Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: March 14, 2016

FILE NO.: RRD 2016M3

Assessed Person(s): Sacco Schools Limited

Appellant(s): City of Oshawa

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 13

Respondent(s): City of Oshawa

Property Location(s): 22 King Street East

Municipality(ies): City of Oshawa

Roll Number(s): 1813-030-006-06700-0000

Appeal Number(s): 2953881

Taxation Year(s): 2013

Hearing Event No.: 578548

Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended

Request by: MPAC Region 13 (“Requester”)

Request for: A review of the Board’s decision DM 133186 issued on August 12, 2015

Heard: By written submission

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY PAUL MULDOON

ISSUES AND ORDER SOUGHT

1MPAC, the Requester, seeks a review of the decision of the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) (DM 133186) by Members Mark Spraggett and Joseph M. Wyger issued on August 12, 2015. This request for review was filed with the Board on September 4, 2015.

2The issue before the Board at the Motion for Dismissal of an Appeal hearing was whether the City of Oshawa (“City”) provided proper notice to the property owner as required by s. 40.(9) of the Assessment Act (“Act”). At the hearing, Sacco Schools Ltd. submitted that there was no evidence to suggest the assessment appeal was filed in accordance with the Act. The City sought to demonstrate that it had complied with the technical requirements of service under the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”). MPAC supported the City’s position and submitted that the notice of appeal and notice of increase had been properly served. The Board concluded that “the owner had adequate notice of the assessment appeal” and denied the motion for Dismissal of Appeal. The Board further concluded that there was insufficient evidence demonstrating that service had been perfected regarding the intention to seek a higher assessment and granted the motion and the Board will “refuse to entertain a request to increase the subject property’s 2013 returned assessment.”

3In its request for review, MPAC submits that this finding by the Board results from errors of fact and law made when reaching a decision. It states that the Board erred in its determination that the City failed to provide proper notice of its intention to seek an increase in the assessment value. The Requester asks that the decision be set aside or a rehearing ordered to allow it to raise the issue of compliance with the Board’s Rules pertaining to service.

RELEVANT RULES

4The Board’s rules respecting requests for review are set out in Rules 141 to 146 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”).

5A request for review is received pursuant to Rule 144 which grants the Board with the following authority:

144. Receipt of Request for Review

(1) Where a request for review has been received, the Board may:

(a) seek written submissions from the parties on the issue raised in the request;

(b) grant a motion to argue the question;

(c) grant a re-hearing without a motion; or

(d) confirm, vary, suspend or cancel the decision.

6The grounds for review are stated in Rule 145:

145. Grounds for Review

(1) The Board may consider reviewing its decision if the grounds for the request raise a convincing and compelling case that the Board:

(a) acted outside its jurisdiction;

(b) violated the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness, including allegations of bias;

(c) made an error of law or fact such that the Board would likely have reached a different decision;

(d) should consider new evidence, which was not available at the time of the hearing, but that is credible and could have affected the result; or

(e) heard false or misleading evidence from a party or witness, which was discovered only after the hearing and could have affected the result.

DISCUSSION AND REASONS

7The Board denies the request for a review in this case.

8With respect to the alleged errors of fact and law, as in this case, the Board will only grant the request for review if there is a convincing and compelling case that, but for the errors, the Board would have likely reached a different result.

9I do not find that the issue raised by the Requester meets this threshold. The issue in question is purely procedural which normally falls squarely within the discretion of the Board. At paragraph 34 of the decision, the Board held:

34The Board finds that the City failed to provide proper notice to the assessed person as required by Rules 30, 34 and 35 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. Given the unfairness and prejudice to Sacco Schools Ltd. as set out herein, the Board is not inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of the City to cure the defective service of the Notion of Higher Assessment (emphasis added).

10The Requester is seeking a review of a disposition claiming errors of fact and law. As noted above, the finding that service was inadequate was made by the Board and well within its discretion to do so. I will not interfere and instead, defer to the Members. Unless there is a convincing and compelling case that the Board acted outside its jurisdiction or made an error of law or fact, I find no basis for such a finding in this case.

11The admissibility of evidence and its weight is within the jurisdiction and authority of the Member or panel of the Board. I find no error in the Members’ determination of the evidence proving the lack of service and their use of discretion to affirm this position.

ORDER

12For all of these reasons, the Board orders that this request for review be denied.