Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: December 11, 2019

FILE NO.: DM 2019M64

Moving Party(ies): Jason Lionel Patry

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 02

Respondent(s): Township of Leeds and the Thousand Islands

Property Location(s): 697 Thousand Islands Parkway

Municipality(ies): Township of Leeds and the Thousand Islands

Roll Number(s): 0812-812-025-27402-0000

Taxation Year(s): 2017

Hearing Event No.: 725778

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

Heard: November 15, 2019 by written submission

Parties	Counsel+/Representative	Submissions
Jason Lionel Patry	Roberto D. Aburto+	Moving Party
MPAC	Ashtyn Rank	Received
Township of Leeds and the Thousand Islands		Not Received

DISPOSITION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY JOANNE LAWS

DISPOSITION OF MOTION

1On May 16, 2016 Jason Lionel Patry purchased 697 Thousand Islands Parkway (the “Property”) which is located in the Township of Leeds and the Thousand Islands (the “Township”). On September 16, 2019 he filed a motion for the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) to extend time to file a Request for Reconsideration (“RfR”) and to accept a late appeal for the 2017 taxation year.

2In his material he also sought a reinstatement of a 2016 taxation year appeal which will not be addressed in this motion. The Board will address this matter separately.

3Mr. Patry is represented by Roberto D. Aburto of Gowling WLG. MPAC is represented by Ashtyn Rank.

4The Township, which would be a party to the appeal if accepted, filed no submissions in the motion.

5For the reasons that follow, Mr. Patry’s motion is denied.

Background

6With regard to the 2017 taxation year, Mr. Patry filed an affidavit, dated June 1, 2018 affirming that:

a. On March 30, 2017 he directed his assistant to fax an RfR for the 2017 taxation year “to the fax number we thought was for MPAC”.

b. His assistant faxed the RfR to this Board in error.

c. The Board forwarded the RfR request to MPAC and MPAC rejected it as being filed late.

d. He had no knowledge that MPAC rejected the 2017 RfR and in March 2018 he contacted MPAC to enquire about it. He had not followed up on his RfR since filing it because “I know that these matters can take several years to deal with”.

e. MPAC informed him that the RfR request was denied on June 6, 2017.

f. He did not receive MPAC’s correspondence rejecting the 2017 RfR.

g. MPAC advised him that there was a pending 2016 taxation year appeal, filed by the previous owner, scheduled to be heard on May 9, 2019.

h. He was advised by MPAC that the 2016 appeal would be used as the starting point for the 2017-2020 values.

i. The Board provided him with the call-in information for the 2016 taxation year appeal because he intended to seek party status.

j. He called into the hearing, however no one attended. Afterwards, the previous owner advised Mr. Patry that he had withdrawn the 2016 taxation year appeal.

k. He then spoke to a staff member at this Board who explained the process for “re-opening” the 2017 RfR and clarified that the 2016 taxation year assessment would not affect the 2017 taxation year assessment because the two years are in different assessment cycles and have different valuation days.

l. He became “aware today”, presumably the date of the affidavit, that he could seek a re-opening of the 2017 RfR.

7With regard to the extension of time request to file a 2017 RfR, Mr. Patry also submitted:

a. an affidavit of Alan-James Mehlomakulu dated September 12, 2019 which outlines much of the same information provided in Mr. Patry’s affidavit.

b. A copy of a June 1, 2018 email to this Board’s Associate Chair asking that the 2017 RfR be re-opened. The email address used to communicate with this Board is incorrect.

c. A copy of his completed 2017 RfR form.

8Ms. Rank of MPAC submitted the affidavit of Veronica Wellman, a Case Management Analyst Assistant, affirmed on October 29, 2019. Ms. Wellman affirms that:

a. On November 28, 2016 MPAC issued an Amended Property Assessment Notice for the 2017 to 2020 taxation years.

b. The deadline to file an RfR for the 2017 taxation year was March 28, 2017 which was set out in the Amended Property Assessment Notice.

c. On March 28, 2017 Mr. Patry faxed an RfR for the 2017 taxation year to this Board rather than to the assessing corporation.

d. On April 25, 2017 MPAC received the RfR, forwarded from this Board.

e. On June 6, 2017 MPAC issued a letter to Mr. Patry using the same address MPAC used for the Amended Property Assessment Notice informing him that the RfR was received after the legislated deadline.

f. MPAC’s records show that Mr. Patry contacted MPAC on March 16, 2018 to determine the outcome of the 2017 RfR at which time he was advised that MPAC had rejected the RfR because it was filed after the legislated deadline.

g. On September 24, 2019 this Board sent a letter to the owner, copying MPAC, acknowledging the request for a late appeal.

9MPAC submitted a copy of the Amended Property Assessment Notice for the 2017 to 2020 taxation years, a copy of the RfR, date stamped March 28, 2017 by this Board and April 25, 2017 by MPAC.

Request for Reconsideration

10The Property is assessed in the residential and managed forest tax classes for the 2017 taxation year. Section 40(3) of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.A31 (the “Act”) requires the filing of an RfR with MPAC for properties in either of those classes as a prerequisite to filing an appeal.

11The RfR process is governed by s. 39.1 of the Act and it provides that the assessment corporation has the authority to reconsider an assessment. The deadline to file an RfR for the 2017 taxation year was March 28, 2017 or 120 days from November 28, 2016 which is the date printed on the assessment notice.

12Section 40(4) of the Act restricts the time for allowing an extension of time to file an RfR:

If, in the Board’s opinion, there are extenuating circumstances explaining why a request for reconsideration in respect of a property was not made within the time required under section 39.1 by a person who was required to do so as a precondition of appeal under subsection (3), the Board may, on an application by the person during the taxation year, extend the deadline for making a request under that section. (emphasis mine)

13The problem here is that the Board’s authority to extend time to file an RfR is limited to requests made in the taxation year in which the request is made. That means that a request to extend time for the 2017 taxation year could only be made in 2017. Mr. Patry did not follow up on his RfR until March 2018, and his request to extend the time was not made until September 2019.

14The Board appreciates that the RfR was sent to this Board in error however the responsibility for filing the RfR to the correct body and within the deadlines lies with the person making it.

15Had Mr. Patry believed that his RfR was filed in a timely way, he had two deadlines for filing an appeal pursuant to s. 40.(5) of the Act.

40.(5) For 2017 and subsequent taxation years, if a person has made a request for reconsideration in respect of a property under section 39.1, whether or not the person is required to do so as a precondition of appeal under subsection (3), the last day for the person to appeal for a taxation year is as follows:

1. If the assessment corporation has mailed a notice of reconsideration required under subsection 39.1 (7) or (8), 90 days after the issuance date printed on the notice mailed by the assessment corporation.

2. If the assessment corporation has not mailed a notice of reconsideration within the time required under subsection 39.1 (7) or (8), 90 days after the notice should have been mailed by the corporation under those subsections.

16The first deadline applies when MPAC “has mailed a notice of reconsideration” within the required time line and the second is where MPAC has not mailed a notice of reconsideration. That second date is 90 days from the date that MPAC should have mailed its response. Section 39.1(7) provides MPAC shall mail the results of the RfR within 180 days after the request was made. Had Mr. Patry filed his RfR with MPAC on the deadline of March 28, 2017 and not received MPAC’s response to that request, the deadline to file an appeal would have been December 22, 2017 (March 28, 2017 + MPAC’s 180 day deadline + the taxpayer’s 90 days to file an appeal). Mr. Patry did not follow up on his RfR until March 2018 and did not file his motion to extend the time to file an RfR until 2019.

17Mr. Patry argues that the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”) provide that it may alter time periods and that it would be fair and reasonable to extend the time for filing an RfR in these circumstances and that such an extension would not be prejudicial to the other parties. This is a reference to Rule 17 which provides that “Any time period set out in these Rules can be altered by the Board”. While Mr. Patry’s argument has some merit, the alteration of time periods only applies to the Board’s Rules and not to the Act. As set out above, the Act limits the extension of time to file an RfR.

18In summary, the Board has no authority to extend the time to file an RfR and without an RfR no appeal can be filed for a property in the residential and managed forest tax classes.

CONCLUSION

19Based on the above analysis and findings, Mr. Patry’s motion to file a late appeal is denied.