Christina Vivani v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 09, 2019 CanLII 1215

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: January 7, 2019

FILE NO.: WR 157696

Assessed Person(s): Christina Vivani

Appellant(s): Christina Vivani

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 09

Respondent(s): City of Toronto

Property Location(s): 315 Springdale Blvd.

Municipality(ies): City of Toronto

Roll Number(s): 1906-022-370-01000-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3251367 and 3294194

Taxation Year(s): 2017 and 2018

Hearing Event No.: 707064

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

Heard: October 23, 2018 in Toronto, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Christina Vivani	No one appeared
MPAC	Jonathan Langille
City of Toronto	No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY MARK SPRAGGETT AND DIRK VANDERBENT

REASONS

Background

1Christina Vivani is the owner of 315 Springdale Blvd, Toronto (the “Subject Property”), which is a residential property.

2Pursuant to the provisions of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (“Act"), the assessment of land shall be based on its current value. The Act also provides that, for the 2017 to 2020 taxation years, the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) is required to assess this value as of the valuation date, January 1, 2016.

3MPAC’s has assessed the value of the Subject Property, as of January 1, 2016, at $675,000.

4Ms. Vivani (the “Appellant”) has filed appeals for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years with the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”), pursuant to s. 40 of the Act. She is represented by her spouse, Leonard Subotich.

5In overview, the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) has twice scheduled a hearing of this appeal, and neither the Appellant nor her representative has appeared on either hearing date. Consequently, at the second appearance date, the Board orally dismissed the appeals.

6Pursuant to s. 40(11) of the Act, the Municipality, (in this case, the City of Toronto) is a party to this proceeding. However, the Municipality did not advise the Board of its position on the issues raised in these appeals, and no one has appeared in these proceedings on the Municipality’s behalf.

7Pursuant to Rule 112 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”), Mr. Subotich subsequently requested written reasons for the Board’s decision. The purpose of this Decision is to provide these written reasons.

Issue

8The issue is whether the Board should dismiss the Appellant’s appeals?

Discussion, Analysis and Findings

9The hearing of this appeal was originally scheduled to proceed on December 6, 2017. At that time, MPAC’s representative, Jonathon Langille advised the Board that, in the early morning hours of the same day, Mr. Subotich e-mailed Mr. Langille to advise that he was ill and could not attend the hearing. The Appellant did not appear. The Board adjourned the hearing as it appeared that the on-set of Mr. Subotich’s illness was sudden. The Board found that this was exceptional circumstance warranting an adjournment. The Board directed that the Registrar schedule an appearance, to be heard by telephone conference call, to obtain a status update from the Appellant regarding whether she intended to proceed with her appeals.

10The telephone conference call appearance occurred on September 18, 2018. Mr. Langille appeared on behalf of MPAC and Mr. Subotich appeared on behalf of the Appellant. The Appellant, herself, did not appear. At that time, Mr. Subotich, on her behalf, requested that the Board direct that these appeals be heard by way of general proceeding. The Board did not grant this request, finding that there was nothing to suggest that the issues in this appeal were of sufficient complexity to require that they be heard by way of general proceeding. On the Appellant’s behalf, he also made some submissions regarding the Board’s jurisdiction to hear the appeals. The Board directed that these submissions would be addressed at the hearing. The Board noted that the Appellant had not filed any documents to be relied on at the hearing. The Board extended the due date set in the Schedule of Events for filing such documents with the Board, to October 5, 2018. The Board also confirmed that both MPAC and Mr. Subotich were available for a hearing on October 23, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. to be held at the Board’s offices. The Board then scheduled the hearing for this date, and directed that it would be marked peremptory. The Board explained to the parties that this meant that there would be no further adjournments of the hearing, so the hearing would proceed on this date. The Board subsequently delivered a Notice of Hearing to the parties for this hearing date and time.

11The hearing then proceeded, as scheduled, on October 23, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. At that time, Mr. Langille appeared at the hearing. Neither Mr. Subotich nor the Appellant appeared. The Appellant did not file with the Board any documents to be relied on at the hearing. Therefore, MPAC requested that the appeals be dismissed.

12In summary, there have been two hearing appearances scheduled to hear these appeals, the second being marked peremptory. The Board has provided ample time to the parties to prepare for the hearing. Neither the Appellant nor her representative appeared at the hearing on October 23, 2018, although they were given notice of this appearance date, and they both were made aware that the hearing would proceed on this date. For these reasons, the Board granted MPAC’s request that the Appellant’s appeals be dismissed.

DECISION

13The Appellant’s appeals are dismissed.