Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: June 3, 2015
Moving Party(ies): TKS Holdings Inc.
Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region No. 03
Respondent(s): City of Ottawa
Property Location(s): 274 Rideau Street
Municipality(ies): City of Ottawa
Roll Number(s): 0614-021-001-04300-0000
Appeal Number(s): 3044906
Taxation Year(s): 2013
Hearing Event No.: 582030 and 584237
Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended
Heard: March 3 and 31, 2015 in Toronto, Ontario
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| TKS Holdings Inc. | S. Longo |
| MPAC | M. McLaren-Caux |
| City of Ottawa | No one appeared |
DISPOSITION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY J. L. WALKER
ISSUE
1TKS Holdings Inc. (“TKS”) brings its motion before the Assessment Review Board (“Board’) for an Order cancelling the re-instatement of appeal number (“no.”) 3044906; and/or an Order declaring that appeal no. 2953129 was validly withdrawn; and/or a ruling that the Municipal Property Assessment Board’s (“MPAC”) Special Notice of Request for a Higher Assessment (“Notice”) under Rule 30 (1) of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”) was improperly served under Rule 34 and is invalid.
2The issues for the Board to determine are whether the Notice has been validly served, and if not, is the present case one where the Board should use its discretion under its Rules and/or have recourse to the Rules of Civil Procedure to validate the service. The Board must further determine whether appeal no. 2953129 has been properly withdrawn under Rule 67, and if not, is the present case one where the Board should use its discretion to cancel reinstated appeal no. 3044906. In making its determination, the Board must ensure an equitable balance of the parties’ rights when making an exception from its Rules.
DISPOSITION OF MOTION
3The Board finds that as there is greater prejudice to the taxpayer, a strict interpretation of its Rules governing Special Notices and Permitted Methods of Service is required.
4The Board finds that MPAC’s Notice was not validly served and declines the request to grant an exception from its Rules or validate the service under the Rules of Civil Procedure.
5The Board Orders that reinstated appeal no. 3044906 be canceled.
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION OF MOTION
Background
6The Board had before it six affidavits and evidence regarding the original and reinstated appeals and the events that transpired at the May 1, 2014 full hearing event (no. 558059) in Ottawa (Affidavit of Garth Allen, Senior Tax Consultant, Property Tax Review Services, (“PTRS”) Exhibit 3, Tab 2; Affidavit of Karey Lunau, Conway Davis Gryski, Exhibit 4, Tab 2; Affidavit of Glenn Lucas, President PTRS, Exhibit 5; Supplementary Affidavit of Glenn Lucas, Exhibit 6; Supplementary Affidavit of Karey Lunau, Exhibit 7; Affidavit of Jeff Bertrand, Property Valuation Analyst, Exhibit 8).
7The taxpayer instructed its representative PTRS to file an appeal under s. 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended (“Act”) for the 2013 assessment of the property municipally known as 274 Rideau Street. It was assigned appeal no. 2953129 by the Board.
8On February 10, 2014 MPAC by its counsel Karey Lunau gave Notice that it was requesting a higher assessment of the subject property for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years (Exhibit A, Affidavit of Garth Allen). The Board notes that at this point the 2014 taxation year had not yet been deemed in accordance with s. 40.(26)(b) of the [Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/r