Municipal Property Assessment Corporation v. Midland II Property Inc., 2019 CanLII 22921

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: March 21, 2019

FILE NO.: DM 158844

Moving Party(ies): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 16

Respondent(s): Midland II Property Inc.

Respondent(s): Town of Midland

Property Location(s): 16825 Highway 12

Municipality(ies): Town of Midland

Roll Number(s): 4374-010-011-09005-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3249258 and 3308371

Taxation Year(s): 2017 and 2018

Hearing Event No.: 711075

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

Heard: February 28, 2019 by written submission

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
MPAC	David Zhao
Midland II Property Inc.	No one appeared
Town of Midland	No one appeared

DISPOSITION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY SUBUOLA AWOLERI

INTRODUCTION

1MPAC filed a motion to dismiss the appeals filed by Midland II Property Inc. (the “Company”) of the assessment of the property located at 16825 Highway 12 (the “subject property”) for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years. MPAC argues that these appeals should be dismissed since the Company has contravened the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”) by not providing its Statement of Issues on the date specified by the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”).

2The Company and the Town of Midland have not provided a response to this motion despite being served.

DISPOSITION OF MOTION

3The Board grants MPAC’s motion to dismiss the appeals.

4The Company is in breach of the Board’s Rules and MPAC is prejudiced by this breach. Accordingly, the Board dismisses the Company’s appeals for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION OF MOTION

5The Company filed its appeal of the assessment of the subject property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years. The commencement day assigned by the Board to the Company’s appeals was April 16, 2018. MPAC delivered its initial disclosure to the Company on May 14, 2018. In accordance to the Board’s Rules as set out in the schedule of events, the Company was to provide its Statement of Issues to MPAC and the Town of Midland by September 10, 2018.

6MPAC did not receive a Statement of Issues from the Company. MPAC contacted the Company on October 5, 2018, advising the Company of this default and further stating that MPAC will extend a grace period to allow the Company to deliver its Statement of Issues no later than October 11, 2018. The Company did not respond.

7MPAC contacted the Company again, on December 10, 2018, stating that the Company is in breach of the Board’s Rules by its failure to provide its Statement of Issues and its actions have caused prejudice to MPAC, since MPAC is unable to deliver a response. MPAC further advised the Company that if its letter of withdrawal is not received in seven days, MPAC will proceed to have its appeals dismissed by the Board. MPAC then filed this motion seeking dismissal of the appeals.

8The Board finds that the Company is in breach of the Rules in a way that is completely attributable to it. In Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 19 v. Wentworth Property Management Inc., 2018 CanLII 89428 (ON ARB), at paragraph 11, the Board determined that failure to provide a Statement of Issues, a breach completely attributable to the appellant and not cured by it, was not enough ground for dismissing the company’s appeal. As the Board held in Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 14 v Upper Keele Inc., 2018 CanLII 126632 (ON ARB), 2018 CanLII 248 (ON ARB), at paragraph 11, there must be evidence of prejudice to the requesting party to justify a dismissal order. Specifically, the Board held that “dismissal is an extreme remedy and requires clear evidence before it will be granted.”

Prejudice to MPAC

9MPAC argues that the Company’s breach is prejudicial to MPAC and that it will continue to suffer prejudice if the Board allows these appeals to proceed and furthermore, the prejudice cannot be compensated by an award of costs. In line with this, MPAC states that it has committed significant resources to its case management by increased staffing and increased information technology resources. This was done in order to comply with the Board’s goal of completing appeals within its assessment cycle, pursuant to the Board’s Rules. MPAC emphasizes that its management and staff have developed a plan allocating its resources to comply with the Board’s Rules and it has to carefully manage its resources to meet these deadlines. In order to carry this out, MPAC states that this pushes its resources to capacity.

10According to MPAC, if appellants do not comply with the Board’s Rules, as in this appeal, MPAC is unable to file a statement of response to comply with the Rules and this puts MPAC’s ability to manage its own resources at risk. Consequently, non-compliance with the Board’s Rules creates more workload on MPAC and puts a strain on its resources as it has had to incur additional expenses in providing initial disclosure, tracking and correspondence to the Company, and the expense of this motion.

11The Company’s breach of the Board’s Rules has caused prejudice to MPAC. Its failure to provide its Statement of Issues makes it more difficult for MPAC to meet its appeal management obligations. This uncertainty puts a strain on MPAC’s resources. MPAC also had to incur additional expenses in providing initial disclosure materials, tracking and correspondence to the Company, and the cost of this motion. This breach of the Board’s Rules, which was not cured, is prejudicial to MPAC.

CONCLUSION

12The Board finds that MPAC is prejudiced by the Company’s non-compliance with the Boards Rules, a breach that is entirely attributable to the Company. The Board grants MPAC’s motion and dismisses the Company’s appeals for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.