Viner Assets Inc. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2017 CanLII 46012

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: July 10, 2017

FILE NO.: RR 2017M02

Assessed Person(s): Viner Assets Inc.

Appellant(s): Viner Assets Inc.

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 03

Respondent(s): City of Ottawa

Property Location(s): 261 Laurier Avenue East

Municipality(ies): City of Ottawa

Roll Number(s): 0614-021-101-33900-0000

Appeal Number(s): 2960020, 3006051, 3071678, and 3144974

Taxation Year(s): 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016

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

Request by: Viner Assets Inc.

Request for: Reinstatement of appeals 2960020, 3006051, 3071678 and 3144974

Heard: By written submission

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY PAUL MULDOON

INTRODUCTION

1Alison Davis from Altus Group, on behalf of Viner Assets Inc. (the “Requester”) is requesting the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) reinstate the appeals 2960020, 3006051, 3071678 and 3144974 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 January 4, 2017.

2The Requester submits that the appeals for the 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 taxation years were withdrawn in error when a letter was mistakenly forwarded to the Board dated January 3, 2017. The request for reinstatement materials indicate that the request was copied to MPAC.

ISSUES AND ORDER SOUGHT

3The Requester seeks the reinstatement of appeals 2960020, 3006051, 3071678 and 3144974. The Requester submits that the appeals were withdrawn in error.

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

5Pursuant to subsection 17(2) of the Adjudicative Tribunals Accountability, Governance and Appointments Act, 2009, SO 2009, c 33 the Executive Chair of Environment and Land Tribunals Ontario, Bruce Krushelnicki, delegates his decision making authority to Paul Muldoon, the Associate Chair of the Assessment Review Board to consider and determine requests for review. 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 exercised on a case-by-case basis.

6The Requester submits that appeals 2960020, 3006051, 3071678 and 3144974 were withdrawn in error by letter dated January 3, 2017 which was mistakenly forwarded to the Board. The Requester became aware of this mistake and requested reinstatement the next day, January 4, 2017.

7The appeals were withdrawn as the result of a clerical error and refusing to grant reinstatement in this case would result in significant prejudice to the Requester. MPAC has not objected to the reinstatement of the appeals. There is no evidence that reinstatement would result in prejudice to the municipality. Furthermore, the very short period between the Respondent’s error and its request for reinstatement makes it unlikely for either MPAC or the municipality to be prejudiced by the reinstatement of the appeals. The Requester’s circumstances meet the requirements for reinstatement.

ORDER

8The Requester’s request for review is granted and the appeals will be reinstated.