Assessment Review Board Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ORDER OF THE BOARD
ISSUE DATE: August 31, 2015
BOARD ORDER NO. 137609
Assessed Person(s): North York General Hospital
Appellant(s): Katz Cheryl
Respondent(s): City of Toronto
Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 9
Property Location(s): 79 Blythwood Road
Municipality(ies): City of Toronto
Roll Number(s): 1904 104 310 0260 0000
Appeal Number(s): 3035899, 3067928
Taxation Year(s): 2014 and 2015
Hearing Event No. 597842
Legislative Authority: Sections 32 and 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended
ARB Case Name: BO 137609
Heard: August 12, 2015
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel+/Representative |
|---|---|
| Katz Cheryl | No one appeared |
| MPAC | Don Mitchell |
| City of Toronto | No one appeared |
ORDER OF THE ASSESSMENT REVIEW BOARD
This matter came before the Assessment Review Board at a pre-hearing event on August 12, 2015 by teleconference call.
Introduction/Issues
A disposition of motion released on April 17, 2014 dismissed Ms Katz’s 2013 and 2014 appeals following full arguments from both sides. A post roll assessment notice (“PRAN”) was issued pursuant to S 32(1.1) of the Act to correct the name of the assessed owner in 2014. The PRAN resulted in another S 40 appeal being deemed by the Board for the 2014 taxation year. At the hearing on June 23, 2015, Don Mitchell for MPAC argued before Member S. Light that the 2014 deemed appeal should not have been created by the Board given the dismissal of the underlying appeals for 2013 and 2014, and should be dismissed. It is uncertain whether Ms. Katz had full opportunity to argue against the dismissal of the 2014 deemed appeal. The hearing was adjourned to re-convene on November 4, 2015 before Member Light who was seized of the matter.
On its own initiative, the Board scheduled this teleconference (“TCC”) pre-hearing “to determine if the appeals were properly before the Board”. Ms Katz sought to make a motion at the TCC for an order to determine “on its merits, the legal question of how leasehold properties should be assessed for taxation.” MPAC counsel Don Mitchell’s Response to the Motion was that the 2014 appeal was a nullity. Ms Katz wrote to the Board to express an objection that this was not a proper Response to her motion and was an abuse of process, in addition to being served in non-compliance with the Rules. She contended that the Board had no jurisdiction to determine the substantive issue of whether her 2014 appeal was a nullity at a pre-hearing, but only by a motion brought by MPAC. She accused the Board of violating its own Rules, facilitating a “want of Fundamental Justice and Prodedural Fainess” and she declined to attorn to the jurisdiction by not participating in the TCC.
On the call, Mr. Mitchell asserted that the issue had been argued before Member Light on June 23, and that the decision on the validity of the 2014 appeal rests with her. MPAC is awaiting the ruling from Member Light. MPAC is not challenging the validity of an appeal for the 2015 taxation year, which it concedes was a properly served third party appeal under S 40(9).
I do not agree with Ms Katz that the Board cannot make a determination on the validity of her appeal at a pre-hearing, although to do so in her absence could prove problematic. Mr. Mitchell argued that I cannot make that determination on this pre-hearing not for that reason, but because another member of the Board is seized of the issue. Member Light heard argument from Mr. Mitchell on the issue, but it is uncertain whether Ms. Katz was prepared to argue it fully at the hearing in June. To be fair to Ms Katz, I think it best that the issue be re-argued on a properly brought motion. The matter should be dealt with at a separate motion hearing, so that the scheduled hearing in November can focus only on the substantive issues. One of those issues is “the legal question of how leasehold properties should be assessed for taxation”. That issue should be part of the hearing itself and not subject to separate motion. Any other procedural or jurisdictional issues should also be raised at the motion hearing, so that the hearing can deal only with substantive matters.
The Board orders that:
MPAC will bring a motion seeking a dismissal of appeal number 3035899 for the 2014 taxation year, and any other procedural or jurisdictional issues as they deem advisable.
The motion hearing will be scheduled in advance of the scheduled November hearing date.
Any other procedural or jurisdictional motions by either party must be brought at the motion hearing.
Member Light will preside over the motion hearing and will not be rendering any ruling or disposition based on the June 23 hearing.
No pre-trial motions will be permitted at the November hearing.
This full hearing event will begin on November 4, 2015 at 9:30a.m.at 655 Bay Street 12 Floor, Room 4 in the city of Toronto.
Hearing number 596144.
“Joe Wyger”
JOE WYGER
MEMBER
COPIES TO: Parties who appeared/ and or participated AND TO: MPAC, Attn: Manager of Case Management
Case Coordinator, Yasmina Ramjaun
Mailed To: Katz Cheryl
Assessment Review Board
A constituent tribunal of Environment and Land Tribunals Ontario
Website: www.elto.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248