Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: April 4, 2017

FILE NO.: RR 2016M08

Assessed Person(s): Danny Tamtakiridis and Georgina Tamtakiridis

Appellant(s): Danny Tamtakiridis and Georgina Tamtakiridis

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 09

Respondent(s): City of Toronto

Property Location(s): 10 Barbara Crescent

Municipality(ies): City of Toronto

Roll Number(s): 1906-024-460-07300-0000

Appeal Number(s): 2995133, 3016565 and 3078591

Taxation Year(s): 2013, 2014 and 2015

Hearing Event No.: 585346

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

Request by: Georgina Tamtakiridis

Request for: Reinstatement of appeal numbers 2995133, 3016565 and 3078591

Heard: By written submission

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY PAUL MULDOON

INTRODUCTION

1Georgina Tamtakiridis (the “Requester”) is requesting the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) reinstate appeals 2995133, 3016565 and 3078591 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 March 30, 2016.

2In her request for review, the Requester states that the appeals were dismissed during the hearing on June 9, 2015 (hearing number 585346) due to non-attendance. 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 Requester seeks the reinstatement of appeals 2995133, 3016565 and 3078591. The Requester submits that the appeals were dismissed due to an excusable non-attendance caused by sudden illness.

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 Requester’s non-attendance was caused by a sudden illness and is therefore excusable. Neither MPAC nor the municipality has raised an objection to the reinstatement of the appeals. Similarly, no concerns regarding prejudice to any party were raised with the Board. The Requester’s circumstances meet the requirements for reinstatement.

7In her request for review, the Requester sought the reinstatement of only the appeals 2995133 and 3016565 for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years, respectively. However, her deemed appeal 3078591 for the 2015 taxation year was also dismissed. Reinstating this appeal is in the jurisdiction of the Board and as such the appeals will be reinstated for years 2013, 2014 and 2015.

ORDER

8The Requester’s request for review is granted and the appeals 2995133, 3016565 and 3078591 will be reheard.