Abbasali Morshed v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 24, 2019 CanLII 3417

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

January 15, 2019

FILE NO.:

DM 2018M037

Moving Party(ies):

Abbasali Morshed

Respondent(s):

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 24 (“MPAC”)

Respondent(s):

Township of North Huron

Property Location(s):

355 Josephine Street

Municipality(ies):

Township of North Huron

Roll Number(s):

4050-510-017-00700-0000

Taxation Year(s):

2018

Hearing Event No.:

708766

Legislative Authority:

Rule 26(b) of the Assessment Review Board Rules of Practice and Procedure

Heard:

December 4, 2018 in writing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Representative

Abbasali Morshed

Self-represented

MPAC

No-one appeared

Township of North Huron

No-one appeared

DISPOSITION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY JEAN-PAUL PILON AND SCOTT McANSH

DISPOSITION OF MOTION

1Abbasali Morshed, the owner of 355 Josephine Street, Wingham, seeks leave of the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) to file an appeal for the 2018 taxation year because he did not file an appeal prior to the deadline set out in the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”).

2Mr. Morshed affirms in his affidavit filed in support of the motion that he was prompted to make this request when he received his final tax bill for the property from the municipality on August 17, 2018. He says he first contacted MPAC on August 20, 2018 to file a request for reconsideration but was told he had missed the deadline, and that he “was unaware of this date because (he) misplaced” the notice of assessment sent by MPAC. He then contacted the Board to determine how he could file a late appeal.

3Two separate requests for relief are therefore considered in this motion: a request for an extension of time to file a request for reconsideration with MPAC, and a request for an extension of time to file an appeal with the Board. For the reasons that follow, both of these requests are denied.

Extension of Time to File a Request for Reconsideration

4The property is not in the Residential, Farm or Managed Forests property class, and Mr. Morshed was not required to file a request for reconsideration with MPAC before filing an appeal pursuant to subsection 40(3) of the Act. It would have been open to him to file one pursuant to subsection 39.1(1) of the Act had he wanted. In that request he could have raised any matter that could have formed the basis of an appeal.

5Subsection 39.1(1.1) of the Act provides that a request for reconsideration “must be made no later than March 31 of the taxation year in respect of which the request is made.” In this case, that deadline was April 3, 2018. Had a request for reconsideration been filed on or before that date, Mr. Morshed would have then have had additional time, after MPAC’s notice of reconsideration was, or should have been, mailed, to file an appeal.

6Subsection 40(4) of the Act provides that “if, in the Board’s opinion, there are extenuating circumstances explaining why a request for reconsideration” was not made in time, the Board may extend time to file if the request is made during the same taxation year. The only reason given in Mr. Morshed’s affidavit for not filing a request for reconsideration or an appeal on time was because he misplaced MPAC’s notice of assessment and was unaware of this filing deadline.

7The use of the term “extenuating circumstances” suggests there should be events outside of a requestor’s control that prevented a request from being made on time. Not receiving a notice of assessment, for example, might have amounted to extenuating circumstances that would have justified an extension of time. In this case, however, there is an acknowledgment that the notice was received and then misplaced. That misplacement did not prevent the filing of an appeal. The problem could have been avoided had further inquiries been made immediately after the notice of assessment was misplaced. Instead, Mr. Morshed waited until August 20, 2018 to contact MPAC after receiving his tax bill to determine how he could file a request for reconsideration. These are not extenuating circumstances that justify an extension of time.

Late Appeal

8Subsection 40(6) of the Act provides that the last day for filing an appeal if no request for review was filed is March 31 of that taxation year. In this case, that date is also April 3, 2018. Rule 26(b) of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”) provides that a late appeal can be accepted by the Board if “the appellant is a person entitled to receive a notice of assessment who did not receive notice, and filed the appeal with the Board within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment that is the subject of the appeal.”

9Mr. Morshed is an owner of the property, so he meets the first part of the Rule. He does not meet the second part, however, which restricts its application to a party entitled to receive notice who did not receive it. Mr. Morshed’s own evidence indicates that he received the notice of assessment.

10Rule 26(b) is only the mechanism by which a late appeal can be granted, and all three requirements of the Rules must be met before the Board can grant that relief. Mr. Morshed acknowledges having received the notice of assessment and does not, therefore, fall within the scope of the Rule. His request to have the Board accept this appeal after the time set in the Act is also denied.

CONCLUSION

11Mr. Morshed cannot file a request for reconsideration late because there are no extenuating circumstances justifying that request. He cannot file an appeal late because Rule 26(b) only applies if an appellant has not received notice of assessment and he acknowledges receiving the notice of assessment. The motion is therefore denied.