District Realty Corporation v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 03, 2019 CanLII 20817

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

March 14, 2019

FILE NO.:

RR 2019M04

Assessed Person(s):

District Realty Corporation

Appellant(s):

District Realty Corporation

Respondent(s):

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 03

Respondent(s):

City of Ottawa

Property Location(s):

341 MacLaren Street

Municipality(ies):

City of Ottawa

Roll Number(s):

0614-042-001-08900-0000

Appeal Number(s):

3217746 and 3289226

Taxation Year(s):

2017 and 2018

Legislative Authority:

Rule 122 of the Assessment Review Board’s Rues of Practice and Procedure

Request for:

Reinstatement of appeals 3217746 and 3289226

Heard:

By written submission

Parties

Representative

Submissions

District Realty Corporation

Alison Davis

Requester

MPAC

No one appeared

Not Requested

City of Ottawa

No one appeared

Not Requested

DECISION DELIVERED BY SCOTT MCANSH AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

1District Realty Corporation (“District Realty”) requests that this Assessment Review Board (this “Board”) reinstate appeals 3217746 and 3289226 by way of a request for reinstatement pursuant to Rule 122 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”). This request for reinstatement was filed with the Board on February 11, 2019.

2District Realty withdrew both its 2017 and 2018 appeals of the assessment of the property at 341 MacLaren Street in the City of Ottawa. It says that the appeals were mistakenly withdrawn.

3For the reasons that follow, the Company’s request to reinstate the appeal is denied.

The Reinstatement Rule

4Rule 122 sets out the circumstances in which the Board will reinstate appeals that were withdrawn. The relevant provision of the Rule for this application is in clause 122(a), which states, in relevant part, that “a party to a former proceeding may seek an order… to reinstate an appeal by filing an affidavit with the Board… no more than 30 days after the appeal was… withdrawn… setting out that… the appeal was withdrawn… in error.”

5There are three essential components to Rule 122(a). First, it is only open to parties to the appeal that was withdrawn. Secondly, the order must be sought within 30 days after the appeal was dismissed or withdrawn. Finally, the Board must be satisfied, based on the evidence in the applicant’s affidavit, that the appeal was withdrawn in error. All three conditions must be met before an appeal will be reinstated. District Realty’s application does not meet the second or third requirements so must be dismissed.

Party

6District Realty was the appellant in the withdrawn appeal. The first condition of Rule 122(a) is therefore met.

Timely Application

7District Realty did not provide any evidence of when the appeal was withdrawn. I therefore have no way to determine if this is a timely application. The party seeking reinstatement bears the burden of proven each of the essential components of Rule 122(a). District Realty has provided no evidence that this was a timely application. The second condition of Rule 122(a) is not met.

Withdrawn in Error

8The final requirement of Rule 122(a) is that the appeal was withdrawn in error. District Realty’s affidavit does not explain the error, simply stating “in error, we withdrew the… complaints,” and that “the appeals were mistakenly withdrawn.” That is not sufficient.

9This Board was clear, in Precision Resource Canada Ltd. v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 21, 2019 CanLII 7197 (ON ARB), at paragraph 9, that the “minimum requirement” is that “evidence be provided, rather than stated conclusions.” I cannot determine if the error was a good faith error, and that is a requirement of Rule 122(a) applications, see Winners Merchants International LP v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 13, 2018 CanLII 78260 (ON ARB), at paragraph 19. As noted in Cascades Containerboard Packaging v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 09, 2018 CanLII 78263 (ON ARB), at paragraph 10: “applications without sufficient evidence will fail to be reinstated.”

10District Realty provided a conclusion without any supporting facts in its affidavit. That is not sufficient on an application for reinstatement. The Board must have sufficient evidence to determine the nature of the error, in order to establish if it is the type of error that is entitled to relief. That control of the process cannot be given over to parties simply stating that legal conclusion. District Realty has failed to establish that the error was a good faith error. It does not meet the third requirement of Rule 122(a).

CONCLUSION

11District Realty has established that it was a party to the withdrawn appeals. But it has not provided sufficient evidence to prove that it meets the other two mandatory requirements of Rule 122(a). Its application for reinstatement of appeals 3217746 and 3289226 is denied.