Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: January 11, 2017

FILE NO.: RR 2016M05

Appellant /Assessed Person(s): Linmac Inc.

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

Respondent(s): Town of Cobourg

Property Location(s): 1011 Elgin Street West

Municipality(ies): Town of Cobourg

Roll Number(s): 1421-000-210-20105-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3094785

Taxation Year(s): 2015

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

Heard: By written submission

Request by: Linmac Inc.

Request for: Reinstatement of Appeal Number 3094785

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY PAUL MULDOON

INTRODUCTION

1David Johnston, Altus Group Ltd., on behalf of the owner of the property at 1011 Elgin Street West in the Town of Cobourg (the “applicant”) is requesting the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) to the reinstate appeal number 3094785, for taxation year 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 August 18, 2016.

2In his request for review, Mr. Johnston states that the appeal was withdrawn in error and that MPAC and the Town of Cobourg does not object to the reinstatement of the appeal.

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 number 3094785 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 The applicant submits that the appeal was withdrawn in error at no fault of their own and that all parties agree that the appeal should be reinstated.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

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. In this case, the applicant’s representative inadvertently withdrew the appeal by a letter dated January 8, 2016.

6The Associate Chair finds that the appeal was dismissed in error and that all parties have consented to its reinstatement. Also, there is no evidence or submissions that there is prejudice to any party.

ORDER

7Linmac Inc.’s request for review is granted and the matter will be reheard.