Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 18 v. 2418900 Ontario Inc., 2018 CanLII 107718

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: November 09, 2018

FILE NO.: DM 155392

Moving Party(ies): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 18

Respondent(s): 2418900 Ontario Inc.

Respondent(s): City of Niagara Falls

Property Location(s): Buttrey Street

Municipality(ies): City of Niagara Falls

Roll Number(s): 2725-100-001-99925-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3002436, 3088773 and 3155717

Taxation Year(s): 2014, 2105 and 2016

Hearing Event No.: 703066

Legislative Authority: Rule 24(e) of the Assessment Review Board Rules of Practice and Procedure

Heard: August 29, 2018 in writing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
MPAC	Kyle Duncan
2418900 Ontario Inc.	Jonas Perov
City of Niagara Falls	No one appeared

DISPOSITION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY SCOTT McANSH

1MPAC seeks to have these appeals dismissed because 2418900 Ontario Inc. (the “Company”) did not serve a statement of issues on or before the date specified by the Assessment Review Board (the “Board). That application was set for a motion in writing. MPAC was assigned a filing deadline of August 2, 2018, but did not file any material. The Company and the City of Niagara Falls were assigned a filing date of August 17, 2018 and did not file any material either.

2It appears from record that these appeals were assigned a commencement date of November 15, 2017, pursuant to Rule 33 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”). MPAC served its initial disclosure within the time specified in the Rules. The Company was to serve its statement of issues on or before April 11, 2018 and did not do so.

3MPAC reminded the Company of its obligations on May 4, 2018, and MPAC sought direction from the Board on June 7, 2018. The Company responded to MPAC on June 19, 2018, apologizing for its misunderstanding of Board’s process and attaching its statement of issues. That was 69 days late.

Dismissal

4This Board has held that “dismissal is an extreme remedy and should only be granted in the clearest of cases,” Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region No. 9 v. 234900 Ontario Ltd., 2018 CanLII 248 (ON ARB), 2017 CanLII 74719 (ON ARB) at paragraph 8. It is not an appropriate remedy when the breach that is the basis for the dismissal application has been cured.

5This Board recently set out a framework for addressing breaches of the Rules in Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region No 7 v. Cherry, 2018 CanLII 60392 (ON ARB) (“Cherry”). The Board held, at paragraph 15, that “most cases of non-compliance can be fairly dealt with through an award of costs.” This may be an appropriate case for a cost award. But I have no evidence of prejudice on which to base a cost analysis here. I therefore do not make any order for costs.

CONCLUSION

6MPAC’s motion to dismiss the Company’s appeals is denied. The Company cured its breach of Rules, so dismissal would be inappropriate. While this may be an appropriate case for a cost award, MPAC did not file any evidence upon which to base a cost decision. These appeals will proceed in accordance with the assigned schedule of events.