C.S. v. City of Mississauga, 2019 CanLII 103795

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

October 30, 2019

FILE NO.:

RD 2019M22

Assessed Person(s):

A.S.

Appellant(s):

C.S

Respondent(s):

City of Mississauga

Property Location(s):

Withheld

Municipality(ies):

City of Mississauga

Roll Number(s):

Withheld

Appeal Number(s):

3282384

Taxation Year(s):

2017

Hearing Event No.:

707168

Legislative Authority:

Rule 123 of the Assessment Review Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, as amended

Request for:

A review of the Board’s Decision WR 157697 issued on January 16, 2019

Heard:

By written submission

Parties

Counsel+/Representative

Submissions

A.S. (Deceased)

G.S. (A.S. Spouse)

C.S.

Requester

City of Mississauga

No one appeared

Not Received

DECISION DELIVERED BY PAUL MULDOON AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

INTRODUCTION

1G.S. filed a written Request for Review with the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) regarding the Board’s Decision A.S. v. Mississauga (City), 2019 CanLII 3421 (ON ARB) WR 157697 issued on January 16, 2019 (“Decision”) which granted a 50% reduction of property taxes for the 2017 taxation year on the basis of sickness or extreme poverty pursuant to s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25 (the “Act”). This Request for Review was filed with the Board on March 6, 2019 under Rules 120 to 123 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“the Rules”).

2G.S. indicates that she believes that the Decision should be reviewed on two grounds: 1) the basis of new evidence; and 2) false and misleading information and that she should be granted a 100% reduction of property taxes. For the reasons provided below, the Board finds that the new evidence is such that the Board may have reached a different decision and that the Request to Review should be granted and the matter sent to a new hearing before a different Board Member. Because the Board is directing this matter to being reheard before a different Member, it is not necessary for the Board to make any findings on the other ground in the Request for Review.

RELEVANT RULES

3Review requests must meet the procedural requirements of Board Rule 120 before they are considered. In this case, notwithstanding the fact that the Request for Review was filed late, to preserve G.S.’s rights to natural justice, the Board has exercised its discretion under Rule 17 to alter the time period.

4Apart from the fact that the Request for Review was filed late, G.S. has otherwise met the procedural requirements in Rule 120.

5Request for Reviews will not be granted unless a ground for review listed in Rule 120 is established. That Rule states:

Grounds for Review

120. A request for review will not be granted unless the Board is satisfied that:

(a) the Board acted outside its jurisdiction or violated the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness;

(b) the Board made a significant error of law or fact such that the Board would likely have reached a different decision;

(c) the Board heard false or misleading evidence from a party or witness, which was discovered only after the hearing and would have affected the result;

(d) there is new evidence that could not have reasonably been obtained earlier and would have affected the result; or

(e) any of the situations in Rule 122 exist.

6The Board has the power to dismiss a Request for Review; it may confirm, vary, or cancel a decision, order a motion to decide the Request for Review, or order a rehearing or, after it has considered submissions from all parties. If the Board is not satisfied that a ground for review has been established, the Board may dismiss the Request for Review based on Rule 123(a).

REVIEW ISSUE – NEW EVIDENCE

7In the Request to Review, G.S. has indicated that there is new evidence regarding her mortgage and other financial evidence which was not presented to the hearing member.

8It is unclear whether this evidence was available at the time of the hearing, but it appears that some of the evidence was not available. The nature of the evidence is such that it may have an impact on the decision. When reviewing the circumstances of this matter as a whole and the various challenges facing the applicant, the Board is satisfied that it is appropriate to set this matter down to be a new hearing before a different Member.

NEW HEARING

9As stated, the Decision is cancelled and this matter is being sent to a new hearing. This means:

a) That the parties are to appear at the Board before a different Member ready to start the hearing from the beginning ready to introduce any and all evidence and to make all submissions pertaining to G.S.’s 2017 application. Fresh copies of evidence will be required.

b) The Member will hear all the evidence and submissions of the parties, and is required at law to make his or her own decision, and is not bound in any way to any of the findings or decisions of the Member who conducted the first hearing and wrote the Decision.

10The Board will not be using any copies of evidence that were submitted at the initial hearing before the Member.

11G.S. shall provide the City of Mississauga and the Board with a copy of all evidence she wishes to rely upon no later than 14 days before the next hearing date.

ORDER

12The Request for Review is granted, the Decision is cancelled.

13The Board shall schedule a new hearing before a different Member.