Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: January 26, 2017

FILE NO.: DM 144343

Moving Party(ies): Assessment Review Board

Respondent(s): Ogbu & Blius Engineering Inc.

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 21

Property Location(s): 35 37 Parkhill Road West and 225 Linden Drive

Municipality(ies): City of Cambridge

Roll Number(s): 3006-040-046-11600-0000 and 3006-100-024-22100-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3124541, 3124544, 3157157, 3124542, 3124543 and 3157198

Taxation Year(s): 2014, 2015 and 2016

Hearing Event No.: 639874

Legislative Authority: Section 23(3) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, RSO 1990, c S.22, as amended

Heard: September 9, 2016 by teleconference

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel+/Representative
Ogbu & Blius Engineering Inc.	Anthony Okafor
MPAC	Tony Pileggi
City of Cambridge	David Hotson

DISPOSITION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY SCOTT McANSH

DISPOSITION OF MOTION

1This motion was set by Associate Chair Paul Muldoon to “discuss where the person has the status to represent another person under the laws of Ontario.” I interpreted this as a motion by the Board to remove Anthony Okafor continuing to act as the representative of Ogbu & Blius Engineering Inc. [the “Appellant”]. I explained the legal framework governing representatives to Mr. Okafor at the teleconference on September 9, 2016 and gave him time to prepare written submissions on the issue. I also gave MPAC and the City of Cambridge time to provide a written response to Mr. Okafor’s submissions.

2I have carefully reviewed those submissions. For the reasons set out below, I grant the motion and remove Mr. Okafor as representative for the Appellant. A teleconference will be convened within 60 days to determine how the Appellant intends to be represented in these appeals.

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION OF MOTION

3Mr. Okafor has appeared on a number of prehearing matters for these appeals as the representative of the Appellant. It came to the Board’s attention that Mr. Okafor is not licensed to provide legal services by the Law Society of Upper Canada. The law in Ontario is clear that if Mr. Okafor is not licenced, or exempt from the licensing requirements, then he is not competent to represent the Appellant before this Board. That is the only issue on this motion.

4The Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”) set out how parties may appear before the Board. Rule 9 specifies that parties “may be self-represented, represented by a person licensed by the Law Society of Upper Canada or by an unlicensed person where permitted by the Law Society Act and its regulations and by-laws.”

5Representing parties before this Board is the provision of legal services, pursuant to clause 1(6)(3) of the Law Society Act, RSO 1990, c L.8. The Law Society Act limits who may provide legal services in Ontario. Pursuant to s. 26.1(1), “no person, other than a licensee whose licence is not suspended, shall… provide legal services in Ontario.” There is an exception in to that prohibition in s. 26.1(5), which permits unlicensed persons to provide legal services “if and to the extent permitted by the by-laws.”

6The Law Society of Upper Canada has enacted bylaws permitting the provision of legal services without a licence in Part V of Bylaw 4. The only relevant provision of Bylaw 4, for the purposes of this motion, is the exemption for an “In-house legal services provider” in s. 30(1), which exempts:

An individual who, i. is employed by a single employer that is not a licensee or a licensee firm, ii. provides the legal services only for and on behalf of the employer, and iii. does not provide any legal services to any person other than the employer.

7Mr. Okafor acknowledges that he is not licenced by the Law Society of Upper Canada. He relies on the in-house legal services provider exemption in Bylaw 4 as the legal authority to act as a representative before the Board. Both MPAC and the City of Cambridge argue that Mr. Okafor should be removed as a representative because he does not fall within the in-house legal services exemption. They say that he is not employed by the Appellant.

8Mr. Okafor’s own submissions state that he ceased to act as agent for the Appellant in 2002. Since that time he states that he has been “asked to assist” the person acting for the Appellant. There is no evidence before me that Mr. Okafor is employed by the Appellant, or that the Appellant is his only employer. Employment by a single employer is one of the mandatory requirements of the in-house legal services exemption.

9It is also well settled law that a person making an allegation must prove the allegation, see for instance 118143 Ontario Inc. (Canamex Promotions) v. Mississauga (City), 2016 ONCA 620 at paragraph 37. Mr. Okafor is alleging that he is exempt from licensing by the Law Society of Upper Canada. He is the party best placed to provide evidence that he meets the requirements of the in-house legal services provider, but he has failed to do so. Nor has he provided any evidence that he meets any of the other exemptions in Bylaw 4. I am not convinced that Mr. Okafor meets any of the exemption provisions in s. 30 of Bylaw 4.

10Mr. Okafor cannot appear as a representative without being licenced or exempted. The exclusion of unlicensed representatives is expressly authorised by s. 23(3) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, RSO 1990, c S.22 if I find that the “person is not competent properly to represent or to advise the party.” Having found that Mr. Okafor is not eligible to be a representative pursuant to Rule 9, I do not need to determine if he meets the competency requirement set out in the Statutory Powers Procedure Act. Mr. Okafor cannot act as the representative of the Appellant because he does not fall within the list of eligible persons set out in Rule 9.

11The Appellant will need to find new representation if it wishes to prosecute these appeals. A teleconference will be convened within 60 days of the release of these reasons to discuss the Appellant’s representation.