Michael Bowman v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2016 CanLII 89338

Assessment Review Board / Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: December 13, 2016

FILE NO.: RR 2016M03

Appellant/Assessed Person(s): Michael Bowman

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation

Respondent(s): City of Mississauga

Property Location(s): 0 Airport Road Pearson Terminals Travelex

Municipality(ies): City of Mississauga

Roll Number(s): 2105-050-113-60058-0000

Appeal Number(s): 2958249, 3006553 and 3085338

Taxation Year(s): 2013, 2014 and 2015

Hearing Event No.: 581633

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

Heard: By written submission

Request by: Travelex Canada Ltd.

Request for: Reinstatement of Appeal Nos. 2958249, 3006553 and 3085338

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY PAUL MULDOON

INTRODUCTION

1Michael Bowman on behalf of Travelex Canada Ltd. (the “applicant”) is requesting the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) reinstate the appeal numbers 2958249, 3006553, and 3085338 for taxation years 2013, 2014 and 2015 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 January 8, 2016.

2In his request for review, the applicant states he did not receive notice for Hearing number 581633 which took place on September 30, 2015 and during which the appeals were dismissed due to non-attendance. Mr. Bowman further states that MPAC does not object to the reinstatement of the appeals.

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

4The applicant seeks the reinstatement of their appeal numbers 2958249, 3006553, and 3085338 by way of a request for review. The applicant submits that the appeals were dismissed at no fault of their own and that all parties agree that the appeals should be reinstated.

DISCUSSION AND REASONS

5The 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.

6Mr. Bowman did not receive the notice for Hearing 581633 which took place on September 30, 2015. Consequently, appeals 2958249, 3006553, and 9085338 were dismissed due to non-attendance. Mr. Bowman has filed a detailed affidavit outlining the steps he took to locate the notice of hearing. The Associate Chair accepts Mr. Bowman’s submission and finds that the appeals were dismissed at no fault of the applicant.

7MPAC and the applicant have agreed on a settlement which will be drafted if and when the appeals are reinstated. MPAC does not object the reinstatement of the appeals.

8The Associate Chair finds that the appeals were dismissed on no fault of the applicant and that all parties have consented to their reinstatement. Also, there is no evidence or submissions that there is prejudice to any party.

ORDER

9Mr. Bowman’s request for review is granted and appeals 2958249, 3006553 and 3085338 will be reheard.