Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: April 10, 2019

FILE NO.: DM 159296

Moving Party(ies): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation ("MPAC") Region 25

Respondent(s): Westbrook Development Corporation

Respondent(s): Town of the Blue Mountains

Property Location(s): CON 1 S PT LOT 17 RP 16R3145 PART 1

Municipality(ies): Town of the Blue Mountains

Roll Number(s): 4242-000-003-00100-0000

Appeal Number(s): 2983998, 3027985, 3091806 and 3159071

Taxation Year(s): 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016

Hearing Event No.: 711171

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

Heard: March 20, 2019 by written submission

Parties	Counsel+/Representative	Submissions
MPAC	Justin Johnstone	Moving Party
Westbrook Development Corporation		Not Received
Town of the Blue Mountains		Not Received

DISPOSITION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY SUBUOLA AWOLERI

INTRODUCTION

1MPAC seeks to dismiss the appeals filed by Westbrook Development Corporation (the "Company") for the taxation years 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 due to its breach of the Assessment Review Board's (the "Board's") Rules of Practice and Procedure (the "Rules") by not providing its Statement of Issues on the date specified by the Board. The Company and the Town of the Blue Mountains were served with MPAC's motion, but have not provided a response.

DISPOSITION OF MOTION

2The Board grants MPAC's motion to dismiss the appeals. The Company is in breach of the Rules and MPAC is prejudiced by this breach. The Board dismisses the Company's appeals for the 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION OF MOTION

3The subject property is a residential development land owned by the Company. The Company filed its appeal of the assessment of the subject property for the 2013 to 2016 taxation years. The Board assigned a commencement day of January 15, 2018 to its appeals. In accordance with the Rules as set out in the schedule of events, MPAC delivered its initial disclosure to the Company on February 12, 2018 and the Company was to provide its Statement of Issues to MPAC and the Town of the Blue Mountains by June 11, 2018. The Company did not do so.

4On November 14, 2018, MPAC contacted the Company advising that it is in breach of the Rules by not providing its Statement of Issues and MPAC is prejudiced by this breach. The Company did not respond. MPAC then proceeded to file this motion to dismiss the Company's appeals.

5The 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

6MPAC 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. According to MPAC, this prejudice includes the significant amount of resources it has invested in its case management. MPAC further argues that if appellants do not comply with the Rules, as in this appeal, it 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 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.

7I accept MPAC's argument that the Company's breach of the Rules has caused prejudice to MPAC. The Company's 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 Rules, which was not cured, is prejudicial to MPAC.

CONCLUSION

8I find that MPAC is prejudiced by the Company's non-compliance with the Rules. The Board grants MPAC's motion and dismisses the Company's appeals for the 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 taxation years.