) ) MUNICIPAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT CORPORATION Applicant – v. –, 2013 ONSC 5883

CITATION : Municipal Property Assessment Corporation v. Prata, 2013 ONSC 5883 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 29/13 DATE: 20130918 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT BETWEEN: ) ) MUNICIPAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT CORPORATION Applicant – and – PHILIPE MARIA GONZAGA PRATA, DINAH LEIGH PRATA and TOWN OF OAKVILLE Respondents )) )) )) )) )))) Karey A.

Lunau , for the Applicant No One Appearing ) ) ) HEARD at Toronto: September 18, 2013 ASTON J. (ORALLY) [ 1 ] This is a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board dated May 8, 2012 and a subsequent decision of the Board dated December 17, 2012 denying MPAC’s request for a review and set aside the first decision. [ 2 ] The first decision was rendered by Board Member Ivan Oliveira. Mr. Oliveira conducted his own independent and secret investigation of facts and did not confine himself to the evidence at the hearing before him.

Even assuming his investigation was, in the end, immaterial to his decision (as the Board apparently assumed in its subsequent decision of December 17, 2012), it is clear to me that by taking secret investigative steps on his own, Member Oliveira forfeited his jurisdiction to subsequently adjudicate the dispute. [ 3 ] I would note in passing that although the Board, in its Review Decision referenced Rule 149(

c) that the request for review would have covered the grounds set out in Rule 149(

a) and (b). Rule 149 (

a) provides that a review may be granted if the adjudicator acted outside his jurisdiction and Rule 149(

b) provides for a review if there is a violation of rules of natural justice or procedural fairness. [ 4 ] It is hard to imagine a more fundamental breach of the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice. It is immaterial that the outcome may have been correct or even reasonable. [ 5 ] I would also add, that there may be reason to doubt Member Oliveira’s decision on the merits. Market value is a hypothetical construct to reflect what a property should sell for on the open market, not what it did sell for.

His decision on that point seems to be in conflict with other jurisdiction on the point. [ 6 ] The test for leave to appeal has been met. The questions proposed by the appellant in this case are set out in paragraph 11 of its factum:

(1) Did the presiding Member’s undisclosed investigation into the facts of the Pratas’ appeal render his decision invalid?

(2) Did the ARB err in finding that the Member’s undisclosed investigation did not violate the rules of natural justice?

[ 7 ] I have endorsed the back of the Motion Record, “For oral reasons given and recorded, leave to appeal is granted on the two issues set out in paragraph 11 of the appellant’s factum on this motion. No costs.” ASTON J. Date of Reasons for Judgment: September 18, 2013 Date of Release: September 19, 2013 CITATION : Municipal Property Assessment Corporation v. Prata, 2013 ONSC 5883 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 29/13 DATE: 20130918 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT ASTON J.

BETWEEN: MUNICIPAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT CORPORATION Applicant – and – PHILIPE MARIA GONZAGA PRATA, DINAH LEIGH PRATA and TOWN OF OAKVILLE Respondents ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT ASTON J. Date of Reasons for Judgment: September 18, 2013 Date of Release: September 19, 2013