Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal
Tribunal d’appel de l’agriculture, de l’alimentation et des affaires rurales
1 Stone Road West Guelph, Ontario N1G 4Y2 Tel: (519) 826-3433, Fax: (519) 826-4232 Email: AFRAAT@ontario.ca
1 Stone Road West Guelph (Ontario) N1G 4Y2 Tél.: (519) 826-3433, Téléc.: (519) 826-4232 Courriel: AFRAAT@ontario.ca
AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS APPEAL TRIBUNAL
APPEAL:
MPAC v Evans et al (RE) [Order] Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 14 The Administrator, Farm Property Class Tax Rate Program Town of East Gwillimbury George William Evans, Estate of Iva Gertrude Evans, Terry Evans Terry George Evans, Amy Ramsay, Sarah Buckle
MPAC v Evans et al (RE) [Order] 2025 ONAFRAAT 08
STATUTE:
Assessment Act (Section 40.1) and Ontario Regulation 282/98 (Section 31)
DATE OF DECISION:
May 9, 2025
1569; 1570; 1571
NEUTRAL CITATION:
2025 ONAFRAAT 08
IN THE MATTER OF Section 40.1 of the Assessment Act (the “Act”) and Section 31 of Ontario Regulation 282/98.
AND IN THE MATTER OF a referral to the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal (“Tribunal”) by the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) of an appeal by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 14 as to whether the portions of the property identified by roll number 1954-000-029-26000-0000 whose current value was determined by the Board to be used for farm purposes should be designated in the farm property class and thus be eligible for the reduced tax rate for the 2016 (FL 184892), 2017 and 2018 (FL 184893) and 2019 (FL 184894) taxation years.
BETWEEN:
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 14 Appellant
– and –
The Administrator, Farm Property Class Tax Rate Program Respondent
– and –
Town of East Gwillimbury Respondent
– and –
George William Evans, Estate of Iva Gertrude Evans, Terry Evans Respondents
Terry George Evans, Amy Ramsay, Sarah Buckle Respondents
Before: Robert Fuller, Vice Chair, Tricia Schouten, Vice Chair
Represented by Matthew Kanter, Sana Sajid and Soussanna Karas Represented by Richard Miller and Rushda Munshi Self-Represented Represented by Scott McAnsh and Joe Jebreen Represented by Scott McAnsh and Joe Jebreen
HELD by Written Submissions
ORDER
BACKGROUND
The Property identified by roll number 1954-000-029-26000-0000 (the ”Property”) was included in the Farm Property Class (the “FPC”) for the 2007 to 2015 tax years. The listed owners for the Property during 2007 to 2015 were Evans George William and Evans Iva Gertrude.
Mrs. Iva Gertrude Evans passed away on January 8, 2010.
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 14 (“MPAC”) updated the ownership for the Property in 2015 based on information MPAC received from the formerly named Ministry of Government Services showing that Mrs. Evans was deceased. MPAC updated the ownership for the Property by adding the word “Estate” after the name “Gertrude”.
On October 15, 2015, a 2016 multi-year application form was mailed to the respondents, George William Evans – Iva Getrude Evans Estate and Terry Evans to have the Property included in the FPC for the 2016 taxation year.
On June 28, 2016, Terry Evans, the son of George Evans, contacted the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (“MAFRA”) to advise he had purchased the Property from his father.
MPAC advised the MAFRA that no request of ownership change for the Property had been made and the ownership for the Property remained in the names of “Evans George William and Evans Ida Gertrude Estate”. As such, staff at the MAFRA advised Terry Evans the 2016 FPC application needed to be signed by George Evans.
The Respondent, The Administrator, Farm Property Class Tax Rate Program (the “Administrator”) did not receive a 2016 FPC application by the ultimate deadline of December 31, 2016.
Without a completed application, the property was removed from the FPC.
The Administrator did not receive a Request for Reconsideration (“RfR”) of the decision to remove the property from the FPC for the 2016 tax year within the statutory deadline in 2016.
On April 6, 2016, the MAFRA sent a 2017 FPC application to George William Evans and Iva Gertrude Evans Estate.
Terry Evans unsuccessfully tried to submit a 2017 FPC application. Terry Evans included a notation in the 2017 FPC application that he had purchased the Property in 2016.
MPAC advised the MAFRA that no request of ownership change for the Property had been made and that the ownership for the Property remained in the names of “Evans George William and Evans Ida Gertrude Estate”. MAFRA advised Terry Evans the 2017 FPC application needed to be signed by George Evans.
The Administrator did not receive a properly completed 2017 FPC application by the ultimate deadline of December 31, 2017.
The Administrator also did not receive a RFR regarding the Administrator’s decision to not include the Property in the FPC for the 2017 tax year.
On August 29, 2017, the MAFRA sent a 2018 FPC application to George William Evans and Iva Gertrude Evans Estate.
The Administrator did not receive a 2018 FPC application by the ultimate deadline of December 31, 2018.
The Administrator also did not receive any RFR regarding the Administrator’s decision to not include the Property in the FPC for the 2018 tax year.
On March 13, 2018, the ownership for the Property was changed to “Evans Terry George, Buckle Sarah, Ramsay Amy”.
On March 22, 2018, the MAFRA sent a 2019 FPC application to George William Evans and Iva Gertrude Evans Estate, which were the last known owners for the Property the MAFRA had on record at that time.
The Administrator did not receive a 2019 FPC application by the ultimate deadline of December 31, 2019.
The Administrator also did not receive a RFR regarding the Administrator’s decision to not include the Property in the FPC for the 2019 tax year.
The Property was included in the FPC for the 2020 tax year. The Property has been included in the FPC since the 2020 tax year.
On June 20, 2022, the Respondent Terry Evans brought a motion pursuant to Section 40.1 of the Act for an extension of time to bring assessment appeals for the 2016 to 2019 taxation years for the Property before the Board.
By Decision dated July 14, 2022, the Board found that there were palpable errors in the assessment roll for the Property for the 2016 to 2019 taxation years (collectively, the “Tax Years”).
The appellant MPAC requested a review of the Board decision of July 14, 2022. The Board varied the decision of July 14, 2022 in its amended review decision of July 12, 2023 to state that “The Board finds that it appears that there are palpable errors in the assessment roll for the 2016 to 2019 taxation years.”
The Board further rescinded and replaced a portion of the July 14, 2022 decision and stated, in part “…The Board extends the time for filing appeals for the Subject Property for the 2016 to 2019 taxation years, and directs that MPAC be the appellant;… and the only issue that may be raised in the appeals is whether the Subject Property qualifies as land in the Farm Property Class.”
MPAC brought the appeals as directed by the Board which were heard on August 22, 2023.
The Board found on August 22, 2023 in File No’s FL 184892, FL 184893 and FL 184894 that a portion of the Property was farm land used for farm purposes within the meaning of s. 19(5) of the Act for the taxation years in question and referred to the Tribunal the issue of whether the farm land used for farm purposes should be classified in the FPC.
A Pre-Hearing Conference in this matter was held on May 28, 2024. At the Pre-Hearing Conference, the Administrator took the position that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear this matter.
A Jurisdictional Motion hearing was held on September 5, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. pursuant to an Order of the Tribunal and a Notice of Motion of the Administrator dated June 3, 2024.
The Administrator argued in its motion that Subsection 40(3) of the Act applies to Section 40.1 of the Act to require a request for reconsideration by the owners within the time limits set forth prior to an appeal by MPAC in order for the Tribunal to have jurisdiction to hear this matter.
The Administrator further argued that the failure of the property owners under Section 8.1 of O.Reg 292/98 (the “Regulation”) to properly file an application on time for each of the tax years in question renders the Tribunal without jurisdiction to hear this matter.
The Tribunal denied the motion of the Administrator in a decision dated December 5, 2024, released as Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 14 v Evans et al. 2024 ONFRAAT 21 (the “Motion Decision”).
The Tribunal ordered a hearing on the determination of whether the portions of the property determined by the Board to be farm land used for farm purposes should be in the FPC should proceed by written submission only.
Submissions were received from the Administrator dated January 20, 2025. By email dated January 31, 2025, MPAC solely made submissions on the appeal on the issue of costs. Submissions were received from the Respondent Property Owners (“RPO”) dated February 27, 2025. The Respondent Town of East Gwillimbury did not make any submissions.
ISSUE
- Should the portions of the property determined by the Board to be farm land used for farm purposes be in the FPC?
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
The Administrator argues in its submissions that the RPO did not meet all the requirements set out in Sections 8 and 8.1 of the Regulation as written during the relevant time to have the property included in the FPC in the Tax Years.
The Administer argues that the RPO did not submit valid applications in respect of the Tax Years. Furthermore, the Administration states that it did not receive a request for reconsideration for any of the Tax Years.
The Administrator takes the position that the RPO did not notify the Administrator as soon as possible regarding the changes in ownership that occurred during the Tax Years.
The Administrator argues that there was a change in ownership of the Property in 2015 when MPAC became aware that Ms. Iva Gertrude Evans passed away and updated the ownership of the Property by adding the word “Estate”, making the ownership of the property “George William Evans and Iva Gertrude Evans Estate”.
The Administrator further argues that there was a further change in ownership for the Property on March 13, 2018, to “Evans Terry George, Buckle Sarah, Ramsay Amy” and that this change of ownership was not properly filed for the 2019 Tax Year and as a result the Property could not be included in the FPC for the 2019 Tax Year.
The Administrator argues that as all the requirements set out under Sections 8 and 8.1 of the Regulation were not fulfilled by the RPO for the applicable Tax Years, the Property did not qualify for the FPC.
By the decision of the Board pursuant to Section 40.1 of the Act, MPAC was made the Appellant in this matter and brought this proceeding.
In Paragraph 18 of the Motion Decision, the Tribunal found that the Board analyses questions regarding missed deadlines or other preconditions when considering whether to extend the time to appeal and to direct MPAC to be the appellant. In accepting the Board’s jurisprudence as argued by the RPO, the Tribunal noted in Paragraph 18 that it “includes a consideration of the fairness and reasonableness aspects of whether or not to exercise the discretion to extend the time for appealing and directing MPAC to be the appellant. It is during this analysis that questions regarding missed deadlines or other preconditions are resolved. “
Furthermore, in Paragraph 22 of the Motion Decision, the Tribunal found that “An order by the Board to extend the time to appeal and to direct MPAC to be the appellant under section 40.1 of the Act [sic] must also serve to cure any procedural defect or missed deadline needed for that appeal to proceed.”
The novel submissions of the Administrator made in this written proceeding are limited to the historical amendments to the Regulation and do not disclose any reasons to reconsider the findings of the Tribunal regarding the effects of the Board’s section 40.1 order to extend the time to appeal. The reasons given for denying the motion are adopted here to dispose of the Administrator’s arguments regarding Section 8.1.
The procedural defects and missed deadlines of the RPO during the Tax Years are cured by the section 40.1 Board order per the decision of the Tribunal on the Motion. This includes missing the deadlines to submit FPC applications and request reviews, even if these were required at the time.
It is the uncontested evidence of the RPO that the requirements of section 8 of the Regulation have been met.
As the evidence is that the requirements of section 8 of the Regulation have been satisfied and the requirements of section 8.1 of the Regulation that the Administrator asserts are not met are cured by the Board’s section 40.1 Order, the Property should be included in the FPC for the Tax Years.
The RPO submit that it would be appropriate to award costs against the Administrator, both for the Motion of September 5, 2024, and the within written hearing.
The RPO argues that it was unreasonable for the Administrator to argue that missed historical deadlines were a barrier to proceeding on an appeal ordered pursuant to Section 40.1 of the Act in light of decades of relevant jurisprudence.
The RPO further submits that it was unreasonable for the Administrator to reargue findings made in the Motion Decision in the within hearing and that such conduct was unreasonable and vexatious.
The Administrator submits that no costs should be awarded as its conduct could not be considered unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious or in bad faith.
The Administrator further argues that its conduct does not reach the level that costs should be awarded against it under Rule 34.04 of the Rules of Procedure of the Tribunal. It argues that such an award would have a chilling effect on the Administrator and other parties seeking to raise novel legal positions before the Tribunal.
MPAC submits that there should be no award of costs against it.
The Town of East Gwillimbury made no submissions with respect to an award of costs.
While the Motion Decision found that the motion lacked merit as the request for review precondition did not apply to MPAC and because the Administrator’s position that the criteria in the Regulation are not satisfied does not deprive the Tribunal of the jurisdiction to make that determination, the Tribunal notes that it appears that there are no reported decisions on s. 40.1 matters referred to the Tribunal by the Board.
The Administrator’s position that the Regulation criteria were not satisfied at the time due to the changes in ownership indicates their view that there is no error in the roll at all, palpable or otherwise. This position would have been better advanced before the Board when it considered the Section 40.1 motion. However, it appears that the Administrator did not participate in the hearings of the Section 40.1 motion, perhaps to the detriment of their position. The Tribunal notes that it does not sit as an appellate body to the Board, and is limited to hearing those issues referred to it pursuant to Part V of the Regulation.
Considering the apparent novelty of this matter, and considering that the position of the Administrator that there is no error was not seemingly advanced in the hearing of the Section 40.1 motion, the Tribunal finds that no costs are appropriate for the dismissed motion.
The Tribunal finds that the submissions of the Administrator for this written hearing do not introduce any substantive addition to its position on the Motion. In the Motion Decision, the timelines of Section 8.1 were found to be extended by the Board’s Order. Arguing that the applications were not received by the deadline, or at all, for the Tax Years in effect re-argues the motion. Historical deadlines missed by an owner do not serve to defeat an MPAC appeal made pursuant to a Section 40.1 order extending the time to appeal. An award of costs against The Administrator for this hearing is therefore appropriate.
Counsel for the RPO have argued for a cost award for this hearing in the amount of $2,910.00 plus $378.30 HST for a total of $3,288.30 and the Tribunal finds this figure reasonable.
ORDER
The Tribunal orders that the portion of the property identified by roll number 1954-000-029-26000-0000 shall be designated in the farm property class and thus be eligible for the reduced tax rate for the 2016 (FL 184892), 2017 and 2018 (FL 184893) and 2019 (FL 184894) taxation years.
Costs shall be payable by The Administrator to the RPO in the amount of $2,910.00 plus $378.30 HST for a total of $3,288.30.
Dated at Simcoe, Ontario this 9th day of May, 2025