Shawn Tang v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2019 CanLII 101170

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: October 21, 2019

FILE NO.: DM 2019M55

Moving Party(ies): Shawn Tang

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

Respondent(s): City of Toronto

Property Location(s): 1073 Bloor Street West

Municipality(ies): City of Toronto

Roll Number(s): 1904-044-280-04600-0000

Taxation Year(s): 2019

Hearing Event No.: 724179

Legislative Authority: Rule 26(b) of the Assessment Review Board Rules of Practice and Procedure

Heard: October 3, 2019 by written submission

Parties	Representative	Submissions
Shawn Tang	Eli Tang	Moving Party
MPAC	Drew Samuels	Received
City of Toronto		Not Received

DISPOSITION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY JOANNE LAWS

DISPOSITION OF MOTION

1Eli Tang represents his son, Shawn Tang, who is the owner of 1073 Bloor Street West in the City of Toronto (the “Property”). Shawn Tang seeks permission from the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) to file an appeal for the 2019 taxation year because he did not file an appeal prior to the deadline set out in the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”).

2To be successful in the motion, the Moving Party must meet the requirements of Rule 26(b) of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”), which it did not do. As a result, and for the reasons that follow, the motion to file a late appeal for the 2018 taxation year is denied.

Background

3Rule 26(b) of the Board’s Rules sets out the Board’s authority to accept a late appeal. It provides that:

26. The Board may accept an appeal received after the time set out in the Assessment Act only if the appellant satisfies the Board, by way of affidavit evidence, that:

(b) the appellant is a person entitled to receive a notice of assessment who did not receive notice and filed the appeal with the Board within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment or classification that is the subject of the appeal.

4Eli Tang submitted a short affidavit and supporting documents in support of the motion to file a late appeal. Drew Samuels of MPAC filed response arguments. The City of Toronto did not take part in this motion.

5Shawn Tang’s motion to file a late appeal was received by the Board on June 20, 2019. Eli Tang’s affidavit in support of a late appeal contains only one sentence. He affirms that the reason the appeal deadline of April 1, 2019 was missed is because the City of Toronto’s tax bill was not received until May 4, 2019.

6In addition to the affidavit, a copy of the Property’s December 19, 2018 and May 4, 2019 Tax Bills were submitted. The May 4, 2019 Tax Bill indicates an increase in the taxes levied due to a reassessment. Copies of Property Assessment Notices, dated October 18, 2016, November 15, 2017 and November 27, 2018, were also submitted. The latter two notices indicate that MPAC has updated the value of the Property.

7MPAC’s Mr. Samuels argues that the motion should be dismissed because the Moving Party failed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 26(b).

Late Appeal

8Rule 26(b) sets out the Board’s authority to accept a late appeal. The use of the word “and” in the Rule indicates that all three elements of the Rule must be satisfied for a prospective Appellant to be successful: the Appellant is a person entitled to receive a notice of assessment, the Appellant did not receive that notice and the appellant filed an appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment or classification that is the subject of the appeal.

Entitled to Notice

9The first requirement is that Shawn Tang be a person entitled to receive a notice of assessment. This was not disputed. I find that Shawn Tang is a person who was entitled to receive the notice of assessment for the Property.

Did not Receive Notice

10The second requirement is that Shawn Tang did not receive a notice of assessment. Neither Shawn Tang nor his father suggested that the notice of assessment was not received, only that he missed the April 1, 2019 deadline to file an appeal because the Property’s Tax Bill was not received until May 4, 2019. Presumably what the Moving Party is saying is that he did not understand how the changes to the assessment would impact the Property’s taxes.

11I have no evidence before me that Shawn Tang did not receive the notice of assessment in a timely fashion after MPAC mailed it in November 2018. Therefore, I find that Shawn Tang received that notice soon after it was mailed.

Timely Application

12The third question, whether the Moving Party filed an appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment or classification that is the subject of the appeal. Based on the evidence before me I find that Shawn Tang cannot qualify for a timely application as contemplated in Rule 26(b) because the period between the mailing of the assessment notice and his motion date of June 20, 2019 is more than the 30 days.

CONCLUSION

13Shawn Tang meets only one of the three essential requirements of Rule 26(b) and, therefore, cannot file a 2019 taxation year appeal late because the mandatory requirements of Rule 26(b) are not met. Accordingly, his motion to file an appeal for the 2019 taxation year is denied.