Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: August 15, 2018

FILE NO.: RR 2018M09

Assessed Person: 188 Cartwright (Toronto) Inc.

Appellant: Cascades Containerboard Packaging

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

Respondent: City of Toronto

Property Location: 188 Cartwright Ave

Municipality: City of Toronto

Roll Number: 1908-042-280-00500-0000

Appeal Number: 3235893

Taxation Year: 2017

Legislative Authority: Rule 122 of the Assessment Review Board’s Rues of Practice and Procedure

Request for: Reinstatement of appeal 3235893

Heard: By written submission

Parties	Representative	Submissions
188 Cartwright (Toronto) Inc	No one appeared	Not Requested
Cascades Containerboard Packaging	Peter Drennan	Requester
“MPAC”	No one appeared	Not Requested
City of Toronto	No one appeared	Not Requested

DECISION DELIVERED BY SCOTT MCANSH AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

Introduction

1Cascade Containerboard Packaging (“Cascade”) requests that the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) reinstate the appeal 3235893 by way of a request for reinstatement pursuant to Rule 122 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”). This request for reinstatement was filed with the Board on June 14, 2018.

2The Board received a request to withdraw the appeal from Cascade and proceeded to process the withdrawal. Cascade states that a system error sent the withdraw error and that it was never its intention to withdraw the appeal.

3For the reasons that follow, I reinstate the appeal.

The Reinstatement Rule

4Rule 122 sets out the circumstances in which the Board will reinstate appeals that were withdrawn. The relevant provision of the Rule for this application is in clause 122(a), which states, in relevant part, that “a party to a former proceeding may seek an order… to reinstate an appeal by filing an affidavit with the Board… no more than 30 days after the appeal was… withdrawn… setting out that… the appeal was withdrawn… in error.”

5There are three essential components to Rule 122(a). First, it is only open to parties to the appeal that was withdrawn. Secondly, the order must be sought within 30 days after the appeal was dismissed or withdrawn. Finally, the Board must be satisfied that the appeal was withdrawn in error. All three conditions must be met before an appeal will be reinstated. Cascade’s application meets all of the essential requirements of Rule 122(a) and there is no reason to deny them a reinstatement. Appeal 3235893 is reinstated.

Party

6Cascade was the appellant in the withdrawn appeal. The first condition of Rule 122(a) is therefore met.

Timely Application

7Cascade sent its request to withdraw the appeal on May 11, 2018. Cascade contacted the Board to advise that the withdrawal request was sent in error 11 days later, on May 22, 2018. The Board released an acknowledgement of the withdrawals on May 25, 2018. This application was filed June 14, 2018.

8The application was filed 34 days after Cascade requested that the appeal be withdrawn. However, Rule 122 requires that applications for reinstatement be made “no more than 30 days after the appeal was… withdrawn by the Board.” The Board acknowledgement of withdrawal is dated May 25, 2018. This application was filed 20 days later. That is a timely application, satisfying the second condition of Rule 122(a).

Withdrawn in Error

9The final requirement of Rule 122(a) is that the appeal was withdrawn in error. Cascade states that “systems error” and a “clerical error.” It does not provide any information on the specific nature of the error. While a clerical error is the type of error that Rule 122(a) is aimed at, the type of error is a determination to be made by the Board based on the evidence filed. It is not sufficient to simply state that the error is the correct type of error. Evidence on what led to the error must be provided by the party seeking reinstatement.

10The only description of the error provided by Cascade is “systems error.” That is an indication that it was computer driven, but little more. In all the circumstances of this case, I accept that the error here was clerical. However, parties in future applications should provide evidence on how the error was made. Applications without sufficient evidence will fail to be reinstated.

11I am satisfied that a clerical error was made by Cascade, satisfying the final component of Rule 122(a).

Discretion

12It is not enough that all of the conditions in rule 122 are met. Reinstatement is discretionary, see Rule 123. The Board is not required to reinstate appeals just because the requirements in rule 122 are met. However, there must be compelling reasons not to reinstate if Rule 122 is satisfied. Prejudice to other parties will often be a relevant consideration in the discretionary aspect of any reinstatement order. There is nothing in the record here that would indicate that reinstatement would be inappropriate.

Conclusion

13Cascade meets all of the requirements for reinstatement. Cascade was a party to the withdrawn appeals, it filed this application in a timely way, and, while more evidence would have been preferred, I am satisfied that the error here was a good faith clerical error. I therefore reinstate appeal 3235893.