Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: January 3, 2019

FILE NO.: DM 2018M040

Moving Party(ies): Andrew Scott Haydon Sr.

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 3

Respondent(s): City of Ottawa

Property Location(s): 5 Timberview Way, Unit 3

Municipality(ies): City of Ottawa

Roll Number(s): 0614-120-830-03287-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3267574

Taxation Year(s): 2017

Legislative Authority: Rule 26(b) of the Assessment Review Board, Rules of Practice and Procedure

Heard: By written submissions

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Andrew Scott Haydon Sr.	Self-represented
MPAC	No one appeared
City of Ottawa	No one appeared

DISPOSITION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY SCOTT McANSH

1Andrew Scott Haydon Sr. seeks permission from this Assessment Review Board (this “Board”) to file an appeal of the 2016 assessment of the property at 5 Timerview Way, Unit 3, after time set in the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (“Act”). This Board can accept late appeals in limited circumstances, set out in Rule 26(b) of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”). There are three facts that must be proven before an appeal can be accepted late: (1) the person was entitled to receive a notice of assessment; (2) the person did not receive the notice; and (3) the person attempted to file an appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of the issues. Mr. Haydon does not meet those requirements. His application for permission to file late is denied.

Background

2Mr. Haydon first contacted the Board about this property in early July 2017. He sent a letter indicating that his son had died intestate on March 26, 2016, and that he is seeking time to appeal the 2016 assessment of the property. The Board mistakenly interpreted this letter as a request to extend the time to file a 2017 request for reconsideration and granted that request in a letter dated July 21, 2017.

3Mr. Haydon sent another letter to the Board in August 2017. In that letter he stated that he had already filed a request for reconsideration and was looking for permission to file an appeal with the Board of the 2016 taxation year assessment of the property.

4Mr. Haydon sent more material to the Board in October 2017, including a copy of MPAC’s response to his 2017 request for reconsideration of the property, dated February 28, 2017. That letter recommended reducing the assessment from $199,000 to $187,000. Mr. Haydon had rejected that offer, dating his signature April 4, 2017. The letter had indicated that his appeal deadline was May 29, 2017. He also included a copy of his request for reconsideration, dated October 24, 2016, and an opinion of value from a real estate agent. Mr. Haydon sent another letter, reiterating his position, later in October 2017.

5The Board received another letter from Mr. Haydon on November 9, 2018. In that letter he indicated that he was seeking to file an appeal of the 2016 assessment of the property after the time set in the Act. Mr. Haydon provided the additional procedural requirements for a late appeal on November 22, 2018 and this motion was then assigned to me.

Late Appeals

6The remedy in Rule 26(b) is extraordinary. Generally, the times set in legislation cannot be altered by tribunals such as this Board. However, the Ontario Superior Court held that the Board could permit late filing in Fleming and Smith Ltd. and Regional Assessment Commissioner Region No. 31 et al., 1979 CanLII 1870 (ON SC). The conditions set by the Court have been codified by the Board in Rule 26(b). As noted above, there are three things that must be proven: (1) the person was entitled to receive a notice of assessment; (2) the person did not receive the notice; and (3) the person attempted to file an appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of the issues. Mr. Haydon does not meet those requirements. I will address each requirement in turn below.

7I must first address which taxation year is at issue. Mr. Haydon is adamant in his letters that he is seeking an appeal of the 2016 taxation year. But the request for reconsideration material that he sent was for the 2017 taxation year. A request for reconsideration is a mandatory recondition for an appeal of a residential property pursuant to subsection 40(3) of the Act. It appears that Mr. Haydon has confused the taxation year and the valuation day. The valuation day is set pursuant to section 19.2 of the Act. For the 2016 taxation year the valuation day is January 1, 2012 and for the 2017 taxation year the valuation day is January 1, 2016.

8Mr. Haydon’s confusion is highlighted in his November 9, 2018 letter, where he states that “the 2016 Assessment forms the basis for the assessments for the years 2017 to 2020 inclusive.” That is not correct. The 2016 taxation year shares a common valuation day with the 2013 to 2015 taxation years. If there are no changes to the property across those taxation years then it is likely that the assessment will be the same over those four taxation years. The 2017 assessment shares a valuation day with the 2018 to 2020 taxation years. I find that Mr. Haydon is seeking a late appeal for the 2017 taxation year. However, he does not meet the requirements of Rule 26(b) for either taxation year.

Person Entitle to Notice

9Mr. Haydon is executor of his son’s estate and indicates that the property was owned by his son before he died. The executor is entitled to notice that the person would have been if they were alive, and owners are entitled to the annual notice of assessment of their property. Mr. Haydon therefore meets the first requirement of Rule 26(b).

Did Not Receive Notice

10The evidence provided by Mr. Haydon does not indicate if the 2016 notice was received or not. The evidence does indicate that the 2017 notice was received and that a timely request for reconsideration was filed. Mr. Haydon is requesting that his time to file an appeal with this Board be extended from MPAC’s response to the request for reconsideration. This Board held in Messina v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 09, 2018 CanLII 78265 (ON ARB), at paragraph 6, that Rule 26(b) has no application after a request for reconsideration is filed. The request for reconsideration process has removed the Board’s common law power to alter filing deadlines.

11Mr. Haydon has not provided evidence, for either the 2016 or 2017 taxation years, that he did not receive the notice of assessment for the property. He therefore does not meet the second requirement of Rule 26(b).

File Within 30 Days

12Mr. Haydon dated his request for reconsideration for the 2017 taxation year October 24, 2016. He was, therefore, aware of the issues with the assessment on that date. He did not perfect this application until November 22, 2018, over two years later. Even his first contact with the Board, in July 2017, was over 8 months after he knew the issues in dispute. That is not a timely application.

CONCLUSION

13Mr. Haydon has not proven that he did not receive the notice of assessment for the 2016 or 2017 taxation years. Nor has he filed this application in a timely way. This Board can only permit appeals to be filed in contravention of the Act if the narrow requirements set out in Rule 26(b) are met. Mr. Haydon’s application is denied.