Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: August 22, 2018

FILE NO.: RR 2018M05

Assessed Person: 2276024 Ontario Inc.

Appellant: 2276024 Ontario Inc.

Respondent: Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region No. 20

Respondent: City of Brantford

Property Location: 118-134 Dalhousie Street

Municipality: City of Brantford

Roll Number: 2906-030-002-00850-0000

Appeal Numbers: 3069647, 3156598, 3225065 and 3310666,

Taxation Years: 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018

Legislative Authority: Rule 122 of the Assessment Review Board Rules of Practice and Procedure

Request for: Reinstatement of appeals 3069647, 3156598, 3225065 and 3310666

Heard: By written submission

Parties	Representative	Submissions
2276024 Ontario Inc.	Paul Grosman	Requester
MPAC	No one appeared	Not Requested
City of Brantford	No one appeared	Not Requested

DECISION DELIVERED BY SCOTT MCANSH AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

INTRODUCTION

12276024 Ontario Inc. (the “Company”) is requesting that this Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) reinstate appeals 3069647, 3156598, 3225065 and 3310666 pursuant to Rule 122 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”). This request for reinstatement was filed with the Board on June 6, 2018.

2The Company owns two adjacent properties, with very similar roll numbers. On May 14, 2018 the Company instructed its agent to withdraw the appeals related to one of the two properties. The Company’s agent mistakenly withdrew the appeals related to the other property. The Company asks that those appeals be reinstated because they were withdrawn in error.

3For the reasons that follow, I reinstate these appeals. The Company was a party to the appeals, it filed this request in a timely way, and the error made was an innocent clerical error, the type of error contemplated in Rule 122(a).

The Reinstatement Rule

4Rule 122 sets out the circumstances in which the Board will reinstate appeals that were dismissed by the Board or withdrawn. The relevant provision of the Rule for this application are 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seek an order… to reinstate an appeal by filing an affidavit with the Board… no more than 30 days after the appeal was… withdrawn… setting out that… the appeal was withdrawn… in error.”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 First, it is only open to parties to the appeal that was withdrawn.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. The Company’s application meets all of the essential requirements of Rule 122(a) and there is no reason to deny the Company relief here. Appeals 3069647, 3156598, 3225065 and 3310666 will be reinstated.

Party

6The Company was both the assessed person and appellant in the withdrawn appeals. It was therefore a party to the appeals, meeting the first condition of Rule 122(a).

Timely Application

7The Company requested that these appeals be withdrawn on May 14, 2018. The Board released an acknowledgement of those withdrawals on May 25, 2018. This application was filed June 6, 2018. That is 23 days after the withdrawal was sent and only 12 days after the Board’s acknowledgement notice. That is well within the 30 day timeline set out in Rule 122, satisfying the second condition of Rule 122(a).

Withdrawn in Error

8The final requirement of Rule 122(a) is that the appeal was withdrawn in error. The Company’s evidence makes it clear that a clerical error led to the withdrawal. That is the class of errors that Rule 122(a) is designed to address. The third and final requirement of Rule 122(a) is therefore met.

9The Company owns both 118-134 Dalhousie Street, with has roll number 2906-030-002-00850-0000, and 136-142 Dalhousie Street, which has roll number 2906-030-002-00800-0000. On May 14, 2018 they instructed their agent to confirm that the appeals related to 136-142 Dalhousie Street had been withdrawn. The Company’s agent swears that it intended to withdraw those appeals, as instructed. However, they entered the roll number of 118-134 Dalhousie Street in error and sent a request to withdraw those appeals to the Board. They did not request a withdrawal of the appeals related to 136-142 Dalhousie Street.

10The Company, or its agent, noticed the error just over a week later and advised the Board of the error on May 23, 2018. They perfected this application on June 6, 2018.

11The evidence is clear that this was a clerical error, either a typographic error or a transcription error. The two roll numbers for the Company’s properties differ by only one out of 19 digits. This is not a willful error, but rather a good faith, clerical, error that the Company attempted to correct in a timely way. Typographic or transcription errors are the type of errors that Rule 122(a) is designed to correct. There is no good reason to make parties live with the consequences of those types of good faith mistakes.

Discretion

12It is not strictly enough that all of the conditions in Rule 122 are met. Rule 123 makes any reinstatement a discretionary order. That is, the Board may still deny the relief if there is a compelling reason to do so. 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

13The Company meets all of the requirements for reinstatement. The Company was a party to the withdrawn appeals, it filed this application in a timely way, and the error here was a good faith typographical or transcription error. I therefore reinstate appeals 3069647, 3156598, 3225065 and 3310666.