Voislav Bjelajac and 2493957 Ontario Inc. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 19, 2019 CanLII 18794

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: March 07, 2019

FILE NO.: DM 2019M12

Moving Party(ies): Voislav Bjelajac and 2493957 Ontario Inc.

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 19

Respondent(s): City of Hamilton

Property Location(s): 540 Upper James Street

Municipality(ies): City of Hamilton

Roll Number(s): 2518-080-912-00400-0000

Taxation Year(s): 2017 and 2018

Hearing Event No.: 710074

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

Heard: February 11, 2019 by written submission

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Voislav Bjelajac and 2493957 Ontario Inc.	Voislav Bjelajac
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation	No one appeared
City of Hamilton	No one appeared

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

1Voislav Bjelajac, on behalf of 2493957 Ontario Inc., owner of 540 Upper James Street, Hamilton, requests leave of the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) to file appeals for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years because appeals were not filed prior to the deadline set out in the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”).

2If a person has not made a request for reconsideration, the last day for appealing assessments for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years is March 31 of the taxation year, pursuant to subsection 40(6) of the Act. Mr. Bjelajac’s affidavit filed in support of the motion was affirmed on December 27, 2018 and there is no indication any request for reconsideration for these taxation years was filed.

3For the reasons that follow, the Board determines that the motion should be denied.

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION OF MOTION

4In his affidavit, Mr. Bjelajac requests leave to file these appeals late because he filed an appeal for the 2016 taxation year, and thought “that once the 2016 appeal is settled that automatically whatever formula was used for 2017 thru (sic) 2020 taxation years would apply from the revised assessment of 2016.”

5Pursuant to Rule 26(b) of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Board may accept a late appeal “only if the appellant satisfies the Board, by way of affidavit evidence, that…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 or classification that is the subject of the appeal.”

6It can be assumed from the affidavit that Mr. Bjelajac is a person entitled to receive a notice of assessment for the property. 2493957 Ontario Inc. was certainly entitled to notice as the owner of the property. However, the affidavit does not address the other two prerequisites set out in the Rule for leave to be granted. In particular, it does not indicate that he or the numbered company did not receive a notice of assessment, nor does it indicate that they appealed within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment.

7The requirements of Rule 26(b) are mandatory, particularly because it says late appeals can be accepted “only if” the prerequisites are met. Parties applying pursuant to Rule 26(b) must provide evidence of all three of the mandatory requirements set out in the Rule. That evidence is lacking here. There is no other provision in law permitting late filing of these appeals. The Board has no jurisdiction to alter the mandatory requirements set out in Rule 26(b).

8The Board is not satisfied the requirements of Rule 26(b) have been met. The motion is denied.

CONCLUSION

9Leave to appeal for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years is denied because the requirements of Rule 26(b) have not been met.