|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Document
|
|
P-1047
|
|
|
|
|
|
File #
|
|
P-9500438
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/HIC
|
|
Ministry of Finance
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
|
|
NATURE OF THE APPEAL: This is an appeal under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act ). The Ministry of Finance (the Ministry) received a request for several categories of information related to the assessments of a number of international border crossings. As the exact wording of the request is germane to the issues raised in this appeal, I will quote the request verbatim: 1. If any of the bridges or tunnels or other crossings are valued based on depreciated replacement cost , we request the Ministry's estimates on which these costs are based, for example, the estimates for the cost of steel (etc.). 2. If the properties are valued on the basis of capitalized net income, while we do not require the actual expense or income information we would like access to: (a) the method employed by the Ministry; (b) assumptions made by the Ministry or its consultants about stabilized net income and expenses; (c) the capitalization rate employed by the Ministry; (d) any studies obtained or relied on by the Ministry to derive the capitalization rates; and (e) identification of similar real properties identified or relied on by the Ministry in returning or assessing the properties. The Ministry responded by advising the requester that no records existed in response to parts 1, 2(a), (b) and (d) of the request. In response to part 2(c) of the request, the Ministry indicated that the capitalization rates used by the Ministry in calculating the 1994 assessments for 1995 varied from 8.5% to 16.6%. The Ministry's response to part 2(e) of the request was that this property type, i.e. international border crossings, was not valued utilizing comparable properties. The requester appealed the Ministry's decision that no records responsive to parts 2(a), (b) and (d) exist. In addition, he was not satisfied with the Ministry's response to part 2(c) because, among other things, the rates provided by the Ministry were not limited to bridges or other crossings. The requester also objected to the Ministry's response to part 2(e) as he maintains that "[t]he assessments of all properties are established in such a way that they are equitable in comparison with similar real properties in the vicinity." On this basis, the requester takes the position that similar real properties must exist. The requester also indicated in his letter of appeal that he was satisfied with the Ministry's response to part 1 of the request. During mediation, the appellant provided the Ministry with an affidavit outlining in detail the records sought. The affidavit was sworn by one of the appellant's partners (the partner), who has many years of municipal tax experience. The affidavit states that the partner is "... familiar with the methodology employed by the Ministry of Finance in valuing international border crossings ..." and is also "... aware of the types of records created by the Ministry of Finance in connection with these properties." In response to the affidavit, the Ministry maintained that its initial decision was correct and that no responsive records exist. The Ministry stated that Regional Assessment Offices value international crossings on an ad hoc basis without regard to a standardized methodology. The Ministry did, however, advise the appellant that the Property Assessment Program was in the process of developing a standard methodology to be used throughout the province to value international bridges. The Ministry went on to explain that the methodology was expected to be approved by the end of September, 1995, and would be incorporated into a manual, available for public viewing in the Ministry's library. The partner then asked the Ministry to provide him with whatever methodology assessors have used to value international crossings, with the actual income and expense data removed in order to comply with section 53(1) of the Assessment Act . The Ministry responded that neither the appellant nor the partner were entitled to this information as their client did not hold a pecuniary or proprietary interest in these properties. In response to another query made by the partner, the Ministry stated that section 53(3) applied to the individual Assessment Offices, rather than to requests made under the Act . (I will discuss these sections of the Assessment Act in detail in my consideration of the appellant's request for capitalization rates.) The appellant was not satisfied with the Ministry's response and maintained his position that records responsive to his request should exist. A Notice of Inquiry was sent to the Ministry and the appellant. Representations were received from both parties. In his submissions, the appellant confirmed that he was satisfied that no records exist in response to part 1 of his request but that all the other matters remained outstanding. As part of its representations, the Ministry provided an affidavit prepared by an Appraisal, Research and Development analyst with the Appraisal Services Branch in the Assessment Division of the Ministry (the analyst). The analyst indicated that he had been working on "... the creation of current procedures to assist the assessor in assessing international crossings including bridges and tunnels." (These are the procedures which the Ministry had previously advised the partner would be available in September, 1995.) In its submissions, the Ministry advised this office that a copy of the analyst's affidavit could be provided to the appellant. The affidavit was forwarded to the appellant who responded that, while it clarified the issues in the appeal, "... [it provides] evidence that records exist which fall squarely within the request for documents [we] made." The Ministry has recently advised this office that the analyst has submitted a final draft of the procedures for approval, at which time they will be included in the Ministry's Assessment Policy and Procedure binder and be available for public viewing in the Ministry's reading room. Based on the information contained in the appellant's request, the affidavits exchanged between the parties, and their representations, I am of the view that the issue to be determined in this order is whether records exist which contain the following five categories of information: (1) The method applied by the Ministry in assessing international crossings. (2) The assumptions made by the Ministry with respect to stabilized net income and expenses. (3) The capitalization rates employed by the Ministry in valuing all internati
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject Index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed by
|
|
Anita Fineberg
|
|
|
|
|
|
Published
|
|
Nov 10, 1995
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type
|
|
Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<
Back
|
|
|
|
Back to Top
|
 |
|
|
|
© Copyright
2013
Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
|