2299004 Ontario Inc. v. City of Brampton, 2016 CanLII 76502

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: November 4, 2016

FILE NO.: WR 140992

Assessed Person(s): 2299004 Ontario Inc.

Applicant(s): 2299004 Ontario Inc. and Parminder (Steve) Mundi

Respondent(s): City of Brampton

Property Location(s): 100 Kennedy Road South

Municipality(ies): City of Brampton

Roll Number(s): 2110-020-005-07700-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3098436

Taxation Year(s): 2014

Hearing Event No. 623344

Legislative Authority: Section 364.(14) of the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, c. 25, as amended

Heard: June 16, 2016 in Brampton, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel+/Representative
2299004 Ontario Inc. and Parminder (Steve) Mundi	Jack A. Walker+ and Parminder (Steve) Mundi
City of Brampton	Aida Karreman and Yvonne Kwiecien

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY RICK LIMOGES

INTRODUCTION

1This appeal relates to an application for the above property pursuant to the City of Brampton’s (“City”) program for vacant unit rebates on commercial properties as mandated by s. 364 of the Municipal Act, 2001. Jack Walker who appeared at this same hearing on behalf of another applicant met briefly with Parminder (Steve) Mundi, the President of 2299004 Ontario Inc. at the outset of this hearing and agreed to assist with the presentation of his appeal. The City dismissed the application since it was received after the February 28, 2015 deadline for applications and Mr. Mundi has appealed that decision to the Assessment Review Board (“Board”).

ISSUES

2Mr. Walker described the reason for this complaint and noted that an application for a vacant unit rebate must be made by the last day of February in the year following the taxation year to which the application applies. The application was stamped by the cashier on March 13, 2015 for the 2014 taxation year and thus the City dismissed the application. Mr. Mundi, stated that he signed the application dated February 9, 2015 prior to leaving the Country and left it with Pierre Moreau, General Manager of Operations. He further stated that the document was delivered to the City by Mr. Moreau on February 28, 2014 (sic). Mr. Mundi states that he knows that such was done since on the last day of the month he called from China to remind Mr. Moreau to deliver the documents which were still in his possession at the time.

3Mr. Moreau testified that he had filled out the documents in advance and had them signed by Mr. Mundi prior to his departure. He stated that he was certain that he had until the end of March to drop them off however once reminded by Mr. Mundi, he brought them to City Hall on Friday February 28, 2015 and attended the kiosk at City Hall. He was sent to business services and left the application with an oriental woman who assured him that it would get there. Under cross-examination Aida Karreman asked him why he would go to business services, to which he responded that he was sent there when he advised that he had a corporate tax filing. She responded that since the implementation of ‘one stop shopping’ it was no longer the City’s practice to send anyone upstairs. In summation, Mr. Walker stated that the Municipal Act, 2001 is taxpayer sensitive. Unlike an assessment appeal where the Board may grant an extension, the Municipal Act, 2001 allows no such jurisdiction. If an application is late there is no extension possible and there is no question that the application was signed on February 9, 2015. Mr. Mundi instructed Mr. Moreau to file it by February 28, 2015. He called from China on February 28 and was told it was not yet filed as Mr. Moreau believed that the deadline was the end of March. Mr. Moreau then checked for himself and attended the info desk on February 28, 2015 where he was told to go upstairs. Mr. Walker proposed that it was a reasonable assumption that it was filed on February 28, 2015.

4Ms. Karreman called Yvonne Kwiecien who has administered the vacant unit rebate program for the past seven years. She states that the process in place is to accept applications throughout the year however most of the 800 or so applications come in on the last few days of February. They bring in extra staff and cashiers on those days to handle the workload. She notes that the procedure is posted in several locations and applications are also accepted through Service Brampton who direct applicants to cashiers who stamp them on the spot as received. They accept email applications up to the last day, Purolator and registered mail deliveries are stamped and dated when received and honoured if sent no later than the due date. As of February 2015 the tax Department was no longer at City Hall and the 2nd Floor windows were closed in 2013 upon implementation of the 311 call centre.

5Under cross-examination, Ms. Kwiecien admitted that there was an info booth on the first floor and that she does not know what direction he would receive if he stated that he had a corporate tax filing as opposed to a vacant unit rebate. She assumes that he would be sent to the info centre on the computer or that the attendant would check and a person would come down from the second or third floor to greet him, consistent with Service Brampton ‘one stop shopping’ standards. She also responded that should an application be received in the wrong department that it would be forwarded by inter-office mail where a courier delivers mail daily and it would get to another department no more than three days later. Further, if it went to the third floor on a Friday it should have been delivered by Monday and the worst case if marked tax services, it may take a maximum of one week. The procedure for late applications is to stamp and attach the envelope and in this case there was no envelope in the file therefore they received only the application. In closing, Ms. Karreman reiterated that the City had a well-established policy for dealing with such applications, both through incoming mail and in person. The application was filed late and should be dismissed.

Legislation

6Section 364.(1) of the Act, states:

Vacant Unit Rebate

364. (1) Every local municipality shall have a program to provide tax rebates to owners of property that has vacant portions if that property is in any of the commercial classes or industrial classes, as defined in subsection 308 (1).

7Section 364.(2) states:

Requirements of program

(2) A tax rebate program under this section must meet the following requirements:

1. The program shall apply to eligible property as prescribed by the Minister of Finance for the purposes of this section.

2. If the property is in any of the commercial classes, the rebate shall be equal to 30 per cent of the taxes applicable to the eligible property, as determined under clause (12) (b).

3. If the property is in any of the industrial classes, the rebate shall be equal to 35 per cent of the taxes applicable to the eligible property, as determined under clause (12) (b).

4. An application may be made by or on behalf of the owner.

5. The application shall be made to the local municipality by the last day of February of the year following the taxation year in respect of which the application is made or such later date as the Minister of Finance may prescribe, either before or after the expiry of the time limit.

6. Unless otherwise prescribed by the Minister of Finance, an owner or a person on behalf of the owner shall submit one application for a taxation year, except that an interim application may be made for the first six months of the taxation year. 2001, c. 25, s. 364 (2).

8Section 364.(14) states:

Complaint

(14) A person who has made an application under this section may, within 120 days after the municipality mails the determination of the amount of the rebate, complain to the Assessment Review Board in writing that the amount is too low.

9Section 364.(15) states:

Same, if no determination of rebate

(15) If the municipality fails to mail the determination of the amount of the rebate to the applicant within 120 days of the receipt of the application or such later date as the Minister of Finance may prescribe, the applicant may complain in writing to the Assessment Review Board.

10Section 364.(16) states:

Determination by the Board

(16) In a complaint under subsection (14) or (15), the Assessment Review Board shall determine the amount of any rebate owing to the applicant.

REASONS FOR DECISION

11The Municipal Act, 2001 states in s. 364.(2) 5. “The application shall be made to the local municipality by the last day of February of the year following the taxation year in respect of which the application is made or such later date as the Minister of Finance may prescribe, either before or after the expiry of the time limit.” No extension has been prescribed and since the Municipal Act, 2001 states clearly “the application shall be made…” therefore the Board is left with no jurisdiction to extend the deadline. The applicant clearly stated that he called on the last day of February from China to remind Mr. Moreau, who stated that he attended City Hall and presented the documents on Friday, February 28, 2015. Although Mr. Mundi may have erred when he stated in this hearing that he called Mr. Moreau on Friday February 28, 2014; it is clear from a glance at the calendar that February 28, 2015, unlike the previous year, was on a Saturday. Thus if he reminded Mr. Moreau on February 28, 2015, the rest of Mr. Moreau’s story is not plausible as he could not have attended on the Friday after the call and still submitted the application on time. Even if we allowed for the 12 hour time difference, (CST = EST + 12 hrs.) Mr. Mundi would have had to call prior to 3 or 4 a. m. CST on February 28, for Mr. Moreau to get the call in time to attend City Hall on Friday. No such claim was made in his testimony and Moreau also researched the issue prior to admitting his error, taking even more time off the clock.

12Finally, the City of Brampton described standard operating procedures for dealing with the onslaught of last minute applications that it receives each year. Such careful administration is common for cities of similar size which have established procedures for documenting receipt of time sensitive applications in order to treat citizens fairly while avoiding situations as described in this appeal. Thus the Board finds it unlikely that the application stamped by the City as received on Friday, March 13, 2015 was delivered to the City in person a full two weeks earlier.

CONCLUSION

13The appeal is dismissed. The application is deemed to have been submitted late and the Board has no jurisdiction to extend the deadline.