Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: June 05, 2017

FILE NO.: DM 2017M02

Moving Party(ies): Heatherwood Properties Inc.

Respondent(s): City of Vaughan

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”), Region 14

Property Location(s): Rutherford Road

Municipality(ies): City of Vaughan

Roll Number(s): 1928-000-210-35225-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3151163 and 3135723

Taxation Year(s): 2015 and 2016

Hearing Event No.: 681819

Legislative Authority: Rule 83 of the Assessment Review Board’s (“Board”) Rules of Practice and Procedure

Heard: May 18, 2017 in writing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Heatherwood Properties Inc.	Colin Francis
MPAC	Leo Verduci
City of Vaughan	Aaron Zamler

DISPOSITION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY SCOTT McANSH

DISPOSITION OF MOTION

Background

1On May 11, 2017, Heatherwood Properties Inc. (“Heatherwood”) filed a motion in writing, seeking an adjournment of the hearing of these appeals, which are set to take place on June 19, 2017. Notice of the Hearing was delivered to the parties on April 24, 2017. The evidence for this motion is found in an affidavit from Heatherwood’s representative which indicates that he will be “out of town” on the hearing date. There are a number of emails attached to the affidavit, which indicate that the he will be attending a conference that day. The other parties have not filed any evidence or submissions, other than indicating that they consent to the adjournment request.

2On May 24, 2017, the Board advised the parties that the Appellant’s request for the adjournment is denied, with written reasons to follow. These are those reasons.

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION OF MOTION

Legislation and Rules

3The relevant legislation and Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure are:

Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A. 26:

Duty re appeals

36. (5) As soon as practicable after the return of the assessment roll for a municipality or for non-municipal territory, as the case may be, the Assessment Review Board shall hear and dispose of all appeals respecting assessments for the year for which the roll is returned.

Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure:

Motion for Adjournment

83. A party may bring a motion for an adjournment of a hearing event, setting out:

(a) the consent of the other parties, if applicable;

(b) a suggested date for hearing event;

(c) detailed reasons for the request;

(d) evidence that the party made all reasonable efforts to avoid the adjournment; and

(e) any inconvenience to other persons.

Factors to Consider

84. Before granting any adjournment, the Board must consider:

(a) the interests of the parties in a full and fair proceeding;

(b) the impact of the adjournment on parties and other persons;

(c) the integrity of the Board’s process, including the Board's ability to efficiently resolve all appeals filed with the Board within the current four year cycle;

(d) the circumstances giving rise to the need for an adjournment;

(e) the timeliness of the request for the adjournment;

(f) the position of the other parties;

(g) the public interest in the delivery of the Board’s services in a just, timely and cost effective manner; and

(h) any practice directions issued by the Board.

Powers of the Board upon Adjournment Request

85. When an adjournment is granted the Board may impose any conditions it considers appropriate.

Issue

4The only issue is whether Heatherwood’s request for an adjournment should be granted.

Discussion

5Rule 84 lists the factors that I must consider before granting an adjournment. I will address each factor in turn.

6The first factor is “the interests of the parties in a full and fair proceeding.” The parties clearly have an interest in a full and fair hearing, but the evidence before me is that Heatherwood did not make any efforts to facilitate this hearing. There is no evidence that any attempts were made to find another representative, or for this representative to attend different conference.

7The second factor is “the impact of the adjournment on parties and other persons.” The impact on Heatherwood is a need for an alternate representative, or for its representative to miss an annual conference. There is no evidence of impacts on other parties or persons.

8The third factor is “the integrity of the Board’s process, including the Board's ability to efficiently resolve all appeals filed with the Board within the current four year cycle.” Section 36.(5) of the Assessment Act imposes on the Board an obligation to hear and dispose of all appeals as soon as practicable after the return of the roll. The Board cannot resolve disputes on a timely basis if hearings do not proceed when scheduled. Each delay results in wasted time and resources, due to the difficulty in reassigning Members of the Board on short notice.

9The fourth factor is “the circumstances giving rise to the need for an adjournment.” Attendance at an annual conference should not take precedence over this hearing at this late stage in the proceeding. The evidence indicates that this is a planned absence, which arose after the notice of this hearing was sent to the parties.

10The fifth factor is “the timeliness of the request for the adjournment.” The emails in evidence indicate that the first request to the other parties for this adjournment was on April 28, 2017. This motion was not brought until May 11, 2017, two weeks later. It is also unclear when Heatherwood’s representative became aware of the conference.

11The sixth factor is “the position of the other parties.” Here, the other parties consent to the adjournment.

12The final relevant factor is “the public interest in the delivery of the Board’s services in a just, timely and cost effective manner.” It is important that hearings take place when scheduled. The hearing is scheduled just five weeks from when this motion was filed. Granting the adjournment, at this point, would result in wasted resources for the other parties and the Board. The Board cannot deliver its services in a timely and cost effective manner if the personal schedule of a party, or its representative, is given priority over the Board’s process.

13I have considered all of the factors set out in Rule 84. The only factor supporting an adjournment here is the consent of the other parties. None of the other factors support granting the adjournment. Accommodating a representative’s personal schedule at this late stage of the appeal proceeding is not a situation justifying an adjournment. Heatherwood’s motion for an adjournment is denied.