J. Randall Koop v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 27 and Town of Kingsville, 2019 CanLII 18792

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: March 04, 2019

FILE NO.: DM 2019M14

Moving Party(ies): J. Randall Koop

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, (“MPAC”), Region 27

Respondent(s): Town of Kingsville

Property Location(s): Meghan Agosta Drive

Municipality(ies): Town of Kingsville

Roll Number(s): 3711-270-000-02601-0000

Taxation Year(s): 2017

Hearing Event No.: 709966

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

Heard: February 20, 2019 by written submission

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
J. Randall Koop	No one appeared
MPAC	No one appeared
Town of Kingsville	No one appeared

DISPOSITION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY SCOTT McANSH

1J. Randall Koop applied to this Assessment Review Board (this “Board”) for permission to file a late appeal of the 2017 assessment of the vacant residential property on Meghan Agosta Drive in the Town of Kingsville. The Board set his application down as a written motion on December 27, 2018. Mr. Koop was given until January 18, 2019 to serve and file any material in support of his application. MPAC and the Town of Kingsville were given until February 1, 2019 to serve and file any material in response to Mr. Koop’s request. Nothing was received by the Board by any party.

2This Board was clear in DePalma v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2018 CanLII 60394 (ON ARB), at paragraph 7, that the “burden of proof in a late appeal application is squarely on the person seeking late filing.” Mr. Koop was required to prove all three elements of Rule 26(b) in order for his application to be successful. That is, he was required to prove that he was entitled to receive the notice of assessment for the property, that he did not receive the notice, and that he brought this application within 30 days of becoming aware of the issues in dispute. Rule 26(b) requires that those essential elements be proven with affidavit evidence. Mr. Koop did not file any evidence.

3Without evidence I cannot conclude that Mr. Koop is entitled to file a late appeal. His application is therefore denied.

4I must add that, even if Mr. Koop had filed evidence, his application could not be successful. Rule 26(b) has no application to residential property due to the mandatory requirement that a request for reconsideration be filed before an appeal can be brought to this Board, see Messina v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 09, 2018 CanLII 78265 (ON ARB), at paragraph 6.

5The only evidence I have before me is that the property is a vacant residential lot. That land is in the residential property class pursuant to subclause 3(1)2(ix) of the General Regulation, O. Reg. 282/98. A request for reconsideration was mandatory for property in the residential property class the 2017 taxation year, pursuant to subsection 40(3) of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1900, c. A.31. Rule 26(b) therefore has no application to this land.

CONCLUSION

6Mr. Koop has not provided any evidence to show that he meets the requirements of Rule 26(b). However, even if he had provided evidence, his application could not be successful because Rule 26(b) has no application to property in the residential property class. Mr. Koop’s application is denied.