Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: October 3, 2018
Moving Party(ies): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 9
Respondent(s): TG South Etobicoke Properties Ltd.
Respondent(s): City of Toronto
Property Location(s): 34 Riverwood Parkway
Municipality(ies): City of Toronto
Roll Number(s): 1919-018-260-01800-0000
Appeal Number(s): 3248867 and 3299216
Taxation Year(s): 2017 and 2018
Hearing Event No.: 702677
Legislative Authority: Rule 24(e) of the Assessment Review Board Rules of Practice and Procedure
Heard: In writing
APPEARANCES:
Parties Representative
MPAC Katelyn Morrow
TG South Etobicoke Properties Ltd. No one appeared
City of Toronto No one appeared
DISPOSITION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY SCOTT McANSH
1MPAC seeks to have these appeals dismissed because TG South Etobicoke Properties Ltd. (the “Company”) did not serve a statement of issues on or before the date specified by the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”). In the alternative, MPAC seeks to have the evidence the Company can rely on in these appeals limited. The Company did not make any submissions on this motion, despite being served with notice.
2For the reasons that follow, the appeals are dismissed for non-compliance with the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”).
Background
3The Company is the former owner of the property located at 34 Riverwood Parkway in the City of Toronto. It sold the property in 2017, but filed an appeal for the 2017 assessment of the property before it did so. It was deemed to have appealed the 2018 assessment as well, pursuant to subsection 40(26) of the Assessment Act, RSO 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”).
4The Board assigned a commencement date of December 15, 2017 to the 2017 taxation year appeal pursuant to Rule 33. MPAC sent its initial disclosure to the Company on December 20, 2017, in compliance with the schedule of events set out in the Rules. The next major step in the schedule was for the Company to provide MPAC and the City of Toronto with its statement of issues on or before May 11, 2018. It did not do so.
5MPAC requested the Company’s statement of issues on May 29, 2018, offering to accept it if it was served by June 4, 2018. The Company’s representative responded that day, stating that it did not intend to file a statement of issues. MPAC first sought dismissal of these appeals, by way of an Expedited Board Directions Form, on June 6, 2018. This motion was set, with notice to all parties, on July 13, 2018.
Dismissal
6MPAC puts forward two main theories on the legal basis for dismissing these appeals. First, it argues that the requirement to serve a statement of issues is a request by the Board for information, so the Company’s failure to comply is grounds for a dismissal. Its second argument is that Company has not complied with the Rules, and that the appeals should be dismissed on that basis. I do not accept that a statement of issues is a request for information. I do, however, find that the Company is in breach of the Rules in a clear, egregious, and unilateral way. I therefore dismiss the appeals.
Providing Information
7Rule 24(d) permits a Member of the Board to “dismiss an appeal without holding a hearing event… if… the appellant has not responded to a request by the Board for further information within the time specified by the Board.” MPAC argues that in setting the date on which the Company was to serve its statement of issues the Board was requesting information from the Company. I do not accept that assertion.
8The requirement in Schedule A of the Rules is that the Company provide “its disclosure and Statement of Issues to all other parties.” Those documents do not need to be provided to the Board until far later in the appeal process. It is difficult to see a requirement to send documents to other people as a request for information by the Board.
9This Board recently explained the policy rationale for Rule 24(d) in Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region No 7 v Cherry, [2018 CanLII 60392 (ON ARB)](https://www.minicounsel.ca/oarb/2018/60392