G. E. B. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2017 CanLII 11479

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: March 03, 2017

FILE NO.: RRD 2016M19

Assessed Person(s): G. E. B.

Appellant(s): G. E. B

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 18

Respondent(s): Township of West Lincoln

Property Location(s): Withheld

Municipality(ies): Township of West Lincoln

Roll Number(s): Withheld

Appeal Number(s): 3059626, 3059627 and 3115027

Taxation Year(s): 2013, 2014 and 2015

Hearing Event No.: 623860

Legislative Authority: Section 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, as amended

Request by: G. E. B. (“Requester”)

Request for: A review of the Board’s Decision (WR 139742) issued on May 16, 2016

Heard: By written submission

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY PAUL MULDOON

INTRODUCTION

1G. E. B. (“Requester”) seeks a review of the decision of the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) (WR 139742) delivered by Member Sharma on May 16, 2016. This request for review was filed with the Board on July 27, 2016.

2At the hearing, the Requester was seeking a reduction, cancellation, or refund of taxes for the taxation years 2013, 2014, and 2015 under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001. The Requester submitted that he suffers degenerative spine disease due to multilevel disc hernia, calcifications, and degenerative arthritis. The Requester also submitted that these medical conditions cause constant pain and prevent him from working.

3The presiding Member dismissed the Requester’s application on the basis that the Requester had failed to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Board that he was unable to meet his tax obligations. In her decision, the presiding Member stated that the Requester had not explored all reasonable steps to be able to meet his tax obligation and that s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, is intended only to provide temporary relief.

4In his request for review, the Requester submits that the presiding Member made errors of fact and law that have directly affected the outcome of the Board’s decision (WR 139742). The Requester is seeking an order cancelling the Board’s decision under Rule 141 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”) and granting relief under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

RELEVANT RULES

5Rules 141 to 146 of the Board’s Rules set out the process whereby the Board may review a decision. Only those decisions eligible for review under Rule 141 will be reviewed by the Board:

141. Decisions Eligible for Review/Board’s Powers on Review

(1) The Board may review all or part of any final decision at the request of a party or upon its own initiative, and may:

(a) confirm, vary, suspend, or cancel the decision; or

(b) order a re-hearing before a different Member.

(2) The Board will not review:

(a) interim or interlocutory orders; and,

(b) decisions on requests for review.

145. Grounds for Review

(1) The Board may consider reviewing its decision if the grounds for the request raise a convincing and compelling case that the Board:

(a) acted outside its jurisdiction;

(b) violated the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness, including allegations of bias;

(c) made an error of law or fact such that the Board would likely have reached a different decision;

(d) should consider new evidence, which was not available at the time of the hearing, but that is credible and could have affected the result; or

(e) heard false or misleading evidence from a party or witness, which was discovered only after the hearing and could have affected the result.

ISSUE AND ORDER SOUGHT

6The Requester seeks a review of the Board’s decision (WR 139742) pursuant to Rule 145(1)(c). The Requester submits that the Board misinterpreted s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, and the section should be interpreted as allowing ongoing relief for individuals with permanent disability.

7The Requester is seeking an order that cancels the Board’s decision and grants relief under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

DISCUSSION AND REASONS

8The presiding Member’s interpretation of s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, is generally consistent with the Board’s jurisprudence. The general principle behind s. 357(1)(d.1) is to provide temporary relief as a last resort to a property owner who, due to unforeseeable circumstances, does not have the ability to pay their taxes but can demonstrate that their property ownership can be sustained with temporary relief. [J. (G.) v. Ottawa (City), 2009 CarswellOnt 1115 (“J.(G.) v. Ottawa”)].

9The Board supports the principle enunciated in J.(G.) v. Ottawa that the provisions providing for the relief under the Municipal Act, 2001, is intended to be a short term remedy in most cases. However, the request at hand presents a unique situation because the Requester has been repeatedly granted relief for almost two decades. The Board is not aware whether the Requester was informed that s. 357(1)(d.1) in the Municipal Act, 2001, is not intended for recurring relief of paying taxes. If the Requester was put on notice that the statute only provides temporary relief and further appeals under the statute may not be granted, the Board has no record of it.

10Under the circumstances of this case, the Board is satisfied that an exception should be made to the general rule concerning the successive granting of relief with respect to the same applicant. At this point in time, denying the relief that the Requester reasonably relied upon without notice would contrary to the rules of natural justice. Hence, the Board will cancel WR139742 and grant the relief that the Requester has been granted over the years. However, it should be made clear that the relief that the Requester is pursuing is not granted automatically. The Requester continues to have the right to again request relief within the timeframe set out in the Municipal Act and the Board will necessarily consider the request based on the particular merits of the case and applicable law.

ORDER

11The Associate Chair finds that the Requester has satisfied the Board that the criteria in Rule 145(b) of the Board’s Rules has been met. Due to the Requester’s reliance on relief being granted for almost two decades, the Associate Chair finds that it would be unfair and contrary to the principles of natural justice to deny relief in this unique situation.

12The Associate Chair orders the Board’s decision (WR 139742) be cancelled and the Requester’s property taxes be adjusted to one hundred ($100) dollars per year for the taxation years 2013, 2014, and 2015.