Municipal Property Assessment Corporation v. BCIMC Realty Corporation, 2019 CanLII 18797

Assessment Review Board / Commission de révision de l'évaluation foncière

Issue Date: March 07, 2019 File No.: DM 158093 Appeal Number(s): 3144521 Taxation Year(s): 2016 Hearing Event No.: 709868

Moving Party(ies): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation ("MPAC") Region 03 Respondent(s): BCIMC Realty Corporation Respondent(s): City of Ottawa

Property Location(s): 124 Colonnade Road Municipality(ies): City of Ottawa Roll Number(s): 0614-120-495-01835-0000

Legislative Authority: Rule 24(e) of the Assessment Review Board Rules of Practice and Procedure

Heard: January 17, 2019 by written submission

Appearances

Parties	Representative
MPAC	Makael Nur
BCIMC Realty Corporation	No one appeared
City of Ottawa	No one appeared

Disposition of the Board Delivered by Scott McAnsh

1MPAC seeks to have these appeals dismissed because BCIMC Realty Corporation (the "Company") did not serve a statement of issues on or before the date specified by the Assessment Review Board (the "Board"). The Company did not make any submissions on this motion, despite being served with notice. The City of Ottawa also failed to provide any submissions.

2For the reasons that follow, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance with the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure (the "Rules").

Background

3The Company is the previous owner of the property at 124 Colonnade Road in the City of Ottawa. MPAC describes the property as vacant industrial land. The property sold sometime in 2015. The Company filed an appeal of the 2013 taxation year assessment of the property with the Board, presumably before it sold the land. Appeals were deemed for the 2014, 2015, and 2016 taxation year because the 2013 appeal has not yet been resolved. The 2013, 2014, and 2015 taxation year appeals were withdrawn by the Company, but the 2016 appeal was not withdrawn.

4The Board assigned a commencement date of December 15, 2017 to the 2016 appeal pursuant to Rule 33. MPAC sent its initial disclosure to the Company on January 9, 2018, in compliance with the schedule of events set by the Rules. The next major step in the schedule of events was for the Company to provide MPAC and the City of Ottawa with its statement of issues on or before May 11, 2018. It did not do so.

5MPAC requested the Company's Statement of Issues on May 18, 2018. The Company never responded to that request. MPAC requested dismissal of this appeal on June 18, 2018, and advised the Company of its request. MPAC sent another letter to the Company on December 10, 2018, saying that MPAC was prejudiced because it was unable to file a response and indicated that it would file this motion if it did not receive a Statement of Issues. The Company did not respond to that letter. This motion was set on December 20, 2018.

Dismissal

6MPAC argues that the Company has not complied with the Rules, and that the appeals should be dismissed on that basis. I find that the Company is in breach of the Rules in a clear, egregious, and unilateral way. I therefore dismiss the appeals.

7Rule 24(e) permits dismissal without a hearing if "the appellant has not complied with statutory requirements or these Rules." This Board held, in Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region No. 9 v 234900 Ontario Ltd., 2018 CanLII 248 (ON ARB), 2017 CanLII 74719 (ON ARB) at paragraph 8, that dismissal "is an extreme remedy and should only be granted in the clearest of cases." The Board stated, in Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region No 7 v Cherry, 2018 CanLII 60392 (ON ARB), at paragraph 10, that the "clearest of cases are those where there are willful breaches of the Board's orders or Rules that are entirely attributable to the taxpayer."

8A party's failure to provide a Statement of Issues when required can be valid basis for dismissal, see Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 19 v Wentworth Property Management Inc., 2018 CanLII 89428 (ON ARB). The failure of the Company to serve a Statement of Issues on the other parties by May 11, 2018 was a breach that is entirely attributable to the Company. The Company has not cured that breach. However, that is not enough to ground a dismissal.

9The "prejudice to each party will always be the primary consideration on a dismissal motion," Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 14 v Upper Keele Inc., 2018 CanLII 126632 (ON ARB), 2018 CanLII 248 (ON ARB) at paragraph 10. MPAC argues that it is prejudiced by the Company's breach of the Rules in how much more difficult it is to meet its other obligations when appellants fail to comply. It argues that the prejudice cannot be cured by an award of costs.

10MPAC provided evidence of prejudice. It had to take additional procedural steps when the Company did not provide its Statement of Issues. I accept MPAC's assertion that a failure of an appellant to provide a timely Statement of Issues makes its overall case management more difficult. It cannot provide a response when there is no Statement of Issues, and must take some steps to see if a Statement of Issues is likely. I accept that there is prejudice to MPAC flowing from the Company's failure to provide a Statement of Issues.

Conclusion

11MPAC's motion to dismiss the Company's appeals is granted. The Company is in breach of the Rules and that breach is entirely attributable to the Company. MPAC is prejudiced by the Company's breach. I therefore dismiss the 2016 appeal filed by the Company.