E. M. M. v. City of Toronto, 2016 CanLII 76504

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

November 1, 2016

FILE NO.:

WR 140893

Assessed Person(s):

A. M. and M. G

Applicant(s):

Respondent(s):

City of Toronto

Property Location(s):

Withheld

Municipality(ies):

City of Toronto

Roll Number(s):

Withheld

Application Number(s):

3163355

Taxation Year(s):

2014

Hearing Event No.

622437

Legislative Authority:

Section 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A

Heard:

April 22, 2016 in Toronto, Ontario

Parties

Counsel⁺/Representative

Self-represented

No one appeared

Self-represented

City of Toronto

Georgia Tanner⁺

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY M. SHARMA

INTRODUCTION

1A. M. (the “Applicant”) filed an application with the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) seeking a cancellation or reduction of property taxes for the taxation year 2014.

2The Applicant is seeking a reduction, cancellation or refund of taxes under s. 323(1) (e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 (“COTA”) because of an inability to pay the taxes due to sickness or extreme poverty.

3In accordance with the stipulation under s. 323(3) the last date for filing an application with regard to the taxation year 2014 is February 28, 2015.

4On August 31, 2015, the Applicant wrote to the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) requesting an extension of the time to file an application for reduction, cancellation or refund of property taxes pursuant to s. 323(1)(e) of COTA for the 2014 taxation year.

5The extension of time to file an application in respect to the 2014 taxation year was granted by the Board.

6A hearing of the 2014 appeal was scheduled for April 22, 2016.

7On March 2, 2016, the Board informed the Applicant via telephone that the hearing scheduled for the 2014 taxation year could not proceed because the application deadline had not been met. This decision was communicated in writing to the Applicant in the Board’s letter dated March 4, 2016.

8The deadline date for filing an application with the City for the relief sought by the Applicant is stated in the COTA s. 323(3) as follows:

Timing

323(3) An application under this section must be filed with the treasurer on or before February 28 of the year following the year in respect of which the application is made.

ISSUE

9At the commencement of the hearing, Counsel for the City, Georgia Tanner advised the Board that the City objects to the hearing of the appeal regarding the application for relief for 2014 taxation year stating that in the City’s opinion the Board did not have the authority to grant an extension of the deadline date for filing of the 2014 application and therefore the appeal should not be heard.

10The Board agreed that it would hear arguments regarding the question of the Board’s authority to grant an extension of time as tabled by Ms. Tanner.

DECISION

11The Board denies the application filed by the Applicant for an extension of time to allow for a hearing seeking a reduction, cancellation or refund of taxes under s. 323(1) (e) of the COTA for the 2014 taxation year.

12The Board finds that the application was filed beyond the filing deadline date established under the COTA. The Board has neither the authority nor jurisdiction to grant an extension of time prescribed in legislation.

13The Board upholds the objection filed by the City and dismisses the request for an extension of time for a hearing on the application for relief due to sickness or extreme poverty filed for the taxation year 2014.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

14Section 323(1) (e) of the COTA states:

Cancellation, reduction, refund of taxes

(1) Upon application to the city treasurer made in accordance with this section, the City may cancel, reduce or refund all or part of taxes levied on land in the year in respect of which the application is made if,

(e) the applicant is unable to pay taxes because of sickness or extreme poverty;

15Section 323(3) of the COTA states:

Timing

(3) An application under this section must be filed with the treasurer on or before February 28 of the year following the year in respect of which the application is made.

16 Section 25.1(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22 states:

Rules

25.1 (1) A tribunal may make rules governing the practice and procedure before it.

Applicant’s Position

17The Applicant referred the Board to a letter dated August 31, 2015 addressed to the Board in which she requested an extension of time to file an application for the reduction, cancellation or refund of property taxes under s. 323(1) (e) of COTA for the taxation year 2014.

18The Applicant informed the Board that the impetus for seeking an extension of time to file for relief of taxes for 2014 taxation year was based on advice she received from staff at the City.

19The Applicant provided a copy of ‘Notice of Hearing’ she received from the Board dated February 12, 2016 which informed her that a Hearing (Hearing No. 622437) will be held on April 22, 2016 pertaining to her application for relief of taxes regarding the 2014 and 2015 taxation years.

20The Applicant stated that on March 2, 2016 she received a telephone call from the Board informing her that the Hearing to consider her application in respect of the 2014 taxation year scheduled on April 22, 2016 will not be heard because the application was filed outside the deadline date.

21Pursuant to the telephone communication from the Board, the Applicant on March 7, 2016 wrote to the Board and the key elements of this communication are the following:

i. The Applicant restated her telephone conversation of March 2, 2016 with the Board in which she was informed that her application for relief of taxes for the taxation year 2014 that was filed on August 21, 2015 and scheduled for a Board Hearing was withdrawn.

ii. The Applicant requested the consideration of the Board to extend the filing date by invoking the Board’s Rules of Practice (“Rules”) by stating the following:

I would like this affidavit to serve as my appeal under the Assessment Review Board Rules of Practice and Procedure rule 27 (a) – circumstances where late appeals may be considered.

iii. The Applicant confirms that she intended in her original request dated August 31, 2015 to request the Board to extend the time to file an application for relief for the 2014 taxation year.

22The Applicant in her closing remarks stated that as far as she is concerned, her request for an extension of time to file an application for relief of taxes pertaining to the 2014 taxation year was approved. Further, she stated that she received a notice of hearing that indicated that the application was scheduled for a Board Hearing on April 22, 2016 and therefore the hearing should proceed.

City’s Position

23At the outset of the Hearing, Ms. Tanner informed the presiding Member of the hearing that the City was raising an issue regarding the extension of time granted by the Board to the Applicant to file an application for relief of taxes for the taxation year 2014 because the City is of the view that the Board does not have the authority to grant such an extension.

24Ms. Tanner then advised the Board that it should not entertain this application before reaching a resolution of the issue raised by the City.

25Ms. Tanner tabled a prior decision of the Board in the matter between Madison Property Management Inc. v. Toronto (City) 2013, which was heard by the Board on January 29, 2013. The key issue in this case pertains to the question of the Board’s jurisdiction to extend the time to file an application because the application was not filed by the deadline date prescribed. Ms. Tanner specifically pointed out that the decision reached by the Member in the above mentioned case is as follows:

This Board has no jurisdiction to provide relief to the applicant under s. 323(1)(a) because the application was not filed by the deadline date prescribed by s. 323(3). I am unaware of any provision that would permit me to extend the statutory time limit.

26Ms. Tanner stated that based on the precedent established in the prior decision of the Board which addressed an identical issue, it is clear that the Board has no authority to extend the statutory time limit prescribed in legislation for the filing of application for relief of taxes; and therefore the Board could not proceed with the Hearing.

ANALYSIS

27The Board reviewed the letter dated August 31, 2015 submitted by the Applicant to the Board in which she requested to extend the time to file an application for reduction, cancellation or refund of property taxes under s. 323(1) (e) of the COTA for the taxation year 2014. The Board notes that the letter is a simple request submitted in good faith for the consideration of the Board.

28The Board proceeded with its internal administrative process to deal with the Applicant’s request of August 31, 2015. The end result of the administrative routine is that the Board sent a ‘Notice of Hearing’ dated February 12, 2016 to the Applicant in which she was notified that her application for relief of taxes for the taxation years 2014 and 2015 would be heard on April 22, 2016.

29At this point in time, the Applicant has every reason to believe that her request to extend the date for filing was granted and the confirmation of such was the receipt of the Notice of Hearing which clearly indicated that her 2014 application was scheduled for a formal Hearing of the Board.

30The Board reviewed copies of e-mail correspondence between the staff at the City and the Board in which the City staff expressed some concern regarding the untimely application of the Applicant. The Board observes that City staff, on February 19, 2016 sent an e-mail to the Board requesting an explanation for granting an extension to the Applicant to file the s. 323(1) (e) for the taxation year 2014 that was filed on August 31, 2015, although the last date to file such an application is February 28, 2015. The Board’s response to the City was that the Board will be removing the 2014 appeal from the Hearing scheduled for April 22, 2016.

31As a result of the decision by the Board to remove the 2014 application from the hearing, the Board, on March 2, 2016 contacted the Applicant by telephone and informed her that her application for the 2014 taxation year would be removed from the Hearing scheduled for April 22, 2016. The Board followed up this action by sending to the Applicant an ‘Acknowledgement Letter’ dated March 4, 2016 in which the Board advised the Applicant that her application is late and the filing deadline is determined in the legislation and the Board did not have the authority nor the jurisdiction to extend the time.

32Pursuant to this action by the Board, the Applicant wrote the Board requesting an extension of time to file an application for the 2014 taxation year by invoking an appeal under the Board Rules – Rule 27 – Circumstances where Late Appeals May Be Considered. The Board is of the view that the request by the Applicant to obtain an extension of time under Rule 27 of the Board’s Rules is misplaced and cannot be entertained for the following reasons:

i. The Board in accordance with s. 25.1(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act is entitled to make rules governing the practice and procedure before it. The Board’s Rules are strictly designed and established to facilitate the practical functioning of the Board. Therefore, the application of the Board’s Rules is strictly limited to the administration of the Tribunal’s operations and do not carry any implied or explicit authority to alter requirements set in legislation.

ii. The Rule gives the Board discretion to accept an appeal after the time set out in any statute or regulation provided that certain specific conditions as enumerated in the Rule exist and which contributed to the late appeal. In such a situation, the Applicant will have to provide the Board with an affidavit satisfying the Board that the conditions which caused the late appeal were present. In this case the Board finds that the Applicant did not satisfy the requirements specified in Rule 27 in order that the Board may consider her request.

33The Board reviewed and considered the applicability and relevance of the decision rendered by the Board in the matter between Madison Property Management Inc. v. Toronto (City) 2013 and the City that dealt with an application for relief that was filed beyond the deadline date prescribed. In this appeal it was decided that:

This Board has no jurisdiction to provide relief to the applicant under s.323 (1) (a) because the application was not filed by the deadline date prescribed by s. 323(3).

The Board holds a similar view in this case and finds that it does not have jurisdiction to provide relief to the applicant under s.323(1) (a) because the application was not filed by the deadline date prescribed by s. 323(3).

CONCLUSION

34The Board denies the application filed by the Applicant for an extension of time to allow for a hearing seeking a reduction, cancellation or refund of taxes under s. 323(1) (e) of the COTA for the 2014 taxation year.

35The Board finds that the application was filed beyond the filing deadline date established under the COTA. The Board has neither the authority nor jurisdiction to grant an extension of time prescribed in legislation.

36The Board upholds the objection filed by the City of Toronto and dismisses the request for an extension of time for a hearing on the application for relief due to sickness or extreme poverty filed for the taxation year 2014.

“M. Sharma”

M. SHARMA

MEMBER

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