Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

August 15, 2018

FILE NO.:

RD 2018M10

Assessed Person(s):

Judith Anne Truax

Appellant(s):

Scott Rose

Respondent(s):

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 07

Respondent(s):

Township of North Kawartha

Property Location(s):

91 Butler Drive

Municipality(ies):

Township of North Kawartha

Roll Number(s):

1536-020-001-52800-0000

Appeal Number(s):

3161424

Taxation Year(s):

2016

Hearing Event No.:

638792

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 143094 issued on March 23, 2017

Heard:

By written submission

Parties

Representative

Submissions

Judith Anne Truax

Scott Rose

Requester

MPAC

No one appeared

Not Requested

Township of North Kawartha

No one appeared

Not Requested

DECISION DELIVERED BY PAUL MULDOON AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

1Scott Rose submitted this request to review the decision of this Assessment Review Board (“Board”) in WR 143094, issued on March 23, 2017 (the “Decision”), over a year after it was issued. He filed this request on June 1, 2018 and it was denied administratively by the Board a week later for being filed too late. Mr. Rose contested that denial and matter was referred to the Board for review.

2The Board finds that the request was filed outside of the time specified in the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”) and there is no compelling reason to extend the time to submit the request. The Board, therefore, denies the request for review.

Background

3Mr. Rose appeared at the hearing before Member Morris on September 23, 2016 in Apsley, Ontario, as the appellant. The appeal was only for the 2016 taxation year because MPAC had changed its opinion of the January 1, 2012 value of the property based on a building permit taken out for the property in 2014 and an inspection MPAC conducted in April 2015. The Board had determined the value for the 2013 taxation year to be $187,000, and that was applied to the 2014 and 2015 taxation years. However, when MPAC became aware that changes had been made to the property it changed its opinion of value for the 2016 taxation year. Mr. Rose appealed that new opinion of value and that was the only issue before Member Morris.

4Member Morris reserved his decision and issued written reasons for his decision on March 23, 2017. He found that the current value of the property for the 2016 taxation year was $211,000 and that it would be fair and equitable to assess the property at that amount. The Member based his finding on the sale prices of similar properties in the area.

5Mr. Rose submitted this application for review on June 1, 2018. His submission raises concerns with MPAC’s data and challenges a number of specific statements in the Decision.

Timing

6Requests for review have a number of procedural requirements, set out in Rule 120. Mr. Rose has satisfied all of them except the requirement that the request be filed “in writing no more than 30 days after the decision was issued.” Mr. Rose filed this request 435 days after the Decision was issued, which is 405 days after the deadline set in Rule 120.

7This Board can alter any time period in the Rules, pursuant to Rule 17, but will only do so when fairness requires an extension of time. The timelines in the Rules should generally be complied with because all parties rely on the same published timeline. Board processes are more efficient and reliable with that stability in the system. However, Rule 17 acknowledges that there may be situations where it would be appropriate to extend or abridge time.

8Mr. Rose argues that he should be permitted to file this application 405 days late. He says that there was some confusion on what was at issue given his ongoing discussions with MPAC about other taxation years and other issues. He sent an email to a staff member at this Board on June 7, 2017, 76 days after the Decision was issued, asking for help “to understand what is happening right now.” That email was never responded to, likely because the Board cannot provide that type of general direction. It appears that he next approached the Board on April 3, 2018, when he spoke with a different staff member of the Board, who outlined the request for review process with him. He did not file this request for another 59 days.

9Mr. Rose complains that the Board did not advise him of the 30 day filing requirement when the decision was released on March 23, 2017. But “Even self-reps are presumed to know the law,” Chorney v. Thompson, 2014 ABQB 410, 2014 CarswellAlta 1112, at paragraph 18. The Board also has information on its website regarding the request for review process. He does not explain why he did not contact the Board at all until over two months after the Decision was released.

10Mr. Rose has not presented any evidence that it would be unfair to enforce the 30 day filing deadline in Rule 120. He does not explain why there are such large gaps in time between him taking the steps required to file this application. There is no compelling reason to extend the time for filing. Mr. Rose’s application is therefore dismissed.

CONCLUSION

11Mr. Rose filed this application 405 days late and did not provide an adequate explanation for that delay. The Board will not consider late requests for review. Mr. Rose’s review application is dismissed.