Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: February 14, 2019

FILE NO.: DM 2019M02

Moving Party(ies): Marlene Parent Bleau

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation ("MPAC") Region 1

Respondent(s): Township of East Hawkesbury

Property Location(s): 3280 Stardale Road

Municipality(ies): Township of East Hawkesbury

Roll Number(s): 0201-000-004-13300-0000 and 0201-000-004-13301-0000

Taxation Year(s): 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017

Hearing Event No.: 709269

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

Heard: January 7, 2019 by written submission

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Marlene Parent Bleau	Robert Tchegus
MPAC	No one appeared
Township of East Hawkesbury	No one appeared

DISPOSITION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY SCOTT McANSH

1Marlene Parent Bleau applies to have this Assessment Review Board (this "Board") order MPAC to appeal the assessments of her property well after the filing deadlines set in the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the "Act"). Ms. Bleau argues that there are palpable errors in the assessment roll and that this is an appropriate case in which to create late appeals. Neither MPAC nor the Township of East Hawkesbury (the "Township") submitted any material on this motion, despite being properly served with notice of the motion.

2For the reasons that follow, I find that there are palpable errors in the assessment roll. I also find that it would be unreasonable, unfair, and highly prejudicial to Ms. Bleau to leave the assessment roll closed. I therefore extend the time for bringing appeals for the 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017 taxation years of the assessments of roll numbers 0201-000-004-13300-0000 and 0201-000-004-13301-0000 and direct MPAC to be the appellant.

Background

3Ms. Bleau is the owner of 3280 Stardale Road in the Township of East Hawkesbury. She initially purchased the property in August 1999 as joint tenant with Christopher Bleau. She became the sole owner in May 2011. The legal description of the property is PT LT 32 CON 4 EAST HAWKESBURY PT 1, 46R1093; T/W Rl02524; SIT EH18585; EAST HAWKESBURY. When it was purchased it was described as Part 1 of Lot 32, Concession 4, on both Plan 46R-2526 and Plan 46R-1093. Part 1 on Plan 46R-2526 is smaller than, and entirely within, Part 1 on Plan 46R-1093. The description was changed when the property was converted to the land titles system in 2010.

4As a result of the property being described as being on two separate plans, MPAC assigned two separate roll numbers to the parcel: 0201-000-004-13300-0000 related to Plan 46R-1093 and 0201-000-004-13301-0000 related to Plan 46R-2526. The land assigned to 0201-000-004-13301-0000 was the remaining land after the land in Plan 46R-2526 was removed. Ms. Bleau has received two tax notices for each year since she purchased the property. When she was a joint tenant one was made out to Christopher Bleau and one was made out to her. She began to suspect something was amiss when both notices were made out to her, starting in 2011.

5In September 2011 Ms. Bleau received two tax notices and went to the land registry office to see if the property was more than one lot. The land titles office informed her that there was only one Property Identification Number for the property, so it was one property. She then went to the Township to have the matter rectified. The Township said it would look into the matter, but never got back to Ms. Bleau. The process was repeated in January 2012, when Ms. Bleau got her next tax notice.

6In 2013, Ms. Bleau again went to the land registry office and the Township and was again told that it was one parcel and that the Township would look into the matter. The Township never got back to her. In 2014 Ms. Bleau was unable to take those steps due to traumatic events in her life. However, she undertook the same exercise, with the same results in 2015. She had personal difficulties in 2016 and 2017 that prevented her from taking those steps.

7In 2018, after again not getting any results from the Township, Ms. Bleau contacted her Member of Parliament. Her MP informed her that she should contact MPAC, which she did. She filed a request for reconsideration of the 2018 assessments. MPAC agreed that there should only be one assessment and reduced the value of 0201-000-004-13301-0000 to $0. The combined value of the two assessments for the 2018 taxation year was $213,000. After the assessments were consolidated the assessment was $177,000. That is a reduction of $36,000, or approximately 17%.

8Ms. Bleau argues that the 2018 settlement with MPAC shows that the property has been mistakenly over assessed since she purchased it in 1999.

Legal Framework

9This motion is brought pursuant to clause 40.1(b) of the Act which states: "If it appears that there are palpable errors in the assessment roll… if alteration of assessed values or classification of land is involved, the Board may extend the time for bringing appeals and direct the assessment corporation to be the appellant."

10Clause 40.1(b) requires that I determine if there are palpable errors in the assessment roll. This Board held, in Municipal Property Assessment Corporation v Chew, 2015 CanLII 78969 (ON ARB), ("Chew") at paragraph 19, that "the enquiry into palpable error requires a consideration first of whether it is a true inadvertent and unintentional error, and second whether that error is palpable."

11The Ontario Superior Court has held that a palpable error is "an error of conspicuous magnitude; plain, evident, obvious, and easy to understand," Brockville (City) v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2016 ONSC 5752 ("Brockville") at paragraph 14.

12A finding that there is a palpable error does not end the inquiry. The relief in clause 40.1(b) is discretionary and should only be exercised in the clearest of circumstances, see Hopper v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2016 CanLII 24421 (ON ARB) at paragraph 13. Appeals should only be created under section 40.1 if it would be "unreasonable, unfair, and highly prejudicial" to leave the assessment roll as it stands, Municipal Property Assessment Corporation v Guelph Eramosa Township, 2018 CanLII 263 (ON ARB) ("Guelph") at paragraph 16.

Palpable Error

13There is no evidence that the error here, assigning two roll numbers to one legal parcel, was intentional. It was a record error that MPAC corrected once the mistake was brought to its attention. The error is a true unintentional error.

14As I noted in Canadian Tire Corporation Limited v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 15, 2017 CanLII 3661 (ON ARB), ("Canadian Tire") at paragraph 9, an "incongruity between the assessment roll and the legal description of land is a common basis for a finding that there is a palpable error." That is the nature of the error here. At all material times the land could only be conveyed as one parcel of land. That was made abundantly clear when the property was transferred to the land titles system in 2010 and was only assigned one Property Identification Number.

15Assigning two roll numbers to one parcel of land is plainly and obviously wrong. "The assessment roll should reflect the legal description of land," Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 05 v Scrymgeour, 2018 CanLII 102695 (ON ARB) at paragraph 8. There are palpable errors in the assessment of this property for the 1999 through 2017 taxation years when this single parcel of land was assigned two assessments.

Discretion

16Having found palpable errors in the assessment roll, I must now consider if I should exercise my discretion to extend the time for filing appeals. I must consider if leaving the assessment roll closed would be "unreasonable, unfair, and highly prejudicial," see Guelph at paragraph 16.

17It would be unreasonable to leave the roll closed here. Ms. Bleau has been paying more in taxes than she ought to have. She took action starting in 2011, which is when the two notices were first both made out to her. While she could have been more diligent in tracking her assessments, letting that situation stand would be unreasonable.

18It would also be unfair to Ms. Bleau to have her paying more than her fair share of taxes. She took reasonable steps to correct those errors since 2011. The Township never advised her to contact MPAC and did not assist Ms. Bleau in any meaningful way. It is unfair to leave the roll closed in this situation.

19The final, and most important, factor to consider under discretion is the prejudice to the parties. Palpable errors that result in higher taxes always prejudice taxpayers, Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 28 v Callander (Municipality), 2018 CanLII 110104 (ON ARB) at paragraph 22. MPAC has an obligation to prepare a correct assessment roll, so cannot be prejudiced by these palpable errors in the roll being remedied. The Township will be impacted financially, but it also had the means to correct this error many years ago when Ms. Bleau first brought it to its attention. There is no significant prejudice to the Township. The balance of prejudice favours extending the time for appeals to be filed.

CONCLUSION

20I find that there are palpable errors in the assessment roll related to the property at 3280 Stardale Road in the Township of East Hawkesbury. I also find that this is appropriate case in which to reopen the assessment roll. I therefore extend the time for filing appeals of roll numbers 0201-000-004-13300-0000 and 0201-000-004-13301-0000 for the 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017 taxation years and direct MPAC to be the appellant.