City of Toronto v. E. L., 2019 CanLII 29140

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: April 05, 2019

FILE NO.: DM 2019M18

Moving Party(ies): City of Toronto

Respondent(s): E. L.

Property Location(s): Withheld

Municipality(ies): City of Toronto

Roll Number(s): Withheld

Appeal Number(s): Withheld

Taxation Year(s): 2015 and 2017

Hearing Event No.: 713268 and 713269

Legislative Authority: Clause 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A

Heard: March 18, 2019 by written submission

Parties	Counsel+/Representative	Submissions
City of Toronto	Alison Mintoff+	Moving Party
E. L.	Self-represented	Received

DISPOSITION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY SCOTT McANSH

1The City of Toronto (“Toronto”) seeks directions from the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) with respect to appeals filed by E. L. She has filed appeals seeking to have her municipal taxes canceled, reduced or refunded on the grounds that she was unable to pay taxes because of sickness or extreme poverty, pursuant to clause 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A (the “Act”). She has filed appeals for both the 2015 and 2017 taxation years, but has been unable to attend a hearing on those appeals due to medical concerns. The hearing has been adjourned a number of times, always with Toronto’s consent.

2E. L. recently sought an adjournment of the next hearing date, set for April 8, 2019. She also raised a number of legal arguments, including her ability to raise additional taxation years at the hearing. Toronto brought this motion for directions in response to that submission.

3For the reasons that follow, I find that the only issues properly before the Board are E. L.’s request for tax relief, due to her inability to pay, for the 2015 and 2017 taxation years. I also find that, in all of the circumstances, it is appropriate to adjourn these appeals sine die. E. L. can bring these appeals to a hearing by notifying the Board and Toronto that she is ready to proceed at any time. That hearing can be in person, by telephone, or in writing. These appeals will remain adjourned until E. L. indicates that she is ready to proceed.

Issues

4E. L. raised a number of issues in her submission. Toronto requested a sine die adjournment. I will address the issues as follows:

a. The availability of tax exemptions;

b. Tax relief applications for the 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2016 taxation years;

c. Discrimination and harassment; and

d. A sine die adjournment.

Tax Exemptions

5E. L. correctly points out that paragraph 3(1)22 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 states that improvements for seniors and persons with a disability can be exempt from municipal taxation. She appears to be arguing that she is entitled such an exemption. I do not have the authority to make that determination.

6The Board was clear in North America Railway Hall of Fame v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 23, 2016 CanLII 14708 (ON ARB), at paragraph 10, that “questions of exemption from taxation are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Superior Courts.” That is, only the Ontario Superior Court can determine if E.L.’s property should be exempt from taxation. This Board as no authority to make that determination.

Tax Relief for Other Taxation Years

7E. L. requests that, in addition to the 2015 and 2017 taxation year appeals she has filed, the Board should decide if she is entitled to relief for the 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2016 taxation years. She did not appeal those taxation years within the timeframe set out in the Act and this Board has no authority to extend the time for filing appeals under the Act.

8Subsection 323(3) of the Act states that an “application under this section must be filed with the treasurer on or before the last day of February of the year following the year in respect of which the application is made.” That is, an application must be made each taxation year before the end of the following February. E. L. made a timely application for the 2015 and 2017 taxation year, but has missed that filing deadline for all other taxation years.

9This Board considered its legal authority to extend the time under an identical provision found in section 357 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25 in 2397146 Ontario Inc. v. Brampton (City), 2018 CanLII 37737 (ON ARB). The Board was considering a different subsection of the section, but its conclusion is applicable to subsection 323(3) of the Act. The Board found, at paragraph 25, that the “Legislature did not intend to confer on us the power to extend the… deadline for filing appeals… The Legislature clearly knows how to do so, and did not do so…” I find that this Board does not have the power to alter the filing deadlines that applied to E. L. for the 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2016 taxation years for the same reasons. I cannot create those appeals.

Discrimination and Harassment

10E. L. claims that she has been discriminated against due to her disability, in violation of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19. She states that the Board has not adequately addressed her disability in its management of these appeals. As noted above, these appeals have been adjourned a number of times due to E. L.’s disability. The Board also offered to hold the hearing in any format E. L. desired, in an effort to accommodate her disability.

11While I am sure E. L. is frustrated by how long it has taken to successfully hear these appeals, she has not set out specific ways in which she feels discriminated against or harassed. I do not find that the Board has acted improperly in the management of E. L.’s appeals.

Adjournment

12E. L. is seeking an adjournment of the April 8, 2019 hearing. Toronto is asking that the adjournment be sine die, or indefinite, until E. L. advises the Board and Toronto that she is ready to proceed to a hearing. I agree with Toronto that a sine die adjournment is appropriate here.

13Adjournments are governed by Rules 83 to 85 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”). The factors to consider are set out in Rule 84.

14The first factor is the “interests of the parties in a full and fair hearing.” I find that factor favours a sine die adjournment. There have been numerous attempts to set this matter for a hearing and E. L. has not yet been able to see one through, requiring emergency medical attention at one in person event. She can have a fair hearing by being given the power to advise Toronto and the Board when she is ready for a hearing and how she would like to have that hearing conducted.

15The second factor is the “impact of the adjournment on parties and other persons.” The impact on Toronto is that the taxes for this property remain in limbo. The impact on E. L. is that she can take the time needed to prepare herself for a hearing. This factor also favours a sine die adjournment.

16Third I must consider the “integrity of the Board’s process…” A sine die adjournment does not serve the Board’s goal of efficiently disposing of appeals because it puts an appeal in a state of uncertainty. This factor does not favour a sine die adjournment.

17The fourth factor to consider is the “circumstances giving rise to the need for an adjournment.” Here, the medical condition of E. L. is what requires an adjournment. That is a legitimate reason to request an adjournment and this factor favours granting an adjournment.

18Fifth, the Board must consider the “timeliness of the request…” This request was made nearly a month before the hearing and is, therefore, timely. This factor favours granting an adjournment.

19The sixth factor is the “position of the other parties.” Toronto is the only other party to these appeals and consents to the adjournment, suggesting that it be sine die. This factor favours granting an adjournment.

20Finally, I must consider the “public interest in the delivery of the Board’s services in a just, timely and cost effective manner.” An indefinite delay does not serve that interest. This factor does not favour granting an adjournment.

21On balance, the majority of the factors strongly favour an adjournment here. The higher threshold to be established here is an indefinite adjournment. That leaves the state of these appeals uncertain, which is not a state appeals ought to be left in. However, I find that the extreme medical needs of E. L. justify a sine die adjournment here. She has not been able to see through a hearing date yet and Toronto has reasonably consented to all of her adjournment requests. That continued adjournment framework is onerous on the parties and the Board. A sine die adjournment here lets E. L. only move the appeals forward when she is willing and able to do so. That ensures that the next time they are scheduled they will likely proceed.

22I grant a sine die adjournment of these appeals.

Conclusion

23None of the issues raised by E. L. change the status of these appeals. She has a 2015 and a 2017 taxation year appeal before the Board. Those appeals are adjourned sine die and will only be rescheduled when E. L. notifies the Board and Toronto that she is ready to proceed. The Registrar of the Board will contact E.L. approximately every four months to see if she is ready to proceed.

24The hearing set for April 8, 2019 is cancelled.