Goel v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 09, 2018 CanLII 37726

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

ISSUE DATE: April 25, 2018 FILE NO.: DM 2018M07

Moving Party: Kambiz David Goel Respondent: Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”), Region 09 Respondent: City of Toronto

Property Location: 500 Yonge Street Municipality: City of Toronto Roll Number: 1904-068-210-01700-0000 Taxation Years: 2015 and 2016 Hearing Event No.: 695665

Legislative Authority: Section 40(4) of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended

Heard: March 21, 2018 in Toronto, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Kambiz David Goel	Self-represented
MPAC	No one appeared
City of Toronto	No one appeared

DISPOSITION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY SCOTT McANSH

1Kambiz David Goel seeks leave of the Assessment Review Board to file appeals for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years for property he owns at 500 Yonge Street. He did not receive notice of the assessments for those taxation years because MPAC mailed the notices to the wrong address. Mr. Goel would now like to file those appeals well after the filing deadline set out in the Assessment Act, RSO 1990, c A.31 (“Act”). I do not find that the Board has the legal authority to grant Mr. Goel the relief he is seeking. His motion is denied.

2There are two avenues under which Mr. Goel seeks relief: (1) an extension of time to file requests for reconsideration with MPAC; and (2) an extension of time to file appeals with this Board. Mr. Goel does not fall within the limited class of persons entitled to either type of relief.

Appeals to the Board

3Appeals to this Board related to the assessed value of land are set out in section 40 of the Act. Subsection 40(3) makes a request for reconsideration a mandatory requirement for certain classes of property. No person in those classes can file an appeal with this Board unless they have first filed a request for reconsideration with MPAC. The evidence indicates that Mr. Goel was required to file a request for reconsideration for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

4Requests for reconsideration are set out in section 39.1 of the Act. The process requires that taxpayers express their concerns to MPAC regarding matters that can be appealed to this Board. For the 2015 and 2016 taxation years a request for reconsideration must have been filed no later than March 31 of the taxation year, see subsection 39.1(1.1).

5MPAC was sending notices to the wrong mailing address from some time in 2015 until August 9, 2016. Mr. Goel got his tax notices from the City of Toronto during that time, but did not receive the notices of assessment from MPAC. There were changes to the assessment over the time period. Mr. Goel became aware of the changes in assessment sometime in early 2017, and he filed requests for reconsideration for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years with MPAC on January 20, 2017.

6MPAC wrote to Mr. Goel, at the correct address, on February 14, 2017. They indicated that they could not proceed with the requests for reconsideration “as it was received after the legislated deadline of February 17, 2016.” MPAC again wrote to Mr. Goel, this time by email, on June 5, 2017, advising him that extension letters were required from this Board. Mr. Goel filed this application the next day.

Extension of Time for Request for Reconsideration

7Subsection 40(3) of the Act required Mr. Goel to make a request for reconsideration “within the time required under that section” before he can legally file an appeal with this Board. The general filing deadline in section 39.1 is March 31 of the taxation year, and there is no indication that Mr. Goel falls within any of the exceptions to that general filing deadline. That is, before Mr. Goel could file a 2015 taxation appeal with this Board, he had to file a request for reconsideration with MPAC by March 31, 2015. Similarly, before Mr. Goel could file a 2015 taxation appeal with this Board, he had to file a request for reconsideration with MPAC by March 31, 2016. He did not file those requests until January 20, 2017.

8The only way that Mr. Goel can comply with section 40(3) is if the time for filing is extended. The Legislature set out the circumstances when this Board can extend that time in section 40(4): if I am of the opinion that “there are extenuating circumstances explaining why a request for reconsideration in respect of a property was not made within the time required… on an application by the person during the taxation year.” While I am satisfied that not receiving notice of the assessment is an extenuating circumstance, Mr. Goel did not make the application in either the 2015 or 2016 taxation year.

9If the Legislature had intended to permit applications to be made at any time, it could have done so. There is, for example, no limit on when applications can be made in section 40.1 of the Act. The requirement that applications to extend the request for reconsideration filing deadline be made in the taxation year is an indication that the Legislature did not intend to grant this Board the power to extend the time for applications made in later taxation years. Because this request was made in June of 2017, I do not have the power to extend the time for filing a request for reconsideration for either the 2015 or 2016 taxation years.

Late Appeals

10Mr. Goel also argued that he should be permitted to file late appeals pursuant to Rule 26(b) of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”). That Rule permits the Board to accept appeals that are not filed within the timelines set out in the Act if there is evidence that there was a person who was “entitled to receive a notice of assessment who did not receive notice, and filed the appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment…” Mr. Goel does not fall within the confines of that Rule.

11Rule 26(b) is based on the legal principle, set out in Fleming and Smith Ltd. and Regional Assessment Commissioner Region No. 31 et al. (1979), 1979 CanLII 1870 (ON HCJ), 26 OR (2d) 691, that “the time for appeals from the assessment runs from the date that the person assessed has knowledge of the assessment.” The Board has imposed a reasonable filing timeline of 30 days from when the person becomes aware of the assessment. This is pursuant to the Board’s power to control its process set out in section 25.0.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, RSO 1990, c S.22.

12Mr. Goel argues that he filed the requests for reconsideration within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment, and therefore falls within the confines of Rule 26(b). However, Rule 26(b) only addresses appeals to this Board. The Legislature has established a step before an appeal can be made to this Board for certain properties: the request for reconsideration process. The Legislature has also codified when this Board can extend the time for filing such a request. As noted above, the Legislature has not granted this Board the power to extend the time for filing a request for reconsideration in later taxation years. The Legislature’s action in regulating the scope of late appeals has ousted any common law power to extend the timelines around requests for reconsideration. Rule 26(b) only addresses appeals to this Board.

13Mr. Goel’s time for appealing to this Board is set out in subsection 40(5.1) of the Act. His last day for filing an appeal was “90 days after the notice by the assessment corporation under” the request for reconsideration provisions. That is the notice that triggers the 30 day filing deadline in Rule 26(b). He has not yet received that notice because he has not yet filed timely requests for reconsideration. As noted above, I cannot cure his late filing of the requests for reconsideration. Because Mr. Goel did not file a request for reconsideration, he does not have a right to appeal, so the time for appealing has not begun to run. The appeal is not late; rather, it cannot legally be filed. An extension of time to appeal does not assist Mr. Goel.

Conclusion

14Mr. Goel did not receive notices of assessment for a period of time and he has no remedy to cure the late fling that resulted from that lack of notice. Neither subsection 40(4) of the Act nor Rule 26(b) of the Rules offer him any assistance. Mr. Goel’s application to file late appeals is denied.