City of Pickering v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2017 CanLII 85698

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: December 12, 2017

FILE NO.: RR 2017M07

Appellant(s): City of Pickering

Assessed Person(s): Piret (925 Brock Road) Holdings

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 13

Property Location(s): 925 Brock Road

Municipality(ies): City of Pickering

Roll Number(s): 1801-020-022-06050-0000

Appeal Number(s): 2957409, 3019771, 3080085 and 3150501

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: City of Pickering

Request for: Reinstatement of appeal numbers 2957409, 3019771, 3080085 and 3150501

Heard: By written submission

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY PAUL MULDOON

INTRODUCTION

1Mike Jones, Taxation Supervisor, on behalf of the City of Pickering (the “Requester”), is requesting the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) reinstate appeal numbers 2957409, 3019771, 3080085 and 3150501, 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 July 19, 2017.

2The Requester submits that the appeals for the 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 taxation years were withdrawn in error. The request for reinstatement materials indicate that on June 13, 2017, the Requester submitted its Statement of Response and did not copy the Board. However MPAC’s Statement of Response sought an increase in the 2012 current value assessment and the Board was sent this response. On July 5, 2017, the appellant withdrew the appeals and an Acknowledgment of Withdrawal was issued by the Board on July 14, 2017. The request for reinstatement materials indicate that neither MPAC nor the Requester was consulted regarding the withdrawal.

3The Requester seeks the reinstatement of appeals 2957409, 3019771, 3080085 and 3150501. The Requester submits that the appeals were withdrawn in error because there were notices to seek an increase in assessment.

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 for RR 2017M07. 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 2957409, 3019771, 3080085 and 3150501 were withdrawn in error, and requests that the Board reverse the withdrawal and reinstate the appeals.

7The appeals should not have been withdrawn since there were notices of intention to seek a higher assessment. Withdrawing these appeals was contrary to Rule 72 of the Board’s Rules. The withdrawal of the appeals was a clerical error.

ORDER

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