Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: July 03, 2018

FILE NO.: DM 2018M12

Moving Party: St. Mary’s Cement Corporation

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

Respondent: City of Toronto

Property Location: 194 New Toronto Street

Municipality: City of Toronto

Roll Number: 1919-052-560-00501-0000

Appeal Number: 3262494

Taxation Year: 2016

Hearing Event No.: 697069

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

Heard: June 12, 2018 in Toronto, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties Representative

St. Mary’s Cement Corporation Ewa Kata

MPAC No one appeared

City of Toronto No one appeared

DISPOSITION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY SCOTT McANSH

1St. Mary’s Cement Corporation (the “Company”) brings this motion seeking an order that their appeal of the 2016 assessment of the property at 194 New Toronto Street be permitted to proceed. The Company filed a timely request for reconsideration of the 2016 assessment with MPAC, but did not get a response from MAPC in a timely way. Once the Company did receive MPAC’s response to their request for reconsideration, it appeared that the time for filing an appeal to this Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) had passed. They immediately filed the application that is now before me.

2I find that the Legislature’s intention for the 2016 taxation year filing deadline requires that MPAC’s response to a request for reconsideration be effectively communicated to a taxpayer. A taxpayer’s time to appeal to this Board runs from their receipt of MPAC’s response. The Company filed this application with the Board the day after it received MPAC’s response. That is an intention to file well within the timelines set out in the Assessment Act, RSO 1990, c A.31 (the “Act”). The Company’s motion is granted and its appeal of the 2016 assessment of the property will be processed by the Board.

Mailing Responses

3The Company filed a request for reconsideration of the 2016 assessment of the property on March 15, 2016, well before the March 31, 2016 deadline set in subsection 39.1(1.1) of the Act. MPAC sent a letter acknowledging the receipt of that request on April 11, 2016. The Company had ongoing discussions with MPAC about the assessment over the following year. In March of 2017 the Company began making inquiries with MPAC on the status of the 2016 request for reconsideration. On June 27, 2017 the Company received a copy of MPAC’s rejection letter, which was dated December 5, 2016 and said that their appeal deadline was March 15, 2017, over three month before the Company received the notice.

4Subsection 40(5.1) of the Act sets the appeal period for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years, when a person has made a request for reconsideration. That subsection states that “the last day for the person to appeal for a taxation year is 90 days after the notice by the assessment corporation…has been mailed.” That notice is the “results of its reconsideration,” see subsection 39.1(7.1), which is this case is the letter dated December 5, 2016.

5The Legislature used the phrase “has been mailed” in subsection 40(5.1) deliberately. It is significant that, for the 2017 taxation year, subsection 40(5) sets a deadline of “90 days after the issuance date printed on the notice mailed by the assessment corporation” if the notice is mailed on time. That subsection sets an alternative deadline when MPAC has not mailed a notice by their deadline. There is no such provision for the 2016 taxation year and the date on the notice is not a relevant consideration of the 2016 taxation year.

6In using the mailing date as the trigger for the appeal period, the Legislature likely presumed that taxpayers would know what was at stake on that date. MPAC’s reconsideration can change the issues significantly, so it is logical that the appeal period does not start to run until the taxpayer knows what those issues are. Taxpayers can only know what MPAC’s position is when they receive the notice of MPAC’s position. The only reasonable interpretation of the phrase “has been mailed” in subsection 40(5.1) is that the response has been effectively communicated to the taxpayer.

7The Company’s evidence is that it did not receive the notice until June 27, 2017. MPAC did not file any evidence in this motion. The Company did receive MPAC’s acknowledgment letter in April 2016 and there is no evidence that the Company’s address has recently changed. I infer that MPAC did not mail the response to the Company until it was sent by email on June 27, 2017.

8The Company was only effectively informed of MPAC’s response when it was emailed their rejection letter on June 27, 2017. Subsection 40(5.1) then made their appeal deadline 90 days later: September 25, 2017. I interpret this application as an attempt to appeal in the face of the uncertainty around the appeal deadline. That attempt ought to have been successful given when MPAC’s notice was communicated the Company.

9The appeal was not late when the Company effectively attempted to appeal on June 28, 2017. The appeal will therefore be processed by the Board.