Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 16 v. Onkar Singh and Gurmit Singh, 2018 CanLII 80820

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: August 22, 2018

FILE NO.: DM 153942

Moving Party: Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 16

Respondents: Onkar Singh and Gurmit Singh

Respondent: Township of Essa

Property Location: 5411 10th Side Road

Municipality: Township of Essa

Roll Number: 4321-010-002-05202-0000

Appeal Numbers: 3259691, 3259686 and 3259687

Taxation Years: 2014, 2015 and 2016

Hearing Event No.: 700978

Legislative Authority: Section 40(26) of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended

Heard: In writing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Representative

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation

David Zhao

Onkar Singh and Gurmit Singh

Gurjit Grewal

Township of Essa

Vera Vieira

DISPOSITION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY SCOTT McANSH

1The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) brings this motion to have deemed 2014, 2015, and 2016 appeals dismissed. They argue that the appeals for the property at 5411 10th Side Road in the Township of Essa were not properly deemed because the classification and assessed value of the subject property changed between the 2013 and 2014 taxation years. They say that the change made the issues different in later taxation years and that deeming requires that the issues be the same for each deemed appeal. The Township of Essa agrees with MPAC, and Onkar Singh and Gurmit Singh (the “Taxpayers”) did not file any submissions on this motion.

2The Board does not agree with MPAC’s reading of the deeming provision of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c A.31 (the “Act”). The Act sets out the conditions under which an appeal will be deemed and none of those conditions concern the classification or value returned for each taxation year. The conditions for deeming were all met here and the appeals must, therefore, be dealt with on their merits. MPAC’s motion to dismiss the appeals is denied.

Deeming

3The Taxpayers filed an appeal of the assessment of the subject property for the 2013 taxation year on November 19, 2013. That appeal was not disposed of by this Board until December 8, 2017, when the matter came before Member Weagant. That meant that the appeal was not finally disposed of before March 31, 2014, 2015, and 2016. The Act therefore deemed that the Taxpayers had filed appeals for each of those taxation years in s. 40(26)(b). That subsection states, in relevant part, that:

an appellant shall be deemed to have brought the same appeal in respect of a property… in relation to the assessment… for a subsequent taxation year to which the same general reassessment applies, if the appeal is not finally disposed of before March 31 of the subsequent taxation year…

4That subsection creates an appeal from an existing appeal if two conditions are met. Firstly, the same “general reassessment” must apply to the taxation year in question. Secondly, the appeal must not have been finally disposed of before March 31 of that taxation year.

5MPAC does not dispute that the Taxpayers’ 2013 appeal was not finally disposed of until December 8, 2017. The second requirement of deeming is therefore met for the 2014, 2015, and 2016 taxation years. MPAC argues, however, that those appeals should not have been deemed because the same general reassessment does not apply to those taxation years. They submit that that condition is not met because the classification and assessed value of the property changed for the 2014 taxation year. They seem to read into the Act a requirement that the issues in dispute be identical before an appeal is deemed. There is nothing in the Act to support that conclusion.

Same General Reassessment

6The term “general reassessment” is defined in subsection 1(1) of the Act as “the updating of assessments as a result of the application of a new valuation day under subsection 19.2 (1).” Subsection 19.2(1) sets “the day as of which land is valued for a taxation year” and states that “for the period consisting of the four taxation years from 2013 to 2016, land is valued as of January 1, 2012.” That is, a “general reassessment” is the updating of assessment because the valuation day changed and the 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 taxation years all have the same valuation day. Those taxation years are all years to which the same general reassessment applies.

7MPAC suggests that deeming cannot apply because the Board could not make the same decision for all of the taxation years in question. They do not say how that flows from the Act. There is nothing in the deeming provision that makes a uniform decision a condition of deeming. This Board was clear in Municipal Property Assessment Corporation v Azar, 2016 CanLII 13000 (ON ARB) at paragraph 19, that a “deemed appeal does not mean that the decision on the previous taxation year automatically applies to the deemed appeal.” There is no reason to assume that it always will. It is true that many properties have the same assessment and classification throughout each general reassessment. It is also likely that the Legislature created deeming for that reason. But there is nothing in the Act that makes it a condition of deeming that the issues be identical, only that the same general reassessment apply. The Board could, very reasonably, reach different conclusions for two tax years if there are deemed appeals of the same property but the property has changed.

8MPAC argues that any changes require a taxpayer to file a new appeal, but that is not what the Act states. The deeming provision of the Act ensures that taxpayers’ rights are protected if this Board takes some time to dispose of an appeal. If the Legislature intended to only have appeals deemed when the issues are identical, it could have put that language in the Act. The Legislature did not do so.

9The Act creates an appeal if the same valuation day applies and the appeal has not been disposed of by March 31 of the taxation year. Those are the only conditions that the Legislature imposed before deeming an appellant to have filed the same appeal. Both of those conditions were met here.

Conclusion

10MPAC’s motion to dismiss these appeals is based solely on its argument that the 2014, 2015, and 2016 taxation year appeals should not been deemed. The Board does not accept MPAC’s interpretation of the deeming provision of the Act and it is not in accordance with previous decisions of this Board. The Taxpayers’ appeals of the 2014, 2015, and 2016 taxation years were properly created and must be disposed of on their merits. MPAC’s motion is denied.