Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: June 28, 2016

FILE NO.: RRD 2016M10

Assessed Person(s): Eric Jingwei Weng

Appellant(s): Eric Jingwei Weng

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 15

Respondent(s): Town of Oakville

Property Location(s): 3262 Saltaire Crescent

Municipality(ies): Town of Oakville

Roll Number(s): 2401-010-050-04043-0000

Appeal Number(s): 2967971 and 3046748

Taxation Year(s): 2013 and 2014

Hearing Event No.: 542578 and 573100

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

Request by: Eric Jingwei Weng

Request for: A review of the Board’s Decision No. 2613117 released on August 30, 2013 and Disposition of Motion (DM 129847) issued February 10, 2015

Heard: By written submission

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY PAUL MULDOON

ISSUES AND ORDER SOUGHT

1Eric Jingwei Weng seeks a review of the Assessment Review Board’s Decision No. 2613117 by Member Andre Castel released August 30, 2013 and Disposition of Motion (DM 129847) by Member Fausto Saponara issued February 10, 2015.

2At issue in the hearing before Member Castel was the current value of the subject property owned by Mr. Weng, located at 3262 Saltaire Crescent, Oakville. MPAC assessed the subject property at $1,422,000 for the 2013 taxation year. Member Castel confirmed the assessment as returned by MPAC.

3On September 22, 2013 Mr. Weng requested a review of Member Castel’s decision. However, as stated in Rule 128 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”) “a party intending to ask for a review of the Board’s decision must request written reasons”. Rule 128 also outlines the 14 day deadline after a hearing for requesting written reasons. On October 18, 2013, Mr. Weng’s request for review was denied as incomplete because there were no written reasons.

4Mr. Weng then filed an appeal with the Board for the current value of the subject property for the 2014 taxation year. Since the valuation day for the 2014 taxation year is the same valuation day as for the 2013 taxation year, that being January 1, 2012, MPAC brought a motion for issue estoppel. At the motion hearing held January 8, 2015, Member Saponara made an oral ruling granting MPAC’s motion for issue estoppel which was confirmed in writing by DM 129847. Mr. Weng requests a review of Member Saponara’s decision in DM 129847 as well.

RELEVANT RULES

Comments on Issue Estoppel

Issue estoppel may bar a party from re-arguing an issue determined in an earlier hearing. It sometimes arises in assessment appeals because one valuation day is used for more than one year; the issue(s) remain(s) the same; the parties to the proceedings remain the same; and the Board’s decision for a previous taxation year which applies the same valuation day is final.

33. Special Notice by Party of Issue Estoppel

If a party intends to raise issue estoppel at a hearing it must give notice:

(a) in the Direct Hearing Stream in writing to the other parties at least 14 days prior to the hearing;

(b) in the Standard Stream, in the Response to the Statement of Issues.

Absent such notice, the party may not rely on issue estoppel at the hearing.

5Written reasons as a prerequisite to a request for review is stated in Rule 128:

128. Request Required

A party who requires written reasons for a Board decision must make a request for written reasons at the conclusion of the hearing or in writing within 14 days of the end of the hearing. A party intending to ask for a review of the Board’s decision must request written reasons.

6The Board’s Rules respecting requests for review are set out in Rules 141 to 146. Rules 141, 142 and 145 are specifically relevant to this request for review and are reproduced below (Rule 143 outlines the content requirements of a request submitted to the Board, Rule 144 states the powers of the Board in reviewing a decision and Rule 146 pertains to re-hearing procedures).

141. Decisions Eligible for Review/Board’s Powers on Review

(1) The Board may review all or part of any final decision at the request of a party or upon its own initiative, and may:

(a) confirm, vary, suspend, or cancel the decision; or

(b) order a re-hearing before a different Member.

(2) The Board will not review:

(a) interim or interlocutory orders; and,

(b) decisions on requests for review.

142. Requirements to Consider a Request for Review/Refusal to Review

The Board may refuse a request to review an eligible decision if:

(a) the request is filed later than 30 days after the Board decision and written reasons issue, unless the Board determines that there is good reason to extend this time;

(b) in an incomplete request, the requester does not supply all of the information and materials required by Rule 145 within 21 days of the Board’s notice; or

(c) it is a second request by the same party raising the same or similar issues.

7The 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

8Mr. Weng requested a review of Decision No. 2613117 and was denied in a letter dated October 18, 2013 from the Board. Rule 141(2) (b) states that the Board will not review decisions on requests for review. This means that I cannot review this request for review decision.

9In DM 129847 Member Saponara granted MPAC’s motion for issue estoppel because he found MPAC gave proper notice of its motion, there were no changes to the property for the 2014 taxation year, the parties were the same in both appeals, the issue was the same in both appeals, and the 2013 decision which used the same valuation day was final. By making this finding, Member Saponara barred Mr. Weng from re-arguing the issue of current value which was already determined in the hearing for the 2013 appeal before Member Castel. In this way the value of the subject property on January 1, 2012 was confirmed at $1,422,000.

10Issue estoppel is an equitable doctrine which is exercised by Members in a discretionary manner. This means that the presiding Member may choose to determine that issue estoppel may not apply even if its preconditions as listed above are all met. Or, a Member may exercise his or her discretion and find that since the preconditions of issue estoppel are met it is in the interest of justice not to rehear issues that have already been determined. This second option was what Member Saponara did.

11It is not my role to make a finding as to whether I necessarily agree with how the Member exercised their discretion; instead, I have to review the grounds in Rule 145 and assess whether the Member acted within their jurisdiction or made an error in law or fact. Members of adjudicative tribunals have broad discretion to review matters before them and apply their discretion. As a general principle, I defer to that use of discretion unless there is a convincing and compelling case that the Member acted outside of their jurisdiction or made an error in law or fact.

12I do not find there is a convincing and compelling case that Member Saponara in DM 129847 breached one or more of the five grounds listed in Rule 145. DM 129847 is thoughtful and thorough in its analysis of the parties’ positions with respect to issue estoppel and in its application of the legal doctrine of issue estoppel to the facts. I find no reason to overturn DM 129847.

ORDER

13The Board:

1. denies the requests for review by Mr. Weng;

2. confirms the Board’s Decision (No. 2613117) and Disposition of Motion (DM 129847); and therefore,

3. confirms the current value of the subject property as of January 1, 2012 to be $1,422,000.