2035332 Ontario Limited v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 14, 2019 CanLII 14339

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: February 22, 2019

FILE NO.: DM 2019M13

Moving Party(ies): 2035332 Ontario Limited

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”), Region 14

Respondent(s): City of Vaughan

Property Location(s): 349 Four Valley Drive

Municipality(ies): City of Vaughan

Roll Number(s): 1928-000-233-28563-0000

Taxation Year(s): 2017

Hearing Event No.: 709781

Legislative Authority: Subsection 39.1(7) of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended and Rule 26(b) of the Assessment Review Board Rules of Practice and Procedure

Heard: February 11, 2019 by written submission

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
2035332 Ontario Limited	Maria Galipo
MPAC	Patrizia Dalamagas
City of Vaughan	No one appeared

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

12035332 Ontario Limited, owner of 349 Four Valley Drive in the City of Vaughan, requests leave of the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) to file a request for reconsideration and an appeal for the 2017 taxation year because neither of these were filed prior to the deadlines set out in the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”).

2For the reasons that follow, the motion is denied.

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION OF MOTION

3Maria Galipo filed an affidavit sworn on July 21, 2017, on behalf of 2035332 Ontario Limited, indicating that she attempted to file a request for reconsideration for the 2017 taxation year on March 29, 2017. That filing was refused because MPAC’s position was that the deadline was February 15, 2017 and that it had passed.

4MPAC filed the affidavit of its Property Valuation Analyst Patrizia Dalamagas, sworn on January 28, 2019, which indicated that MPAC issued its notice of assessment for the property on October 18, 2016. In reply, and not in the form of an affidavit, Ms. Galipo wrote that she did not receive that notice of assessment which showed the deadline to file a request for reconsideration which, in her view, had been changed from the usual deadline of March 31 of the taxation year. Ms. Galipo also said in the reply that she was aware of MPAC’s assessment as a result of a telephone call to MPAC. Ms. Galipo filed the request for an extension of time on July 11, 2017 when she became aware of MPAC’s correspondence that had been sent to a different address.

5Ms. Galipo referred to both the filing of a request for reconsideration and the filing of an appeal in her material and both possibilities are considered in this decision.

Request for Reconsideration

6The property is in the multi-residential property class. It is not a property to which subsection 40(3) of the Act applies. Subsection 40(3) makes a request for reconsideration a prerequisite to an appeal in certain property classes. Nevertheless, Ms. Galipo indicated that she intended to file a request for reconsideration, as she had in previous years.

7Ms. Galipo wrote in her affidavit of her “understanding that the deadline (for filing a request for reconsideration) was March 31, 2017 as it has always been.” This was correct to the extent that subsection 39.1(1.1) of the Act provides that:

A request for reconsideration…must be made no later than March 31 of the taxation year in which the request is made.

8There is however an exception in general reassessment years, set out in subsection 39.1(1.2) of the Act:

Despite subsection (1.1), for any year that is the first taxation year to which a general reassessment applies, a request for reconsideration in respect of the taxation year must be made no later than 120 days after the issuance date printed on the notice of assessment.

9Reassessment currently occurs every four years, and the 2017 taxation year was the first taxation year to which a general reassessment applied. Therefore, Ms. Galipo’s request should have been filed no later than 120 days after the issuance date printed on the notice of assessment. MPAC’s affidavit provides a copy of the notice of assessment, which has an issuance date of October 18, 2016 printed on it. 120 days after that was February 15, 2017. Ms. Galipo’s request for reconsideration was dated March 29, 2017, after the deadline set out in subsection 39.1(1.2) of the Act.

10Subsection 40(5) of the Act sets the time a prospective appellant has to file an appeal if that person filed a request for reconsideration, whether the filing of a request was a requirement or not. That provision can only apply however where a request for reconsideration was properly filed before the deadline. In this case the request was not filed on time, and subsection 40(5) of the Act does not therefore apply.

11Extenuating circumstances can be considered pursuant to subsection 40(4) of the Act in order to extend time to file a request for reconsideration, but these can only be considered if filing a request was required by subsection 40(3) of the Act. Subsection 40(3) of the Act says that a request is a precondition only for properties in the residential, farm or managed forests property class. This property is in the multi-residential tax class. Therefore, the Board has no jurisdiction to extend time for any extenuating circumstances in this case.

12As a result, the Board cannot extend time for the filing of a request for reconsideration.

Late Filing of an Appeal

13Pursuant to Rule 26(b) of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Board may accept a late appeal if:

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…that is the subject of the appeal.

14Even though Ms. Galipo indicated in her affidavit that she did not receive the notice of assessment until later, this Rule says that awareness is the requirement for the filing of a late appeal application, not receipt of the notice. Ms. Galipo must have been aware of the assessment on March 29, 2017 because that is the date she attempted to file the request for reconsideration. There was no request filed with the Board until July 11, 2017, more than 30 days later.

15As a result, this was not a timely application for a late appeal. Rule 26(b) requires that application be made in a timely way. The request for an extension of time to file an appeal is denied.

CONCLUSION

16Ms. Galipo cannot file a request for reconsideration late because the Act does not permit time to be extended in these circumstances. Ms. Galipo cannot file an appeal late because no appeal was filed within 30 days after she became aware of the assessment. The motion for an extension of time is therefore denied.