Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: May 26, 2017

FILE NO.: WR 144042

Assessed Person(s): Ted Zellenrath and Milvi Zellenrath

Appellant(s): Ted Zellenrath and Milvi Zellenrath

Respondent(s): City of Markham

Property Location(s): 60 Green Lane, Unit 34, York Region Condo. Plan 802

Municipality(ies): City of Markham

Roll Number(s): 1936-020-111-60034-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3169656 and 3169655

Taxation Year(s): 2014 and 2015

Hearing Event No. 645367

Legislative Authority: Section 364.(14) of the Municipal Act, 2001, R.S.O, 2001, c. 25, as amended

Heard: October 25, 2016 in Markham, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties Ted Zellenrath Milvi Zellenrath

Representative Ted Zellenrath

Parties City of Markham

Representative Mike Jones

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY M. SHARMA

INTRODUCTION

1The Appellant filed an application with the City of Markham (“City”) for a vacancy rebate for the taxation years 2014 and 2015 in regards to his property located at 60 Greenlane, Unit 34, York Region Condo. Plan 802. The subject property is a commercial condominium of approximately 1,500 square feet.

2The vacancy period in 2014 was from November 2013 to April 2014.

3The vacancy period in 2015 was from April 2014 to December 2015.

4The City rejected the application for a vacancy rebate with respect to the 2014 taxation year on or after July 24, 2015.

5The City rejected the application for a vacancy rebate with respect to the 2015 taxation year on July 29, 2016.

6Ted Zellenraths (“Appellant”), by letter dated May 20, 2016 appealed both of the City’s decisions to the Assessment Review Board (“Board”).

ISSUE

7The issue before the Board is to determine whether the Appellants qualify for a vacancy rebate under s. 364 of the Municipal Act, 2001

DECISION

8The Board finds that the Appellants did not meet the requirements set out in s. 364 of the Municipal Act, 2001 and Ontario Regulation 325/01. The Board confirms the decision of the City to reject the Appellant’s claim for a vacancy rebate.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Case for the City

2014 Vacancy Rebate

9The City reviewed the application for the vacancy rebate sought by the Appellant and found that the application failed to fully meet the requirements of the program as specified under s. 364 of the Municipal Act, 2001

10The City, based on its review of the application, found that certain documents that are required were not provided to the City. As a result, the City on May 15, 2015 sent an ‘Incomplete Notice’ to the Appellant notifying him of the documentation which were not provided and informing him to submit the same within 30 days of the date of the notice.

11The City advised the Board that the Appellant failed to provide the documents within the 30 day period requested in its letter of May 15, 2015.

12The City having received no further communication from the Appellant to meet the requirements for the vacancy program, rejected the application. The City, by letter dated July 24, 2015 rejected the application and gave the reason as “information not received in 30 days.”

2015 Vacancy Rebate

13The City reviewed the application for the vacancy rebate sought by the appellant and found that the application failed to fully meet the requirements of the program as specified under s. 364 of the Municipal Act, 2001

14The City, based on its review of the application, found that certain documents that are required were not provided to the City. As a result, the City, on February 8, 2016 sent an ‘Incomplete Notice’ to the appellant notifying him of the documentation which were not provided and informing him to submit the same by March 9, 2016.

15The representative for the City stated that the Appellant did not provide the requested information to the City within the specified time and the application was therefore rejected.

16The City by letter dated July 29, 2016 informed the appellant that the application was rejected on the grounds that the omitted information requested was not received by the stipulated date.

Case for the Appellant

17The Appellant submitted applications to the City in accordance with the Municipal Act, 2001 for vacancy rebates for the taxation years 2014 and 2015.

18The Appellant stated that he disagrees with the decision of the City on both applications for vacancy rebate, and therefore appealed to the Board.

19The Appellant stated that the City rejected his applications because the City claims that he did not provide certain documents that they requested. He however stated to the Board that he could not accept the reason advanced by the City because he had responded to the City’s request and submitted the information on three separate occasions.

Legislation

20Section 364.(1) states in part:

Vacant unit rebate

364. (1) Every local municipality shall have a program to provide tax rebates to owners of property that has vacant portions if that property is in any of the commercial classes or industrial classes, as defined in subsection 308 (1).

21Ontario Regulation 325/01states:

the requirements for a property or portion of a property to be eligible property under s. 364 of the Municipal Act, 2001.

Findings of the Board

22The Board finds that the Municipal Act, 2001 sets out the requirements that must be met in order for an application for a vacancy rebate to be successful.

23The Board further finds that the City properly, and in a timely manner, communicated with the Appellant that his application was incomplete and advised the Appellant that further documents were required to process his application.

24The Board finds that the City allowed an appropriate time frame within which the documents requested by letter were to be submitted.

25The Board notes that the Appellant could not provide any proof to support his claim that he complied with the City’s request on three separate occasions.

26The Board finds that the Appellant failed to comply with the requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001 with respect to the request for additional information by the City. The Board confirms the City’s decision to reject the applications for vacancy rebate for taxation years 2014 and 2015.

CONCLUSION

27Based on the evidence provided at the hearing, the Board finds that the Appellant did not meet the requirements set out in s. 364 of the Municipal Act, 2001 and confirms the decision of the City of Markham to reject the Appellant’s claim for a vacancy rebate under s. 364 of the Municipal Act, 2001 for taxation years 2014 and 2015.