Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: February 22, 2019

FILE NO.: DM 2019M11

Moving Party(ies): Candida Holdings (Sarnia) Limited

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”), Region 26

Respondent(s): City of Sarnia

Property Location(s): 795 Exmouth Street

Municipality: City of Sarnia

Roll Number(s): 3829-300-014-07800-0000

Taxation Year(s): 2018

Hearing Event No.: 709587

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

Heard: February 6, 2019 by written submission

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Representative

Candida Holdings (Sarnia) Limited

Jonas Perov

MPAC

No one appeared

City of Sarnia

No one appeared

DISPOSITION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY SCOTT McANSH

1Candida Holdings (Sarnia) Limited (“Candida”) seeks permission from the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) to file an appeal of the 2018 assessment of the property it owns after the time set in the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”). Candida owns the property at 795 Exmouth Street in the City of Sarnia. It filed a request for reconsideration of the assessment on March 28, 2018. It did not receive MPAC’s response to that request until November 29, 2018, when Candida requested the results from MPAC. MPAC’s response stated that Candida’s appeal filing deadline was September 3, 2018.

2Candida seeks permission to file that appeal now, well after the deadline set in MPAC’s response. I find that Candida miscalculated the filing deadline and that this application, made on December 15, 2018, was before the appeal filing deadline applicable to this appeal. This application will be considered a timely appeal of the 2018 assessment, which will be assigned a commencement date.

Filing Deadlines

3The Act sets a series of individual appeal filing deadlines when a party files a request for reconsideration with MPAC. Subsection 40(5) of the Act sets two filing deadlines when a request for reconsideration has been filed, both of which are conditional. The first applies if “the assessment corporation has mailed a notice of reconsideration” and is 90 days after the “issuance date printed on the notice.” The second appeal filing deadline applies if “the assessment corporation has not mailed a notice of reconsideration within the time required,” and is 90 days “after the notice should have been mailed.”

4The date printed on MPAC’s response to Candida’s request is June 5, 2018. So the first appeal filing deadline is 90 days later, or September 3, 2018. Candida missed that deadline. But Candida’s evidence is that MPAC did not mail its response to the request for reconsideration to the correct address. This Board held in Werzberger v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 09, 2018 CanLII 107717 (ON ARB), 2018 CanLII 73665 (ON ARB), at paragraph 5, that it “would be unfair to consider the notice to have been ‘mailed’ when MPAC sent it to an address it ought to have known was wrong.” I find that the second appeal filing deadline is engaged here.

5The second appeal filing deadline is calculated from when MPAC was required to respond to the request for reconsideration. Subsection 39.1 of the Act states that MPAC was required to respond “within 180 days of the request being made.” 180 days after March 28, 2018 was September 24, 2018. Candida’s deadline to file an appeal to this Board was 90 days after that, or December 23, 2018. That is the appeal filing deadline for this appeal.

6Candida submitted this application, seeking to appeal, on December 15, 2019, just over a week before its appeal filing deadline. That should be treated as a timely appeal. The Board will process Candida’s timely appeal of the 2018 assessment of the property and assign a commencement date.