Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: March 18, 2019

FILE NO.: DM 158793

Moving Party(ies): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation ("MPAC") Region 9

Respondent(s): Nick Yannopoulos and Ariadni Yannopoulos

Respondent(s): City of Toronto

Property Location(s): 76 Pelham Avenue

Municipality(ies): City of Toronto

Roll Number(s): 1904-032-070-00165-0000

Appeal Number(s): 2983187, 3014484, 3075432 and 3148873

Taxation Year(s): 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016

Hearing Event No.: 710469

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

Heard: February 25, 2019 by written submission

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
MPAC	Jaime Shevchuk
Nick Yannopoulos and Ariadni Yannopoulos	No one appeared
City of Toronto	No one appeared

DISPOSITION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY SCOTT McANSH

1MPAC seeks to have these appeals dismissed because Nick Yannopoulos and Ariadni Yannopoulos did not serve a Statement of Issues on or before the date specified by the Assessment Review Board (the "Board"). The Yannopouloses did not file any material in this motion, despite being properly served. The City of Toronto failed to provide any submissions.

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

Background

3The Yannopouloses are the owner of the standard industrial property at 79 Pelham Avenue in the City of Toronto. They filed an appeal of the 2013 taxation year assessment of the property with the Board. An appeal was deemed for the 2014, 2015, and 2016 taxation years because the 2013 appeal has not yet been resolved.

4The Board assigned a commencement date of December 15, 2017 to the appeals pursuant to Rule 33. MPAC sent its initial disclosure to the Taxpayers on January 12, 2018, in compliance with the schedule of events set by the Rules. The next major step in the schedule of events was for the Yannopouloses to provide MPAC and the City of Toronto with their Statement of Issues on or before May 11, 2018. They did not do so.

5MPAC requested the Yannopouloses' Statement of Issues on June 26, 2018. They never responded to that request. MPAC sent a second request on November 5, 2018, which was also ignored. This motion to dismiss was set down on January 17, 2019.

Dismissal

6MPAC argues that the Yannopouloses have not complied with the Rules, and that the appeals should be dismissed on that basis. I find that the Taxpayers are 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 a 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 Yannopouloses to serve a Statement of Issues on the other parties by May 11, 2018 was a breach that is entirely attributable to them. They have 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 Yannopouloses' 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 Yannopouloses did not provide their Statement of Issues. I accept MPAC's claim 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 Yannopouloses' failure to provide a Statement of Issues.

CONCLUSION

11MPAC's motion to dismiss the Yannopouloses' appeals is granted. They are in breach of the Rules and that breach is entirely attributable to them. MPAC is prejudiced by the Yannopouloses' breach. I therefore dismiss the 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 appeals filed by the Yannopouloses.