Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: January 16, 2019

FILE NO.: DM 2018M039

Moving Party(ies): Zadek Ramowski

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 02 (“MPAC”)

Respondent(s): Tay Valley Township

Property Location(s): 267 Upper Scotch Line

Municipality(ies): Tay Valley Township

Roll Number(s): 0911-911-010-33900-0000

Taxation Year(s): 2018

Hearing Event No.: 708471

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

Heard: December 4, 2018 in writing

APPEARANCES:

Parties Representative

Zadek Ramowski Self-represented

MPAC No one appeared

Tay Valley Township No one appeared

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

DISPOSITION OF MOTION

1Zadek Ramowski, the owner of 267 Upper Scotch Line, in Tay Valley Township, 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. Ramowski’s motion is dismissed because he does not meet the prerequisites set out in Rule 26(b) of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”) that would permit the Board to extend time to file an appeal.

3Mr. Ramowski indicates in his affidavit filed in support of the motion that the reclassification of his property from the residential tax class to the multi-residential tax class resulted in a substantial increase in his tax bill that he received “a few weeks” prior to the date of the affidavit, July 25, 2018. In an underlined portion of the affidavit, he says he “received a Change Notice and/or Amended Notice from MPAC after the March 31^st deadline”, but near the end of the affidavit he says that “prior to the Tax Bill issued on June 2018, (he) did not receive any correspondences (sic) from MPAC to this effect.”

4Rule 26(b) obliges an appellant to satisfy the Board of three facts before the Board will accept a late appeal: first, that the appellant is a person entitled to receive a notice of assessment; second, that the appellant did not receive the notice of assessment; and third, that the appellant filed the appeal with the Board within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment or the classification that is the subject of the appeal.

5The first question is whether Mr. Ramowski is a person entitled to receive notice of assessment. His affidavit does not explicitly say it, but he does refer to the property being “my property” and indicates that he received a tax bill. On the basis that the request can proceed on a single supporting affidavit from an appellant, we find that these statements are sufficient to determine that Mr Ramowski is a person entitled to receive the notice of assessment.

6Secondly, the Board has to be satisfied that Mr. Ramowski did not receive the notice of assessment. On this point the affidavit is contradictory. In the second last sentence of the affidavit he says “he did not receive any correspondences (sic)”. However, in the first words of the affidavit, underlined, Mr. Ramowski indicates that he did receive a notice, but after March 31, 2018. With the emphasis on the statement saying that the notice was received, with its prominence in the first sentence of the affidavit and underlined, we find Mr Ramowski did receive notice of assessment from MPAC. The evidence submitted does not, therefore, meet the second part of the test.

7In any event, the request would have failed on the third question. Here, Mr. Ramowski had to satisfy the Board that the appeal was filed within 30 days of his becoming aware of the assessment or classification that is the subject of the appeal. To determine whether that 30 day time limit was met, there would have had to have been an indication in the affidavit as to when Mr. Ramowski became aware of the of the assessment or reclassification. On this point, the information in the affidavit is inconclusive, saying only that a notice was received from MPAC after March 31, 2018 and that the appeal was not filed until the end of July, 2018. To have been successful on this point, the affidavit would, at a minimum, have had to have indicated that the notice had been received within 30 days of the date of filing at the end of July, 2018. Mr. Ramowski’s affidavit did not do so.

8Rule 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. Ramowski acknowledges having received the notice of assessment and does not, therefore, fall within the scope of the Rule. He also failed to file this application in a timely way. His request to have the Board accept this appeal after the time set in the Act is denied.

CONCLUSION

9Mr. Ramoski 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.