Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 30 v. Churchill Sudbury One Portfolio, 2019 CanLII 286

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

January 02, 2019

FILE NO.:

DM 157092

Moving Party(ies):

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”), Region 30

Respondent(s):

Churchill Sudbury One Portfolio

Respondent(s):

City of Greater Sudbury

Property Location(s):

51 Elm Street

Municipality:

City of Greater Sudbury

Roll Number(s):

5307-070-004-10000-0000

Appeal Number(s):

2375255, 2695593, and 2923132

Taxation Year(s):

2010, 2011, and 2012

Hearing Event No.:

703486

Legislative Authority:

Rule 24 of the Assessment Review Board Rules of Practice and Procedure

Heard:

By written submission

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Representative

MPAC

No one appeared

Churchill Sudbury One Portfolio

No one appeared

City of Greater Sudbury

No one appeared

DISPOSITION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY SCOTT McANSH

1MPAC filed an application to dismiss the appeals filed by Churchill Sudbury One Portfolio (the “Company”) for the 2010, 2011, and 2012 taxation years. That application was set for a motion in writing. MPAC was assigned a filing deadline of August 13, 2018, the Company was assigned a filing deadline of August 27, 2018, and MPAC had an opportunity to file any reply material by August 30, 2018. No material was filed with the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) by any party.

2This Board has held that “dismissal is an extreme remedy and should only be granted in the clearest of cases,” Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region No. 9 v 234900 Ontario Ltd., 2018 CanLII 248 (ON ARB), 2017 CanLII 74719 (ON ARB) at paragraph 8. There is no evidence before me at all, let alone any evidence clearly setting out why these appeals should be dismissed. MPAC’s motion is therefore dismissed. This appeal will continue in accordance with their assigned schedule of events.