Peter Dyk v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2019 CanLII 109532

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE: November 14, 2019

FILE NO.: DM 2019M52

Moving Party(ies):

Peter Dyk

Respondent(s):

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 6

Respondent(s):

Prince Edward County

Property Location(s):

574 Hiscock Shores Road

Municipality(ies):

Prince Edward County

Roll Number(s):

1350-328-040-03170-0000

Taxation Year(s):

2019

Hearing Event No.:

724295

Legislative Authority:

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

Heard:

October 1, 2019 by written submission

Parties

Representative

Submissions

Peter Dyk

Self-represented

Moving Party

MPAC

Ashtyn Rank

Received

Prince Edward County

Not Received

DISPOSITION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY JOANNE LAWS

DISPOSITION OF MOTION

1Peter Dyk seeks to file a late appeal for the 2019 taxation year assessment of 574 Hiscock Shores Road (the “Property”) which is located in Prince Edward County. Mr. Dyk submits that he purchased this vacant lot on July 9, 2019 and, therefore, could not meet the deadline for a Request for Reconsideration (“RfR”). Mr. Dyk seeks to appeal the assessment because his purchase price is significantly less than the assessed value.

2MPAC argues that Mr. Dyk cannot file a late appeal for the 2019 taxation year because he was not the owner at the time the roll was returned and, therefore, was not “a person entitled to receive a notice of assessment”. MPAC submits that on May 9, 2016 it issued a Property Assessment Notice to the owner of the property for the 2017 to 2020 taxation years.

3Rule 26(b) of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“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.

4I agree with MPAC that Rule 26(b) cannot be complied with because Mr. Dyk is not a person who was entitled to receive a notice of assessment; he was not an owner of the Property at the time the Notice of Assessment was issued.

5I have also considered whether I have jurisdiction to extend the time for Mr. Dyk to file an RfR but find that he was not entitled to file an RfR for 2019. In his affidavit, Mr. Dyk said that due to the purchase date, he could not meet the deadline to file an RfR with MPAC. Pursuant to s.40(4) of the Act, the Board may extend the deadline for filing an RfR by the person who was required to file an RfR pursuant to s. 40(3) of the Act. Section 40(3) of the Act provides that an RfR is a mandatory precondition to an appeal, where a property is in the residential, farm or managed forests property class, by anyone who is entitled to make an RfR. That entitlement is set out in s. 39.1 as the “owner of a property or a person who has received or would be entitled to receive a notice of assessment under this Act”. Accordingly, I find that I do not have the jurisdiction to extend the time because Mr. Dyk was not entitled to file an RfR for the 2019 taxation year.

CONCLUSION

6Peter Dyk cannot file a late 2019 taxation year appeal because the mandatory requirements of Rule 26(b) are not met. Mr. Dyk’s motion to file his appeal for the 2019 taxation year is therefore denied.