Karen Fisman, Frank Guarascio v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2016 CanLII 78282

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

November 07, 2016

FILE NO.:

RR 2016M01

Appellant/Assessed Person(s):

Karen Fisman, Frank Guarascio

Respondent(s):

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”)

Respondent(s):

City of Toronto

Property Location(s):

7 Glen Cedar Road

Municipality(ies):

City of Toronto

Roll Number(s):

1914-013-030-00400-0000

Appeal Number(s):

3008856

Taxation Year(s):

2014

Legislative Authority:

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

Request by:

MPAC

Request for:

Reinstatement of Appeal No. 3008856

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY PAUL MULDOON

INTRODUCTION

1Drew Samuels on behalf of MPAC (the “applicant”) is requesting the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) to the reinstate appeal number 3008856, for taxation year 2014 by way of a request for review under Rule 145 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”). This request for review was filed with the Board on August 18, 2016.

2In his request for review, Mr. Samuels states that the appeal was withdrawn in error and that MPAC and the property owner have reached a settlement on the quantum of the assessment and the minutes of settlement will be processed as soon as the request for review is granted.

RELEVANT RULES

3Rules 141 to 146 of the Board’s Rules set out the process whereby the Board may grant a reinstatement by way of a review of the decision that dismissed the appeals. In effect, a reinstatement may be granted 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.

ISSUE AND ORDER SOUGHT

5The applicant seeks the reinstatement of their appeal number 3008856 by way of a request for review. The applicant submits that the appeal was withdrawn in error at no fault of their own and that all parties agree that the appeal should be reinstated.

DISCUSSION AND REASONS

6The Associate Chair considers requests for review as a delegate of the Executive Chair of the Environment and Land Tribunals Ontario. As a general rule, the Associate Chair will exercise the discretion authorized under the Rules to grant a new hearing if the Associate Chair is satisfied that: the appeal was dismissed as a result of no fault of the applicant; all parties consent to the rehearing; and there is no obvious prejudice to any party (Transmetro Limited v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2016 CANLII 2587 (ON ARB)). In other cases, discretion will be used on a case-by-case basis.

7The Associate Chair finds that the appeal was dismissed as a result of no fault of the applicant and that all parties have consented to its reinstatement. Also, there is no evidence or submissions that there is prejudice to any party.

ORDER

8MPAC’s request for review is granted and the matter will be reheard.