Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: January 22, 2016
Moving Party(ies): David Stewart Goodman et al
Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 9
Respondent(s): City of Toronto
Property Location(s): 1 Davies Avenue
Municipality(ies): City of Toronto
Roll Number(s): 1904-073-050-00100-0000
Appeal Number(s): 2968879, 3010814 and 3076832
Taxation Year(s): 2013, 2014 and 2015
Hearing Event No.: 607730
Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended
Heard: Motion by written submission
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
| Parties | Counsel+/Representative |
|---|---|
| David Stewart Goodman et al | Jay Cohen |
| MPAC | Georgia Ribeiro |
| City of Toronto | No one participated |
DISPOSITION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY PAUL MULDOON AND BERNARD COWAN
MOTION
1This is a motion pursuant to Rule 145 of the Assessment Review Board’s (“Board”) Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”) for review of a Decision whereby the appeals were dismissed by a Board Order issued on July 3, 2015 for failure to have notified the Board that a Statement of Issues (“SOI”) had been served by the date ordered at a January 29, 2015 pre-hearing conference (“PHC”).
2The moving party requests that the Board reinstate the appeals.
3The City of Toronto provided no submissions, and MPAC’s submission was minimal, simply agreeing to “restoration of the complaints” due to past laxity in enforcement of Orders.
DISPOSITION OF MOTION AND ORDER
4The motion is granted.
5The Board reinstates the dismissed appeals.
6Within 10 days of the issuance of this Disposition of Motion, the moving party shall inform the Board and the other parties as to the status of the appeals. Specifically, if a SOI has been served, and if so, when; if Responses to the SOI have been served, and if so, when; if the parties have reached a resolution pending the outcome of the motion, and if so, when the Board might anticipate receipt of Minutes of Settlement.
7In the event that any SOI and Statements of Response (“SOR”) have already been exchanged, within one month of the issuance of this Disposition of Motion the parties are ordered to file a Draft Procedural Order with the Board. The Draft Procedural Order will be adopted by the Board with notice to the parties, or the appeals will be set to a PHC to adopt a Procedural Order.
REASONS FOR DISPOSITION OF MOTION AND ORDER
Background
8On January 18, 2013, the Board’s Associate Chair issued a memorandum to the Board’s stakeholders “Re: Appeals Streaming Strategy for the 2013-2016 Assessment Cycle”. This document forewarned the Board’s stakeholders of the change in process and timelines that would be enshrined by the document set out in the next paragraphs herein.
9On April 2, 2013 the Board implemented an updated version of its Rules, and so informed the stakeholders comprising the assessment community.
10Rules 43, 86 and 87 establish the process and timelines expected of the parties by the Board for appeals commencing with the 2013 taxation year. These include:
- Within 6 months of filing an appeal, generally by September 30, 2013 for a 2013 tax year appeal, MPAC will have released requested assessment data, SOI and SORs will have been served on all parties.
- Within 16 months of serving the SOI and SORs, generally by July 31, 2014 for a 2013 tax year appeal, the parties will have filed those respective documents with the Board, or at least 60 days prior to the first PHC, if earlier.
- On their own initiative, once pleadings have been exchanged, the parties could have requested a PHC to establish a Procedural Order (“PRO”) setting out procedural processes inclusive of hearing dates and related matters. Alternatively, if no PRO is approved within 18 months of filing an appeal, generally by September 30, 2014, the Board will set a peremptory PHC having adoption of a PRO as its primary purpose.
11Additionally, on April 2, 2013, the Board reinforced the Rules referenced above, by release of its “Practice Direction, Scheduling Pre-hearings and Hearings.” This document highlights features of the process and timelines set out immediately above, and also references Rules 7 and 8 that address consequences of non-compliance with Board Rules and/or Board Orders.
12PHC No. 571353 was scheduled by the Board for January 28, 2015, as the Board was not aware of SOIs, SORs or draft PROs having been filed for any of the properties on the hearing list.
13At the PHC, the Board commenced by canvassing the approximately 30 representatives for all 60 +/- properties on the docket as to the stage of exchange of SOIs and SORs. Only two hands were raised to indicate that any SOIs had been served! No SORs were indicated to have been served.
14The Board proceeded to read its prepared Opening Comments that incorporated the following information, commentary