Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: May 30, 2017
Assessed Person(s): S-K Sportswear Limited, Abraham Koplowicz, Szmul Koplowicz
Appellant(s): S-K Sportswear Limited et al
Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 09
Respondent(s): City of Toronto
Property Location(s): 240 Markland Drive
Municipality(ies): City of Toronto
Roll Number(s): 1919-033-190-00100-0000
Appeal Number(s): 3015331
Taxation Year(s): 2014
Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended
Request by: S-K Sportswear Ltd.
Request for: Reinstatement of appeal 3015331
Heard: By written submission
DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY PAUL MULDOON
INTRODUCTION
1Richard R. Minster, on behalf of S-K Sportswear Ltd. (the “Requester”) is requesting the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) reinstate appeal 3015331 for the 2014 taxation year 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 February 9, 2017.
2Mr. Minster submits that the 2014 appeal was withdrawn as the result of a mutual misapprehension between the Requester and MPAC. The request for reinstatement materials indicate that MPAC consents to the reinstatement and the City of Toronto does not take a position on the reinstatement.
ISSUES AND ORDER SOUGHT
3The Requester seeks its appeal for the 2014 taxation year (Appeal No. 3015331) to be reinstated and processed in accordance with the Minutes of Settlement submitted to the Board by MPAC’s counsel, Ms. Karey Lunau, on January 13, 2017. The Requester submits that the appeal was withdrawn in error due to a mutual misapprehension between the parties.
RELEVANT RULES
4A request for review is received 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.
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 submits that it received a Property Assessment Notice for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years in October 2014. The Requester claims that it was unaware that the assessment had also increased for the 2014 taxation year. The Requestor settled with MPAC for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years and withdrew its appeals. MPAC agrees that the exclusion of the 2014 taxation year from the minutes of settlement and the withdrawal of the 2014 appeal was due to a mutual misapprehension between the parties. Ms. Lunau has attached executed Minutes of Settlement for the 2014 taxation year, paralleling the settlement the parties reached for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years, to her letter to the Board, dated January 13, 2017.
7The appeals were withdrawn as the result of a bona fide error and refusing to grant reinstatement in this case would result in significant prejudice to the Requester. MPAC consents to the reinstatement. The City of Toronto is not taking a position on this request and there is no evidence that reinstatement would result in prejudice to the City. The Requester’s circumstances meet the requirements for reinstatement.
8The Requester also seeks the 2014 appeal to be processed in accordance with the Minutes of Settlement attached to Ms. Lunau’s letter, dated January 13, 2017. Since the parties have provided the Board with executed Minutes of Settlement, the Board will process the reinstated 2014 appeal in accordance with the Minutes of Settlement for the 2014 taxation year in order to resolve this appeal in an expedient manner.
ORDER
9The Requester’s request for review is granted. The Requester’s appeal for the 2014 taxation year (Appeal No. 3015331) is reinstated and will be processed in accordance with the Minutes of Settlement for the