Ross DePalma v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2018 CanLII 60394

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: June 27, 2018

FILE NO.: DM 2018M15

Moving Party: Ross DePalma

Respondent: Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”)

Respondent: City of Hamilton

Property Location: 203 Glover Road

Municipality: City of Hamilton

Roll Number: 2518-902-120-63000-0000

Taxation Year: 2017

Hearing Event No.: 699864

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

Heard: In writing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Ross DePalma	Self-represented
MPAC	No submissions
City of Hamilton	No submissions

DISPOSITION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY SCOTT McANSH

1Ross DePalma is the owner of 203 Glover Road in the City of Hamilton (the “Property”). He took ownership of the Property on January 31, 2000. He claims that assessment notices for the Property have been mailed to a dated address for the past 15 years and that, as a result, he has not been aware of the assessment that MPAC has applied to the Property. He did, however, receive his municipal tax notices for each taxation year. He brings this motion seeking permission to file appeals for the 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 taxation years after the filing deadline, pursuant to Rule 26(b) of the Assessment Review Board’s (the “Board’s”) Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”).

2Mr. DePalma’s application does not fall within the confines of Rule 26(b). His motion is denied.

Late Appeals

3Rule 26(b) is an exception to the general rule that the timelines in the Assessment Act, RSO 1990 c A-31 are binding. The Rule states, in relevant part: “The Board may accept an appeal received after the time set in the Assessment Act (the “Act”) only if the appellant satisfies the Board, by way of affidavit evidence, that… the appellant is a person entitle to receive a notice of assessment who did not receive notice, and file the appeal with the Board within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment… that is the subject of the appeal.”

4The Rule requires an applicant to satisfy me of three things: (1) the person was entitled to notice of assessment; (2) they did not receive notice; and (3) they filed this application within 30 days of becoming aware. Mr. DePalma has not met the second or third requirements. The burden of providing evidence to show that each requirement is met is always with the person arguing for late filing. Mr. DePalma has not met that evidentiary burden so his application is denied.

Entitled to Notice

5Mr. DePalma was entitled to a notice of assessment. Section 31 of the Act requires annual notice to the owners of land. Mr. DePalma was the owner for the relevant taxation years, so was entitled to that notice. The first requirement of Rule 26(b) is met.

Did Not Receive Notice

6The second requirement is that the person has not received notice. It is my view that this does not only mean actual receipt of the assessment notice from MPAC. Notice is also provided in the municipal taxation invoices, which list the assessed value of the land in order to show how the amount payable was calculated. Mr. DePalma indicates that he received his municipal tax notices each year. That is, in effect, notice of the assessment, see 217-225 Richmond Street West Ltd. v. Ontario (Assessment Review Board), 1997 CanLII 26465 (ON CTGD), [1998] OJ No 35 at paragraph 1. It was certainly enough information for a reasonable person to form an opinion on the merits of an appeal. I do not accept that Mr. DePalma did not receive effective notice of the assessed value of his land each taxation year. The second requirement of Rule 26(b) is not met.

Filed within 30 Days

7The final requirement in Rule 26(b) is that the application be filed with this Board within 30 days of the party becoming aware of the issue. Mr. DePalma received notice of his assessment each year and this application was not filed until June 2017. That is well outside of the timeline in the Rule. Mr. DePalma did not enter any evidence on when he might have actually discovered the assessed value. Without that evidence I cannot assess if the timeline is met in some non-intuitive way. The burden of proof in a late appeal application is squarely on the person seeking late filing. Only they have access to the information required for the application. The third ground of Rule 26(b) is not met.

CONCLUSION

8The evidence in this motion is lacking. I do not find that that the requirements of Rule 26(b) are met. Mr. DePalma’s application for late filling is denied.