1015687 Ontario Limited v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2017 CanLII 76274

Assessment Review Board / Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: November 08, 2017

FILE NO.: RR 2017M06

Appellant(s): 1015687 Ontario Limited

Assessed Person(s): 1015687 Ontario Limited

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 22, Mono Township

Property Location(s): 63341 Highway 10/24

Roll Number(s): 2212-000-006-05300-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3054636, 3090611 and 3157702

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

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

Request by: 1015687 Ontario Limited

Request for: Reinstatement of appeal numbers 3054636, 3090611 and 3157702

Heard: By written submission

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY PAUL MULDOON

INTRODUCTION

1James Brook, from ArGil Property Tax Services, on behalf of 1015687 Ontario Limited (the “Requester”), is requesting the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) reinstate appeal numbers 3054636, 3090611 and 3157702, by way of a request for review under Rule 122 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”). This request for review was filed with the Board on May 3, 2017.

2The Requester submits that the appeals for the 2014, 2015, and 2016 taxation years were dismissed in error, and were to be heard on March 27, 2017. The request for reinstatement materials indicate that on March 27, 2017, an adjournment was requested and granted to obtain instructions, prepare and execute Minutes of Settlement. The request for reinstatement materials indicate that the request was copied to MPAC and Mono Township.

3The Requester seeks the reinstatement of appeals 3054636, 3090611 and 3157702. The Requester submits that the appeals were dismissed in error.

RELEVANT RULES

4Rule 122 of the Board’s Rules sets out the process whereby the Board may grant a reinstatement by way of a review of the decision that dismissed the appeals.

122 Reinstatement by Request for Review

(1) Notwithstanding Rule 120, a party to a former proceeding may seek an order from the Board to reinstate an appeal by filing an affidavit with the Board, copied to all parties, no more than 30 days after the appeal was dismissed or withdrawn by the Board setting out that:

(a) the appeal was withdrawn, removed or dismissed in error;

(b) a party failed to appear at a hearing event through no fault of their own; or

(c) natural justice or procedural fairness require that the appeal be reinstated.

In effect, a reinstatement may be granted pursuant to Rule 123 which grants the Board with the following authority:

123 Review Order

(2) Upon consideration of a request for review, or on its own initiative, the Board may:

(a) dismiss the request;

(b) reinstate the appeal, with or without conditions; or

(c) after providing all parties an opportunity to make submissions,

i. confirm, vary, or cancel the decision,

ii. order a rehearing on all or part of the matter, or

iii. order a motion to decide the review.

DISCUSSION AND REASONS

5Pursuant to s. 17(2) of the Adjudicative Tribunals Accountability, Governance and Appointments Act, 2009, S.O. 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 used on a case-by-case basis.

6The Requester submits that appeals 3054636, 3090611 and 3157702 were dismissed in error. The Requester became aware of this mistake and requested reinstatement on May 3, 2017.

7The appeals were dismissed 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.