Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: February 22, 2019

FILE NO.: DM 2019M10

Moving Party(ies): Alexandria Ward

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation ("MPAC"), Region 15

Respondent(s): City of Burlington

Property Location(s): 2252 Fassel Avenue

Municipality(ies): City of Burlington

Roll Number(s): 2402-050-504-03102-0000

Taxation Year(s): 2016

Hearing Event No.: 709664

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

Heard: December 14, 2018 by written submission

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Alexandria Ward	Self-represented
MPAC	No one appeared
City of Burlington	Paul Lacelle

DISPOSITION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY JEAN-PAUL PILON AND SCOTT McANSH

DISPOSITION OF MOTION

1Alexandria Ward, the owner of 2252 Fassel Avenue, in the City of Burlington, requested leave of the Assessment Review Board (the "Board") to file an appeal for the 2016 taxation year because she did not file an appeal prior to the deadline set out in the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the "Act").

2In support of the motion, Ms. Ward filed two affidavits, the first sworn or affirmed on August 27, 2018, and the second sworn or affirmed on January 2, 2019.

3Paul Lacelle, Coordinator of Assessment for the City of Burlington, indicated in writing that the municipality would not participate in the motion. MPAC did not file any material on this motion.

4For the reasons that follow, the Board determines that the motion should be denied.

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION OF MOTION

5The substance of both affidavits is the same. In them, Ms. Ward indicates that this property is a residential dwelling that was built in 2016 and first occupied in October 2016. The affidavits then say that the moving party later discovered MPAC's "reassessment notice" for the taxation year, which was more likely an omitted assessment pursuant to subsection 33(1) of the Act, indicated that the property had been occupied as of July 4, 2016, not October 2016. Ms. Ward goes on to say that she spoke to someone from MPAC in December 2017 to tell them that she had not been aware of the "reassessment notice" for 2016, or the alleged error, because the document was sent to an incorrect address.

6The affidavits then detail correspondence with MPAC and the Board. These include statements that a request to extend time was filed on January 5, 2018, and was denied by the Board on April 11, 2018. Ms. Ward sought instructions on how to appeal the denial of an extension of time and was eventually directed to apply for a late appeal pursuant to Rule 26(b).

7There is no evidence that a request for reconsideration was ever filed of the 2016 assessment. Ms. Ward says that she never received the 2016 notice of assessment, so was unable to file a request for reconsideration.

8It is unclear if Ms. Ward is seeking a review of the Board's April 2018 denial of her application for an extension of time to file a request for reconsideration of the 2016 assessment, or an application to file a late appeal pursuant to Rule 26(b). We will therefore address both potential applications.

Request for Review

9A review of a Board decision must be made pursuant to Rule 120. That Rule has a number of procedural requirements, including written reasons for the decision under review, proof of service on all other parties, and a filing fee. Ms. Ward has not complied with any of those requirements.

10However, even if she had complied with the procedural requirements for a review, there is no indication that the Board made any error in denying her request for an extension of time. The Board may only extend time pursuant subsection 40(4), which permits extensions only "on an application by the person during the taxation year." Ms. Ward applied to the Board on January 5, 2018 to extend the time to file a request for reconsideration of the 2016 taxation year assessment. That is not an application made during the taxation year. Therefore, the Board had no legal authority to extend the time.

Late Appeal

11Rule 26(b) provides that the Board may accept an appeal late if an appellant entitled to receive a notice of assessment who did not receive it files the appeal with the Board within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment. But property in the residential property class cannot apply directly to the Board. Subsection 40(3) of the Act provides that:

if a property is in the residential…property class, no appeal may be brought to the… Board… by a person who is entitled to make a request for reconsideration under section 39.1 in respect of the property, if the person has not made the request within the time required under that section.

12Section 39.1 sets out the request for reconsideration procedure. The deadline for filing a request for reconsideration set out in subsection 39.1(1.1) of the Act is "no later than March 31 of the taxation year in respect of which the respect was made." For the 2016 taxation year, that date would have been March 31, 2016. If the notice that Ms. Ward received was an omitted assessment notice for 2016 pursuant to subsection 33(1) of the Act, the deadline was "90 days after the mailing date of the notice of assessment," pursuant to subsection 39.1(3.1). We do not know when the 2016 notice as issued, but it was presumably some time in 2016. Ms. Ward missed both deadlines and the Board has already denied an extension of time to submit a 2016 request for reconsideration.

13Ms. Ward cannot file an appeal to this Board unless she has filed a timely request for reconsideration with MPAC. We cannot consider a late appeal when the statutory requirement of a request for reconsideration is not met. Rule 26(b) has no application when subsection 40(3) of the Act applies, because the Act sets out the limited power this Board has over the request for review filing deadline in subsection 40(4). Ms. Ward's application pursuant to Rule 26(b) is denied.

CONCLUSION

14Leave to appeal for the 2016 taxation year is denied because a request for reconsideration was not filed and the time for filing that request cannot be extended.