Theresa Holroyd v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 07, 2018 CanLII 110108

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: November 14, 2018

FILE NO.: RR 2018M12

Assessed Person(s): Theresa Holroyd

Appellant(s): Theresa Holroyd

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 07

Respondent(s): Municipality of Trent Lakes

Property Location(s): 26 Fire Route 225A

Municipality(ies): Municipality of Trent Lakes

Roll Number(s): 1542-020-300-23000-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3237687 and 3292970

Taxation Year(s): 2017 and 2018

Legislative Authority: Rule 122 of the Assessment Review Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, as amended

Request for: Reinstatement of appeals 3237687 and 3292970

Heard: By written submission

Parties	Representative	Submissions
Theresa Holroyd	Self-represented	Requester
MPAC	No one appeared	Not Received
Municipality of Trent Lakes	No one appeared	Not Received

DECISION DELIVERED BY PAUL MULDOON AND SCOTT McANSH AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

INTRODUCTION

1Theresa Holroyd is requesting that the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) reinstate appeals 3237687 and 3292970 by way of a request for reinstatement pursuant to Rule 122 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”). This request for reinstatement was filed with the Board on July 23, 2018.

2Ms. Holroyd is the owner of 26 Fire Route 225A in the Municipality of Trent Lakes and appealed the assessment of the property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years. Those appeals were set to be heard on April 23, 2018 in Trent Lakes but Ms. Holroyd says she was never notified of that hearing. At the hearing, the Member reduced the assessment from $393,000 to $378,000 based on MPAC’s recommendation. Ms. Holroyd is requesting that decision be cancelled and a new hearing be held.

ISSUES

3Ms. Holroyd filed this as a request to reinstate the appeals because she failed to appear through no fault of her own. The first issue we must determine is if Rule 122 applies. We find that Rule 122 does not apply here.

4This request must be processed as a request for review. We must consider if there are valid grounds for a review pursuant to Rule 121. We are satisfied that one or more of the grounds set out in that Rule have been met. We therefore cancel the decision and order a new hearing.

RELEVANT RULES

5Reinstatement requests are governed by Rule 122, which states:

122 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.

6Reviews will only be granted if the Board is satisfied that one of the grounds in Rule 121 are made out. That Rule states:

121 A request for review will not be granted unless the Board is satisfied that:

(a) the Board acted outside its jurisdiction or violated the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness;

(b) the Board made a significant error of law or fact such that the Board would likely have reached a different decision;

(c) the Board heard false or misleading evidence from a party or witness, which was discovered only after the hearing and would have affected the result;

(d) there is new evidence that could not have reasonably been obtained earlier and would have affected the result; or

(e) any of the situations in Rule 122 exist.

Request for Reinstatement

7Ms. Holroyd applies to have her appeals reinstated pursuant to Rule 122(b). She states that she failed to appear at the hearing because she never received notice of the hearing. The Board’s records indicate that notice was mailed to Ms. Holroyd’s address on February 16, 2018, but Ms. Holroyd swears that it was never received. We have no reason to doubt Ms. Holroyd’s evidence that she did not receive notice of the hearing.

8It is hard to fault a party for failing to attend a hearing event that they were unaware of. However, Rule 122 is clear that it only applies to appeals that were “dismissed or withdrawn” by the Board. Ms. Holroyd’s appeals were not dismissed or withdrawn. Rather, the Member decided both appeals in written reasons Holroyd v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 07, 2018 CanLII 62981 (ON ARB), issued July 6, 2018. Any challenge to a decision of the Board must be under one of the rounds set out in Rule 121.

Review

9There are four grounds for review of a decision of this Board. The only relevant ground here is set out in Rule 121(a): if “the Board acted outside its jurisdiction or or violated the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness.”

10Notice of a hearing is a core component of procedural fairness. A person must know how to contest the matter under dispute. The presiding Member would not have been aware of the lack of notice, but we are satisfied that proceeding without adequate notice is a breach of procedural fairness. That breach can only properly be cured with a new hearing with adequate notice.

CONCLUSION

11Ms. Holroyd’s request to reinstate appeals 3237687 and 3292970 is denied because the appeals were not dismissed or withdrawn. However, the decision must be canceled, however, because it was made in breach of procedural fairness. The decision is therefore cancelled and a new hearing is ordered.