Jonathan Langille

The appellant brought a motion to permit the late filing of two witness statements past the deadline in the Schedule of Events for its property assessment appeals.

The Assessment Review Board found no exceptional circumstances to alter the Schedule of Events under Rule 40, as the respondent had previously challenged the validity of the 2021 sale in its pleadings.

However, applying Rule 7 regarding non-compliance, the Board permitted the late filing and testimony of the proposed factual witnesses, finding no prejudice to the respondent since a hearing had not yet been scheduled.

The respondent was granted an opportunity to amend its pleadings and expert report in response.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion to alter the timelines set out in the schedule of events for property assessment appeals, citing exceptional circumstances.

MPAC argued that a change in the respondent's counsel and the late discovery of equipment requiring a new expert justified the extension.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the delay in retaining new counsel was unexplained and the need for a new expert arose from MPAC's failure to conduct a timely inspection.

The Board concluded that no exceptional circumstances existed to warrant an extension of time.

The moving party, a sailing club that leases land from the City of Toronto, sought to file a late appeal of its 2017 property tax assessment.

The club argued it did not receive the notice of assessment from the City until well after the filing deadline.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that while the club proved it did not receive the notice, it failed to establish a legal entitlement to receive it and failed to file the application for a late appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of the issue, as required by Rule 26(b).