Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: April 11, 2019

FILE NO.: DM 159292

Moving Party(ies): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 28

Respondent(s): 2449310 Ontario Inc.

Respondent(s): City of North Bay

Property Location(s): 1200 O’Brien Street

Municipality(ies): City of North Bay

Roll Number(s): 4844-050-081-00100-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3162416

Taxation Year(s): 2016

Hearing Event No.: 711078

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	Makael Nur	Moving Party
2449310 Ontario Inc.	Not Received
City of North Bay	Not Received

DISPOSITION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY JEAN-PAUL PILON

1MPAC requests the dismissal of this appeal because the appellant, 2449310 Ontario Inc. (the “Company”), did not serve a Statement of Issues on or before the date specified by the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”). The Company did not make any submissions on this motion despite having been served with notice.

2For the reasons that follow, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance with the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”).

Background

3The Company is the owner of 1200 O’Brien Street, a hotel in the City of North Bay. Its representative, Satinder Judge, filed an appeal with the Board for the 2016 taxation year assessment of the property.

4The Board assigned a commencement date of January 15, 2018 for the appeal pursuant to Rule 33. MPAC sent its initial disclosure to the Company on February 12, 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 Company was to serve MPAC and the City of North Bay with a Statement of Issues on or before June 11, 2018. This was not done.

5In support of its motion, MPAC filed the affidavit of Thomas Elliott, a Senior Case Management Analyst employed by MPAC, sworn on December 20, 2018. In it, Mr. Elliott stated that on June 22, 2018 he emailed Mr. Judge to indicate that no Statement of Issues had been received and to ask whether the appeal would be withdrawn. There was no reply. Mr. Elliott also stated in his affidavit that he emailed Mr. Judge again on December 7, 2018 to say that MPAC had never received any indication that the Company was interested in proceeding with the appeal, and that MPAC would be filing this motion to dismiss it.

6MPAC filed an email dated January 4, 2019 it received from Lisa Beaulieu, an employee of the City of North Bay, indicating that the City was unsuccessful in its attempt to reach the Company, and that the municipality supports MPAC’s motion to dismiss the appeal.

Dismissal

7MPAC argues in this motion that the Company has not complied with the Rules and submits that the appeal should be dismissed. The Board agrees, finding that the Company is in breach of the Rules in a clear, egregious and unilateral way, and that this breach has caused prejudice to MPAC. The appeal is 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 (ON ARB), 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 (ON ARB), 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 Company’s failure to serve a Statement of Issues on the other parties by June 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 (ON ARB), 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 Company. 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 Company’s appeal is granted. The Company is in breach of the Rules and the breach is entirely attributable to the Company, and MPAC has been prejudiced as a result. The Board therefore dismisses 2449310 Ontario Inc.’s 2016 appeal.