADJUDICATOR(S): Hayleigh Cudmore, Member

MOTION DECISION

OVERVIEW

Introduction

1The Appellant, Metro Ontario Inc., is a tenant operating a Food Basics grocery store at 107 Bridge Street, Haldimand County (the “Subject Property”). The Appellant filed an appeal pursuant to s. 40 of the Assessment Act, S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”) for the 2024 and 2025 taxation years. Pursuant to s. 40(26) of the Act, the Appellant is deemed to have brought the same appeal in respect of the 2026 taxation year.

2The basis of the appeal is that the Subject Property’s current value is incorrect. Specifically, that the fair market rent (“FMR”) is too high and the Gross Leasable Area (“GLA”) is incorrect.

3The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) and Haldimand County (“the Municipality”) are responding parties to the appeal proceeding.

4MPAC filed a motion requesting that the Board issue an order for the disclosure of the Lease of Metro Ontario Inc. (2014 – 2017) (“Lease”) by the Appellant. The Appellant opposes this request. The Municipality did not provide submissions.

5It is not disputed that the Subject Property is to be valued based on the income it generates, using the Income Approach appraisal method. MPAC asserts that the Appellant should be required to disclose a full copy of the Lease. The Appellant submits that it has already provided MPAC with the relevant information through a lease summary and excerpts of the Lease. The Appellant maintains that production of a full copy of the lease is too voluminous, unnecessary, and would result in disclosure of some commercially sensitive information. Consequently, the Appellant opposes MPAC’s disclosure request.

RESULT

6The Motion is granted.

ISSUES

7The sole issue the Board must address on this motion is: Should the Board order disclosure of the Lease.

ANALYSIS

The Legal Test to be Applied

8The Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure:

Proportionality

5. These Rules shall be applied in a manner proportionate to the importance and complexity of the issues in a proceeding and with a view to resolving appeals within the four year cycle.

Disclosure

45. All parties must provide a copy, in paper or electronic form, of all relevant documents in their possession, control or power to all other parties in the proceeding, except for privileged documents, or documents that cannot be disclosed by law

9The test to be applied regarding disclosure has been set out in Walmart Canada Corporation and Target Canada Corporation v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 01, 2018 CanLII 67789 (ON ARB) (“Walmart”).

[18] Relevance is determined in relation to whether a document is relevant to an issue in dispute. However, this is not the only criteria that the Board will consider when determining whether a document, which may be relevant, should be disclosed. Rule 45, itself, provides an exception for privileged documents. In addition, Rule 5 provides that “These Rules shall be applied in a manner proportionate to the importance and complexity of the issues in a proceeding and with a view to resolving appeals within the four year cycle’. Therefore, the requirement to disclose relevant documents must also be applied in a proportionate manner. Rule 45 does not include specific criteria to assess proportionality. However, the Board finds that the criteria in Rule 29.2.03(1) and (2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure (Ontario) are applicable, namely:

1. the time required for the party or other person to answer the question or produce the document would be unreasonable;

2. the expense associated with answering the question or producing the document would be unjustified;

3. requiring the party or other person to answer the question or produce the document would cause him or her undue prejudice;

4. requiring the party or other person to answer the question or produce the document would unduly interfere with the orderly progress of the action; and

5. the information or the document is readily available to the party requesting it from another source.

6. whether an order for disclosure would result in an excessive volume of documents required to be produced by the party or other person.

The Board observes that this is a non-exhaustive list. There may be other criteria identified on a case by case basis.

[19] In applying the above criteria, the Board must balance these considerations against relevancy, i.e. the degree to which it appears that the document is relevant to an issue in dispute, and, if so, how probative this evidence may be. The onus to establish that a document should be disclosed pursuant to Rule 45 rests with the party who requests the disclosure.

[20] In addition to the above, it should also be noted that Rule 45 only requires disclosure of documents in a party’s possession, control, or power. A party is not required to produce new information, or obtain documents that are not within its possession, control, or power.

10The Board developed its Practice Direction on Disclosure Requirements for General and Summary Proceedings (“Disclosure Guidelines") to assist parties in ensuring that adequate disclosure is provided, and to avoid disputes respecting disclosure whenever possible. The Disclosure Guidelines include a Disclosure Schedule outlining the most common issues that arise in appeal proceedings under s. 40 of the Act, and, for each issue, provides a non-exhaustive list of disclosure items considered to be relevant, and, therefore, should routinely be disclosed. Schedule “A” of the Disclosure Guidelines provides for disclosure of “leases or lease summaries as appropriate for the five years ending and concluding with the valuation date, if available;” for appeals concerning Fair Market Rents under the Income Approach in relation to current value.

Request: Lease of Metro Ontario Inc. (2014 – 2017)

Submissions

MPAC’s Submissions

11MPAC submits that the Lease is relevant to the issues before the Board and could have a significant impact on the calculation of the correct 2016 current value.

12MPAC submits that the information and documents requested are readily available to the Appellant and that MPAC’s disclosure request “is proportional to both the importance and the complexity of the issues, and to the value in dispute.”

13MPAC submits that it requires the documents and information requested to address the issues raised in the appeal, to prepare its expert valuation reports, to come to an informed view of the correct 2016 current value for the Subject Property, and to meet its statutory burden to prove the correctness of current value as set out in s. 40(17) of the Act. MPAC submits that the information requested is not otherwise available.

14MPAC states that the requested documents are specifically described, and not voluminous and that granting the relief sought by MPAC will not unduly burden the Appellant.

15MPAC also submits that s. 53 of the Act provides “protection with respect to any sensitive information” contained in the Lease.

Appellant’s Response Submissions

16The Appellant disputes the Lease’s relevance by stating that the relevant information has already been provided to MPAC. The Appellant submits that it provided the Lease Summary with its Statement of Issues. The Appellant also provides evidence showing that it sent excerpts from the original lease, part of a 2004 Amending Agreement and a renewal document to MPAC on December 9, 2024.

17The Appellant argues that it would face a high burden to comply with the disclosure request, in that the Lease in question is a historical lease with decades of amendments, renewals, and system records. It also notes the commercial sensitivity of certain clauses contained in the full Lease.

18The Appellant argues that the Board’s Practice Direction permits production of lease summaries and argues that compelling the requested disclosure would create systemic inefficiencies in the appeal process for anchor and historical tenants.

19The Appellant also argues that MPAC misrepresented the procedural history between the parties by not mentioning the December 9, 2024 disclosure, and that following that disclosure MPAC failed to acknowledge it or engage with the materials provided prior to bringing this motion.

MPAC’s Reply Submissions

20MPAC states that the Appellant has only provided certain excerpts based on what the Appellant has deemed relevant, submitting that it is not fulsome in providing all the information to be found in the full Lease, and MPAC maintains that it requires the full production of the lease for their expert to prepare his report.

21In response to the Appellant’s concerns regarding sensitive information in the Lease, MPAC submits that, “The documents provided to MPAC would be subject to the terms of a confidentiality agreement… Any concerns regarding proprietary business strategies would be subject to the terms of a confidentiality agreement.”

22Regarding the Appellant’s argument that the process to compile the Lease would be burdensome, MPAC points out that some of the components of the Lease have already been provided in electronic format.

Findings

23In determining whether to order disclosure, the Board applies a two-part test. First, the Board considers whether the information sought is relevant to the issues in dispute. Second, the Board considers whether ordering disclosure is proportionate to the issues in dispute. The Board will address each in turn.

Relevance

24Although the Appellant submits that the Lease is not relevant, their only reason for this position is that the relevant information has already been provided. The Board rejects this argument, as the original source of the relevant information is the Lease. The provision of a summary of the Lease does not mean the Lease itself is no longer relevant.

25Both parties agree that the income approach is the correct methodology to determine the CVA of the Subject Property. The Lease contains information about the property’s ability to generate income in the form of rent and is, therefore, relevant to determine the 2016 current value of the Subject Property.

Sufficiency of Disclosure

26Applying the factors set out in the Walmart case above, disclosure should be proportionate to the importance and complexity of the issues in a proceeding and with a view to resolving appeals.

27The Board notes that the Board’s Disclosure Schedule refers to “Lease or lease summaries as appropriate” (emphasis added) where the issue in dispute is the determination of Fair Market Rents.

28In this regard, the Board observes that the Disclosure Schedule does not say that providing a Lease Summary necessarily precludes the need to provide a full lease, given the “as appropriate” qualification. The Disclosure Schedule contemplates that different circumstances may require different forms of lease disclosure. Whether a full lease is appropriate in these circumstances is the very subject of this disclosure motion.

29The Appellant’s submission that MPAC already has the information it requires is not baseless. In MPAC’s Notice of Motion at paragraph 32 MPAC notes certain specific information it requires:

MPAC requires the Metro Ontario In. leases to review the original commencement date and end dates of the lease; the original base rent of the lease; the new gross leasable area after the addition; and the terms and conditions of any lease renewals or extensions.

30The Board has reviewed the disclosure provided by the Appellant in both in the Lease Summary and on December 9, 2024 and it appears that most, if not all, of the enumerated items in paragraph 32 have been provided. However, there could be information in the Lease that would be relevant to the determination of current value, beyond that disclosed in the Lease summary and excerpts provided.

31For these reasons, the Board finds that, in this case, the provision of the disclosure provided is not sufficient.

Proportionality

32The Appellant makes several arguments about the difficulty in producing the full Lease. However, from the evidence provided in this motion, it appears that at least some the 1978 original lease is already in electronic format. Further, the preamble to the 2004 Amending Agreement provided (also already in electronic format) mentions only one assignment, in 1987. While it is not for the Board to speculate as to what other additions and alterations may have occurred to the Lease since its inception in 1978, it appears as though a lot of the legwork of finding and digitizing old versions and additions of the Lease has already occurred.

33The Board finds that the production requested is not overly broad or voluminous so as to preclude production based on these grounds. The Lease, although made of several component parts, is one document.

34After the Appellant makes their best effort to produce the Lease, if there remain parts that cannot be found, or otherwise cannot be produced, the Appellant can advise MPAC accordingly.

Sensitive Information

35In response to the Appellant’s submission respecting sensitive commercial information contained in the Lease, the Board notes that s. 53 of the Act provides protection with respect to any sensitive information and proprietary business details provided to MPAC.

CONCLUSION

36MPAC’s disclosure request is granted. The Lease is relevant to the issues in dispute, and disclosure is proportionate in the circumstances.

37The Appellant is directed to provide the Lease of Metro Ontario Inc. (2014 – 2017), in its entirety, within 30 days of the issuance date of this decision.

38The Board directs an extension of the Schedule of Events as set out in the Order below.

ORDER

39Metro Ontario Inc. is directed to provide all documents in response to the Disclosure Request in this motion within 30 days of the issuance of this Motion Decision.

40The due date in the Schedule of Events for service of the Statement of Response (Weeks 13-20) is amended to a date 60 days after the issuance of this Motion Decision All subsequent dates in the Schedule of Events are to be adjusted accordingly.