Ogbu and Blius Engineering Inc. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2017 CanLII 54406

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: August 14, 2017

FILE NO.: DM 147942

Assessed Person(s): Ogbu and Blius Engineering Inc.

Appellant(s): Ogbu and Blius Engineering Inc.

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

Respondent(s): City of Cambridge

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

Municipality(ies): City of Cambridge

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

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

Taxation Year(s): 2014, 2015 and 2016

Hearing Event No.: 681589

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

Heard: July 18, 2017 in Cambridge, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Representative

Ogbu and Blius Engineering Inc.

No one appeared

MPAC

Lucyna Michniewicz and Debbie Hebbes

City of Cambridge

David Hotson and Kendra Scholl

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DISPOSITION OF MOTION DELIVERED BY DAN WEAGANT ON JULY 18, 2017

INTRODUCTION

1The subject properties have been the subject of several hearing events in the past. David Hotson and Kendra Scholl, representing the City of Cambridge (“City”), brought a motion to the Board to have these appeals dismissed. In accordance with the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, I recessed the proceeding shortly after 9:30 a.m. to allow the Appellant to make representation by 10 a.m. In the intervening time, I was able to contact the Board to confirm that there was no communication from the Appellant regarding attendance at the hearing.

2Mr. Hotson sought to have these appeals dismissed for the following reasons:

• On January 26, 2017, the Board made a decision to remove Anthony Okafor as representative for the Appellant. Despite this decision, Mr. Hotson submitted that Mr. Okafor continues to communicate with the City. Mr. Hotson believes this continued participation by Mr. Okafor is disruptive and counter-productive to the meaningful resolution of these appeals.

• On April 13, 2017, the Board issued Board Order 142410. This Order directed that an inspection be undertaken before May 31, 2017 and that two employees from the City be present for the purpose. The same Board Order set the date, time and location for today’s proceeding, with the stated purpose to conduct a full hearing. Mr. Hotson submits that the Appellant did not permit access to the subject properties for the purpose of inspection, either before or after the May 31, 2017 date stipulated in the Board Order.

• The Appellant failed to appear at the hearing or to send a qualified representative in its place.

3Lucyna Michniewicz and Debbie Hebbes, representing MPAC, supported Mr. Hotson’s motion to dismiss, adding that Mr. Okafor continues to provide correspondence on these appeals to MPAC, and that MPAC has taken additional steps in preparation for this hearing to ensure the productions for today’s hearing arrive at the Appellant’s correct address.

4I do not consider motions to dismiss lightly. The dismissal of an appeal eliminates the rights of an Appellant to have their case heard by an adjudicator.

5Equally important is the responsibility of the Appellant to undertake, with the other Parties, the necessary steps for their appeals to be considered by the Board. In this case, the Appellant has failed in this responsibility in three ways:

• Despite the disqualification of Mr. Okafor as its representative, the Appellants continue to leave the communication on the appeals and the actions necessary to have the matters heard, with Mr. Okafor.

• The April 13, 2017 Board Order directing the Appellant to provide access to the City for the purpose of inspection, was not complied with; and

• The Appellant failed to appear at the hearing ordered by the same Board Order.

6I find that the Appellant’s non-compliance with Board orders and its failure to attend the hearing impedes the progress of these appeals through the normal process.

7I have to consider the impacts of my decision on the Parties. Both MPAC and the City were in attendance at the hearing, prepared with evidence and arguments pertaining to the issues of the appeals. To require them to prepare, yet again, for these issues, would be unfair. The Appellant has demonstrated a lack of interest in resolving these appeals throughout the process. The only option to dismissal is an additional adjournment. I find that adjourning these appeals again is unfair to MPAC and the City.

8The motion is granted. The appeals are dismissed.