Cherry Beach Sailing Clubs v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 09, 2018 CanLII 107727

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

ISSUE DATE: November 06, 2018

FILE NO.: DM 2018M036

Moving Party(ies): Cherry Beach Sailing Clubs

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 09 (“MPAC”)

Respondent(s): City of Toronto

Property Location(s): 1 Cherry Street

Municipality(ies): City of Toronto

Roll Number(s): 1904-081-010-00250-0000

Taxation Year(s): 2017

Hearing Event No.: 704864

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

Heard: October 09, 2018 by telephone conference call

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Representative

Cherry Beach Sailing Clubs

Gordon Akum and Norm Lamb

MPAC

Jonathan Langille

City of Toronto

Simon Hewett

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DISPOSITION DELIVERED BY SCOTT McANSH ON OCTOBER 09, 2018

Background

1Cherry Beach Sailing Clubs (the “Sailing Club”) brought this motion seeking to file an appeal of the assessment of the property at 1 Cherry Street, in the City of Toronto, for the 2017 taxation year. The Sailing Club leases the land from the City of Toronto and, pursuant to its lease, is responsible for paying the property taxes levied against the land. MPAC sent the notice of assessment for the 2017 taxation year to the City of Toronto, as the owner of the land, on November 28, 2016. The City did not provide a copy of that notice to the Sailing Club until January 3, 2018, well after the 2017 taxation year filing deadline of March 31, 2017. The Sailing Club argues that it should be permitted to file an appeal of the 2017 taxation year assessment now, over a year late.

2This Assessment Review Board (“Board”) can only permit the late filing of appeals if specific conditions are met. Those conditions were set by the Ontario Superior Court in Fleming and Smith Ltd. and Regional Assessment Commissioner Region No. 31 et al., 1979 CanLII 1870 (ON SC), and have been codified by the Board in Rule 26(b). That Rule requires that three things be proven before a late appeal can be granted: (1) that the person was entitled to receive a notice of assessment; (2) that the person did not receive notice; and (3) that the person filed an application for a late appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of the issues. I find that the Sailing Club has only proven that it did not receive the notice of assessment for the 2017 taxation year. That, alone, is not sufficient to grant a late appeal. The Sailing Club’s motion is dismissed.

Entitled to Notice

3The Sailing Club did not prove that it had a legal entitlement to receive the notice of assessment. Land is assessed against owners, pursuant to subsection 17(1) of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”). The City of Toronto is the owner of the land so it was entitled to receive notice, and did receive the notice in November of 2016. Tenants have limited legal rights to notice. Subsection 35(2) of the Act requires that corrections to assessment notices be provided to tenants, and subsection 53(4.1) permits tenants to request information from MPAC, but there is nothing in the Act that entitles tenants to receive a regular notice of assessment. The City of Toronto indicated that there is nothing in its lease with the Sailing Club that requires it to provide assessment notices to the Sailing Club. No party could point to any legal entitlement the Sailing Club had to receive the assessment notice for the 2017 taxation year. The first requirement of Rule 26(b) is not met.

Did Not Receive Notice

4The Sailing Club provided clear evidence that it did not receive the 2017 taxation year assessment notice until January 3, 2018. That is well after the filing deadline and sufficient evidence to meet the second requirement of Rule 26(b).

Filed Within 30 Days

5The final requirement of Rule 26(b) is that the person file their application for a late appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of the issues in dispute. This is to ensure that the principle of finality of assessment is respected. The Sailing Club became aware of the assessed value of the property for the 2017 taxation year on January 3, 2018. The first contact that they seem to have had with the Board was on June 20, 2018, 168 days later. That is 138 days after the deadline set by Rule 26(b).

6Rule 17 permits me to alter any timeline set by the Rules. Any application to extend time should consider fairness, prejudice, and finality, see Block 9A Developments Ltd v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2015 CanLII 37189 (ON ARB), at paragraph 13. I do not view this as an appropriate case in which to extend the filing deadline.

7The Sailing Club argues that it had to consult a number of volunteer board members, and make sense of the assessment notice, all of which took time. But the Sailing Club did not explain the delay in a detailed or thorough way. A general claim that bureaucracy slowed the application is not sufficient. That claim does not permit an analysis of the principles of fairness, prejudice, and finality. Any application to extend time must provide sufficient evidence for the Board to consider those factors. The Sailing Club has not net the timing requirement of Rule 26(b).

Conclusion

8The Sailing Club has only proven that it meets one of the three legal requirements set out in Rule 26(b). I can only grant a late appeal if all three conditions are met. I must, therefore, dismiss the Sailing Club’s motion to file a late appeal of the 2017 taxation year assessment of the property at 1 Cherry Street in the City of Toronto.