Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: June 22, 2018
Assessed Person(s): 1703198 Ontario Inc.
Appellant(s): 1703198 Ontario Inc.
Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 13
Respondent(s): City of Pickering
Property Location(s): 1980 Rosefield Road
Municipality(ies): City of Pickering
Roll Number(s): 1801-020-017-03200-0000
Appeal Number(s): 3207356
Taxation Year(s): 2015
Hearing Event No.: 667065
Legislative Authority: Rule 120 of the Assessment Review Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, as amended
Request for: A review of the Board’s Decision WR 147742 issued on August 23, 2017
Heard: By written submission
| Parties | Representative | Submissions |
|---|---|---|
| 1703198 Ontario Inc. | William Kuzmas | Requester |
DECISION DELIVERED BY JERRY V. DEMARCO AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
BACKGROUND
1William Kuzmas on behalf of 1703198 Ontario Inc. (“Requester”) requests a review of the decision of the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) by Member Joseph Wyger given orally on March 10, 2017 and followed by written reasons (WR 147742) on August 23, 2017 (“Decision”) (see: 1703198 Ontario Inc. v. Pickering (City), 2017 CanLII 55909). The Decision related to the Requester’s appeal under s. 364(14) of the Municipal Act, 2001, termed a “complaint” under that legislation, with respect to a vacancy rebate application made to the City of Pickering (“City”). The Requester’s property is a three unit commercial property located at 1980 Rosefield Road, Pickering.
2The request for review came in the form of a letter to the Board dated July 20, 2017. By letter dated November 27, 2017 to the Requester, the Board treated the July 20, 2017 letter as a request to review the Board’s decision to dismiss the complaint.
3The Requester explained that he had originally mailed his vacancy rebate application, made under s. 364(2)5 of the Municipal Act, 2001, to the City on February 13, 2016. The application was apparently never received by the City. The Requester stated that he then mailed a copy of the vacancy rebate application to the City on March 16, 2016. On March 22, 2016, the City received it. On the next day, the City denied the vacancy rebate application because it was received after the statutory filing deadline of the last day of February of the year following the taxation year in respect of which the application is made (in this case February 29, 2016).
4The Requester then filed an appeal with the Board. There was some confusion as to whether it was an appeal under s. 40 of the Assessment Act, or a Municipal Act, 2001 complaint. The two appeal types have different time limits for filing with the Board. After having initially been flagged by Board staff as a late appeal under s. 40 of the Assessment Act, Associate Chair Paul Muldoon, on June 2, 2016, permitted the appeal to proceed and assigned a Board Member to hear the complaint. It appears that the Requester initially believed that the Board’s decision to proceed with an appeal hearing was a decision to grant him a rebate. However, it is clear that the Associate Chair simply allowed the proceeding to continue to a hearing after initially being flagged as late. Whether a rebate would be granted was the question to be heard at the hearing (see para. 8 of the Decision).
5On March 10, 2017, Board Member Wyger heard the matter and dismissed the complaint. Member Wyger found the Board had no authority to consider the complaint because there was no valid vacancy rebate application to the City under s. 364(14) of the Municipal Act, 2001 before the Board. Written reasons were released on August 23, 2017. The Decision states, at para. 9:
Mr. Kuzmas has a valid complaint before me pursuant to s. 364(14) of the Municipal Act, but has no valid vacancy rebate application before me to permit me to weigh the merits, and I have no power or authority to create one in contravention of the statute. The s. 364(14) complaint is dismissed because there is no valid application before me…
6For the reasons set out below, the request to review the Decision is dismissed.
ISSUE
7The issue for the Board is whether a review of the Decision that dismissed the complaint should be granted having regard to the grounds listed in Rule 121. The Requester is essentially requesting an extension of time for filing a vacancy rebate application and for a vacancy rebate for 2015 to be issued.
RELEVANT RULES
8Requests for review of Board decisions are governed by Rules 120 to 121 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, effective April 1, 2017, which state:
120 Request for Review
A party may request a review of any final decision of the Board, other than a decision pursuant to Rule 122, by filing a request in writing no more than 30 days after the decision was issued, including:
(a) a copy of the decision to be reviewed;
(b) the written reasons for the decision, as set out in Rule 112;
(c) the reasons for the request, addressing the factors set out in Rule 121;
(d) notice of any appeals or applications for judicial review that have been filed in relation to the decision;
(e) proof of service on all other parties to the proceeding;
(f) the remedy or relief sought; and
(g) the fee specified by the Board.
121 Grounds for Review
A request for review will not be granted unless the Board is satisfied