Magna International Inc. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2017 CanLII 9881

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

ISSUE DATE: February 23, 2017 FILE NO.: RR 2016M09

Appellant/Assessed Person(s): Magna International Inc. /1354028 Ontario Inc. Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 15 Respondent(s): City of Mississauga

Property Location(s): 1755 Argentia Road Municipality(ies): City of Mississauga Roll Number(s): 2105-040-097-24810-0000 Appeal Number(s): 2956682, 3031057, 3082559 and 3152026 Taxation Year(s): 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 Hearing Event No.: 624431

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

Request by: Magna International Inc. Request for: Reinstatement of appeal numbers 2956682, 3031057, 3082559 and 3152026 Heard: By telephone conference call

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY PAUL MULDOON

INTRODUCTION

1Phillip Sanford, on behalf of Magna International Inc. (the “Requester”) is requesting the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) to the reinstate appeals 2956682, 3031057, 3082559, and 3152026 for taxation years 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 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 July 21, 2016.

2In its request for review, the Requester states that the appeals were dismissed during the teleconference call (“TCC”) on June 7, 2016 (hearing number 624431) due to non-attendance. The Requester claims that the non-attendance was the result of Claude Bumstead, the Requester’s previous representative, having been preoccupied with personal issues and with another teleconference call (hearing number 634989). The Requester submits that the non-attendance was therefore excusable. Neither MPAC nor the municipality have objected to the reinstatement of the appeals.

RELEVANT RULES

3Rules 141 to 146 of the Board’s Rules set out the process whereby the Board may grant a reinstatement by way of a review of the decision that dismissed the appeals. In effect, a reinstatement may be granted 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.

ISSUE AND ORDER SOUGHT

4The Requester seeks the reinstatement of its appeals 2956682, 3031057, 3082559, and 3152026. The Requester submits that the appeals were dismissed due to an excusable non-attendance.

DISCUSSION AND REASONS

5The Associate Chair considers requests for review as a delegate of the Executive Chair of the Environment and Land Tribunals Ontario. 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.

6Mr. Bumstead has provided the Board with an affidavit stating that he was preoccupied on the days leading to the TCC due to having been personally involved in a family court matter. Mr. Bumstead states that one hour before the TCC he attended another teleconference call (hearing number 634989) which the Board had cancelled without informing the parties and was trying to understand why nobody from the Board had attended this teleconference call when he failed to attend the TCC scheduled at 10:00 a.m. Mr. Bumstead submits that he forgot about the TCC due to the confusion of surrounding the earlier teleconference call. The Board accepts Mr. Bumsteads’ explanations for the non-attendance.

7Neither MPAC, nor the municipality have objected to the reinstatement of the appeals. Similarly, there is no evidence before the Board that any party will suffer prejudice if the appeals are reinstated. The Requester’s circumstances meet the requirements for reinstatement.

ORDER

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