1703198 Ontario Inc. v. City of Pickering, 2017 CanLII 55909

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: August 23, 2017

FILE NO.: WR: 147742

Assessed Person(s): 1703198 Ontario Inc

Appellant(s): 1703198 Ontario Inc.

Respondent(s): City of Pickering

Property Location(s): 1980 Rosefield Road

Municipality(ies): City of Pickering

Roll Number(s): 1801-020-017-03200-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3207356

Taxation Year(s): 2015

Hearing Event No.: 667065

Legislative Authority: Section 364.(15) of the Municipal Act 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, as amended

Heard: March 10, 2017 in Pickering, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties 1703198 Ontario Inc. City of Pickering

Representative William Kuzmas Donna DeLong

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY JOSEPH M. WYGER

INTRODUCTION

1The vacancy rebate application for the 2015 taxation year was completed by Bill Kuzmas, the principle of the corporate owner, and was received by the City of Pickering (“City”) on March 22, 2016. The statutory filing deadline for the application was February 28, 2016. For that reason, the City made the decision to reject the application and give no tax rebate. Mr. Kuzmas complained to the Assessment Review Board (“Board”), and that is the complaint that is before the Board at this hearing.

DECISION

2The vacancy rebate application is denied because it was not filed on time and I have no authority to extend a statutory deadline for its filing.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Legislation

3Section 364(2)5 and section 364(14) and (15) of the Act states:

Requirements of program

364(2) A tax rebate program under this section must meet the following requirements:

5. The application shall be made to the local municipality by the last day of February of the year following the taxation year in respect of which the application is made or such later date as the Minister of Finance may prescribe, either before or after the expiry of the time limit.

Section364(14) and 15 Act States:

Complaint

364(14) A person who has made an application under this section may, within 120 days after the municipality mails the determination of the amount of the rebate, complain to the Assessment Review Board in writing that the amount is too low.

Same, if no determination of rebate

364(15) If the municipality fails to mail the determination of the amount of the rebate to the applicant within 120 days of the receipt of the application or such later date as the Minister of Finance may prescribe, the applicant may complain in writing to the Assessment Review Board.

Facts

• March 23, 2016 - The vacancy rebate application was rejected as it was received by Pickering after the filing deadline;

• April 4, 2016 - An appeal of the City’s rejection of the vacancy rebate application was received at the Board and was erroneously entered as a s. 40 Assessment Act. appeal and a letter was sent to Mr. Kuzmas advising him that his appeal was too late;

• April 26, 2016 - Mr. Kuzmas filed an Affidavit and materials to support his request that the Associate Chair approve the late appeal, but the materials included were regarding the late vacancy rebate application to Pickering under s. 364 of the Municipal Act.;

• June 2, 2016 - The Associate Chair approved the late appeal request based on the information provided that Mr. Kuzmas “did not receive notice” and the Board created a complaint under s. 364 (15) of the Municipal Act., on the grounds of “no determination by municipality”;

• March 10, 2017 - The hearing into the Municipal Act. complaint was heard by this panel and following inquiries at the Board regarding these confusing set of facts, I dismissed the complaint on the grounds that I have no authority to extend the statutory deadline for complaints under s. 364 of the Municipal Act.;

• April 7, 2017 - A Decision issued citing “Appeal Dismissed”; and

• April 11, 2017 - Mr. Kuzmas requested written reasons for the dismissal of his complaint.

4Although the Municipal Act. uses the term “complaint”, it means the same and is used herein interchangeably with the term “appeal” which is used by the Assessment Act.

Analysis

5Donna DeLong testified on behalf of the City and provided documentation to show that Mr. Kuzmas’s vacancy rebate application was received on March 22, 2016 which was several weeks after the filing deadline of February 28, 2016. The next day the City sent a notice to Mr. Kuzmas rejecting the application.

6Mr. Kuzmas filed a complaint with the Board purportedly under s. 364(14) of the Municipal Act., but there was some confusion which caused it to be entered into the Board’s computer system as a s. 40 appeal under the Assessment Act. The situation was rectified by the Associate Chair by way of allowing a late appeal of the City’s rejection of the vacancy rebate application.

7It is evident that Mr. Kuzmas made a good faith effort to complain to the Board under s. 364(14) that the City’s determination of the amount of the rebate was too low. His complaint was not late either, as that section permits 120 days to complain after the municipality mails its determination. Mr. Kuzmas filed his complaint with the Board within a couple of weeks of receiving the City’s determination on March 23, 2016. He clearly has a valid complaint before me under s. 364(14).

8It appears however that the approval by the Board of allowing Mr. Kuzmas a late appeal was misunderstood by him to be the validation of his late application for a property tax rebate. He testified that a case coordinator at the Board informed him that his application was approved and he should be getting his tax rebate in due course. With the approval of all parties, I advised that I would speak to the case coordinator in question for clarification. That member of the administrative staff denied advising Mr. Kuzmas that his application was successful, but rather that his late appeal was approved and a hearing would be scheduled to deal with the merits of his rebate application. I sought this clarification to ensure that the merits of Mr. Kuzmas’s rebate application had not already been dealt with in some fashion as he believed was the case, and to ensure that his rights were not prejudiced in any way. It is clear that Mr Kuzmas thought that the granting of a late appeal of the determination of his s. 364 complaint, was in fact an approval of the merits of his application for a vacancy rebate. In fact and in law it was not.

CONCLUSION

9Mr. Kuzmas has a valid complaint before me pursuant to s. 364(14) of the Municipal Act., but has no valid vacancy rebate application before me to permit me to weigh the merits, and I have no power or authority to create one in contravention of the statute. The s. 364(14) complaint is dismissed because there is no valid application before me, so pursuant to s. 364(16) of the Municipal Act., I determine the amount of any rebate owing to the numbered company represented by Mr. Kuzmas to be zero.