Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: December 01, 2016

FILE NO.: RR 2016M04

Appellant/Assessed Person(s): Tricont Avenue GP Inc.

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

Respondent(s): Town of Whitby

Property Location(s): 1702 Tricont Avenue

Municipality(ies): Town of Whitby

Roll Number(s): 1809-040-030-08400-0000

Appeal Number(s): 1891347, 1891348, 1907759, 1979223, 2025752, 2333328, 2677412 and 2910055

Taxation Year(s): 2006-2012

Hearing Event No.: 593935

Legislative Authority: Sections 34 and 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended

Heard: By written submission

Request by: Tricont Avenue GP Inc.

Request for: Reinstatement of Appeal Nos. 1891347, 1891348, 1907759, 1979223, 2025752, 2333328, 2677412 and 2910055

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY PAUL MULDOON

INTRODUCTION

1Michael Steinberg, on behalf of Tricont Avenue GP Inc. (the “Requestor”) is requesting the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) to the reinstate appeal numbers 1891347, 1891348, 1907759, 1979223, 2025752, 2333328, 2677412 and 2910055 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 September 4, 2015.

2In his request for review, the Requester states that the appeals were dismissed during a teleconference call (“TCC”) on August 14, 2015 (hearing number 593935) due to non-attendance. MPAC objects 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 Requestor seeks the reinstatement of its appeal numbers 1891347, 1891348, 1907759, 1979223, 2025752, 2333328, 2677412 and 2910055. The Requestor submits that the appeals were dismissed due to non-attendance and also that Paul Grosman’s non-attendance was excusable. MPAC objects to the reinstatement of the appeals.

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.

6The appeals were first filed with the Board in 2008. Since 2008, the appeals have come before the Board at least half a dozen times. The appeals were already dismissed due to non-attendance and reinstated once previously. Mr. Grosman was aware of the previous reinstatement as well as the substantial costs incurred by the parties over the last eight years. MPAC strongly objects to the reinstatement of the appeals.

7Under most circumstances such a case would be unfit for reinstatement. However, Mr. Grosman’s reasons for non-attendance at the TCC were very exceptional. Mr. Grosman was 15 minutes late in calling in to the TCC on August 14, 2015. Mr. Steinberg submitted that this tardiness was due to Mr. Grosman being preoccupied with his mother’s care during her terminal illness.

8The Associate Chair finds that the highly exceptional circumstances of Mr. Grosman’s non-attendance is sufficient to forgive this second non-attendance and that the dismissal of the appeals would be disproportional and unfair to the taxpayer. However, this is a unique finding and one that is heavily coloured by sympathy and compassion. The Associate Chair wishes to highlight that the Member’s decision to dismiss was a reasonable one considering the history of the appeals.

ORDER

9Mr. Steinberg’s request for review is granted and the appeals will be reheard provided that the Statement of Issues is filed with the Board forthwith and that all other procedural steps will be taken without any further delay.