1514947 Ontario Inc. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 3, 2018 CanLII 102691

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: October 22, 2018

FILE NO.: DM 2018M028

Moving Party(ies): 1514947 Ontario Inc.

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 3

Respondent(s): City of Ottawa

Property Location(s): Carp Road and Thomas Argue Road

Municipality(ies): City of Ottawa

Roll Number(s): 0614-423-815-21227-0000, 0614-423-815-21228-0000, 0614-423-815-21229-0000, 0614-423-815-21281-0000, 0614-423-815-21333-0000, 0614-423-815-21335-0000, 0614-423-815-21336-0000, 0614-423-815-21337-0000, 0614-423-815-21339-0000, 0614-423-815-21343-0000, 0614-423-815-21344-0000, 0614-423-815-21346-0000, 0614-423-815-21347-0000, and 0614-423-815-21348-0000

Taxation Year(s): 2016

Hearing Event No.: 703268

Legislative Authority: Rule 26(b) of the Assessment Review Board Rules of Practice and Procedure

Heard: In writing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
1514947 Ontario Inc.	George Cameron-Caluori
MPAC	Mohammad El Dali
City of Ottawa	Lindsey Hinch

DISPOSITION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY SCOTT McANSH

11514947 Ontario Inc. (the “Company”) applies to have appeals created for the 2016 taxation year for the properties it owns in the City of Ottawa. The parcels are part of the Carp Airport redevelopment and were assigned roll numbers in 2015. The Company filed timely requests for reconsideration of the assessments of those new parcels. The Company and MPAC then spent nearly two years trying to negotiate a settlement. MPAC sent a letter denying the 2015 requests for reconsideration in the summer of 2017. That letter set an appeal deadline of August 21, 2017 and the Company filed these appeals on August 8, 2017, before the deadline set by MPAC.

2The Company is seeking to have 2016 appeals deemed because the 2015 appeals that they filed in 2017 were not finally disposed of by this Assessment Review Board (this “Board”) before March 31, 2016. MPAC and the City of Ottawa take no position on this motion.

3I must first determine if the filing of the 2015 appeals in 2017 is valid. If it is, I must determine if it is appropriate to deem appeals for the 2016 taxation year.

4For the reasons that follow, I find that the Company legally filed its 2015 appeals in 2017. Those appeals were not disposed of before March 31, 2016 so the Company is deemed to have filed 2016 appeals as well.

2015 Filing Deadline

5Neither party made submissions on whether it was valid to file a 2015 appeal in 2017, appearing to assume that it was. I am of the view that I must determine if the 2015 appeals are valid before I can determine if 2016 appeals can be deemed.

6The filling deadline for the 2015 taxation year, when a timely request for reconsideration has been filed, is set out is subsection 40(5.1) of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A-31. That subsection states that “the last day for the person to appeal for a taxation year is 90 days after the notice by the assessment corporation under subsection 39.1 (7.1) or (8) has been mailed.” Subsection 39.1(7.1) set MPAC’s deadline for responding to a request for reconsideration, which was “no later than September 30 of the taxation year or, if the assessment corporation and the person agree to an extension, no later than November 30 of the taxation year.” Subsection 39.1(8) set MPAC’s deadline for responding to a request of a supplemental or omitted assessment as “no later than 180 days after the request is made.” MPAC did not come close to meeting either deadline in this case.

7I do not find, however, the MPAC’s breach changes the filling deadline set out in subsection 40(5.1). That filing deadline is based on when the response is mailed and is silent on what happens when MPAC fails to meet its deadlines. The Legislature addressed that issue in subsection 40(5) with an ultimate filing deadline, but that subsection only applies to taxation years after 2016. The Company therefore filed timely appeals of the 2015 assessments in 2017 because they did so within 90 days of when MPAC mailed its response to the Company’s requests for reconsideration.

Deeming

8Subsection 40(26) deems that appellants have appealed assessments in certain situations. Clause 40(26)(b) states that “an appellant shall be deemed to have brought the same appeal in respect of a property… in relation to the assessment… for a subsequent taxation year to which the same general reassessment applies, if the appeal is not finally disposed of before March 31 of the subsequent taxation year.” There are two requirements that must be met before deeming of a new appeal takes place. First, the same general reassessment must apply to both the existing appeal and the newly created appeal. Secondly, the original appeal must not have been finally been disposed of by March 31 of the taxation year.

9This Board recently considered deeming in Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 16 v Singh, 2018 CanLII 80820 (ON ARB). The Board held, at paragraph 6, that “2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 taxation years all have the same valuation day. Those taxation years are all years to which the same general reassessment applies.” So the Company’s application to deem the 2016 taxation year meets the first part of the test.

10The second requirement is that the appeal not be finally disposed of by March 31, 2016. On that date there was no 2015 appeal so it could not have been deemed on that date. However, once the 2015 appeal was filed, in August of 2017, it had not been disposed of before March 31, 2016. This Board held in Hatcher v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 05, 2018 CanLII 65306 (ON ARB) at paragraph 9, that “the 2017 appeal for this property has not yet been created, so clearly it has not yet been disposed of.” The same reasoning applies here. The second requirement of subsection 40(26) is therefore also met.

CONCLUSION

11The Company was deemed to have filed the 2016 appeals for these properties through operation of subsection 40(26). The Company satisfied both requirements of the subsection when it legally filed its 2015 appeals in August of 2017. The Company’s motion is granted and the 2016 appeals for these properties are created and will be scheduled by the Registrar.