Municipal Property Assessment Corporation v. Arora Commercial Corporation, 2019 CanLII 25958

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

March 28, 2019

FILE NO.:

DM 158943

Moving Party(ies):

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 22

Respondent(s):

Arora Commercial Corporation

Respondent(s):

Town of Orangeville

Property Location(s):

190-210 Broadway

Municipality(ies):

Town of Orangeville

Roll Number(s):

2214-030-009-04000-0000

Appeal Number(s):

2999506, 3026308, 3090453 and 3157721

Taxation Year(s):

2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016

Hearing Event No.:

711165

Legislative Authority:

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

Heard:

March 6, 2019 by written submission

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Representative

MPAC

Brittany Allen

Arora Commercial Corporation

No one appeared

Town of Orangeville

No one appeared

DISPOSITION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY JEAN-PAUL PILON

1MPAC requests the dismissal of these appeals because the appellant, Arora Commercial Corporation (the “Corporation”), did not serve a Statement of Issues on or before the date specified by the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”). The Corporation did not make any submissions on this motion despite having been served with notice.

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 Corporation is the owner of 190-210 Broadway in the Town of Orangeville. Its representative, Aurora Vince, filed an appeal with the Board for the 2013 taxation year assessment of the property. Appeals were deemed for the 2014, 2015 and 2016 taxation years because the 2013 appeal had 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 Corporation on January 9, 2018 in compliance with the Schedule of Events set out in the Rules. The next significant event in the Schedule of Events was that the Corporation was to serve MPAC and the Town of Orangeville with a Statement of Issues on or before May 11, 2018. This was not done.

5After receiving correspondence dated January 17, 2018 that a representative previously retained by the Corporation in these appeals would no longer be on the record, MPAC wrote to the Corporation directly to request a Statement of Issues on September 27, 2018. There was no response to that request.

6The Town of Orangeville has not indicated that it takes any position in this motion.

Dismissal

7MPAC argues in this motion that the Corporation has not complied with the Rules and submits that the appeals should be dismissed. The Board agrees, finding that the Corporation is in breach of the Rules in a clear, egregious and unilateral way, and that this breach has caused prejudice to MPAC. The appeals are therefore dismissed.

8This is because Rule 24(e) provides the authority for the Board to dismiss an appeal without holding a hearing if “the appellant has not complied with statutory requirements or these Rules.” In Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region No. 9 v. 234900 Ontario Ltd., 2018 CanLII 248 (ON ARB), 2017 CanLII 74719, the Board determined that “dismissal is an extreme remedy and should only be granted in the clearest of cases.” In Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region No. 7 v. Cherry, 2018 CanLII 60392, the Board further determined 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.”

9A party’s failure to provide a Statement of Issues when required can form a valid basis for dismissal, as was the case in Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 19 v. Wentworth Property Management Inc., 2018 CanLII 89428 (ON ARB), and the Corporation’s failure to serve a Statement of Issues on the other parties by May 11, 2018 was a breach entirely attributable to it. However, the Board also determined in Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 14 v. Upper Keele Inc., 2018 CanLII 126632 (ON ARB), 2018 CanLII 248 that “the prejudice to each party will always be the primary consideration on a dismissal motion.” MPAC argues it is prejudiced by the breach of the Rules both in the expenses it has incurred in pursuing this motion and in how much more difficult it is to meet its other obligations when appellants fail to comply.

10MPAC provided evidence of prejudice. It had to take additional procedural steps when no Statement of Issues was served by the Corporation. The Board accepts MPAC’s submission that a failure of an appellant to provide a timely Statement of Issues makes its overall case management more difficult. MPAC cannot provide a response in the absence of a Statement of Issues. There is prejudice to MPAC flowing from a failure to provide a Statement of Issues.

CONCLUSION

11MPAC’s motion to dismiss the Corporation’s appeals is granted. The Corporation is in breach of the Rules and the breach is entirely attributable to the Corporation, and MPAC has been prejudiced as a result. The Board therefore dismisses Arora Commercial Corporation’s 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 appeals.