Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: April 18, 2019

FILE NO.: DM 159493

Moving Party(ies): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, ("MPAC"), Region 32

Respondent(s): William Owchar Jr.

Respondent(s): City of Dryden

Property Location(s): 45 King Street

Municipality(ies): City of Dryden

Roll Number(s): 6026-260-003-05900-0000

Appeal Number(s): 2981638, 3030506, 3093759 and 3160760

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

Hearing Event No.: 711765

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

Heard: March 28, 2019 by written submission

Parties	Representative	Submissions
MPAC	Brittany Kee	Moving Party
William Owchar Jr.	No one appeared	Not Received
City of Dryden	No one appeared	Not Received

DISPOSITION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY SUBUOLA AWOLERI

1MPAC seeks an order dismissing the appeals of the assessment of the subject property at 45 King Street filed by the owner, William Owchar Jr., for the 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 taxation years. MPAC argues that the appeals should be dismissed because the owner failed to provide his Statement of Issues on the date specified by the Assessment Review Board (the "Board"), in accordance to the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure (the "Rules").

2Mr. Owchar did not make any submissions on this motion. The City of Dryden is also a statutory party to these appeals, but has not provided submissions in this motion despite being served.

DISPOSITION OF MOTION

3The Board grants MPAC's motion to dismiss the appeals. Mr. Owchar is in breach of the Rules and MPAC is prejudiced by this breach. Accordingly, the Board dismisses Mr. Owchar's appeals for the 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 taxation years.

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION OF MOTION

4The subject property is a large office building (generally multi-tenanted, over 7,500 square feet). Mr. Owchar filed the appeals for the 2013 to 2016 taxation years.

5Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Rules, the Board assigned a commencement date of January 15, 2018 to Mr. Owchar's appeals. On February 12, 2018, MPAC delivered its initial disclosure to Mr. Owchar. Mr. Owchar was to provide his Statement of Issues to MPAC and the City of Dryden by June 11, 2018, as set out in the Schedule of Events applicable to these appeals. He failed to do this.

6On June 15, 2018, MPAC contacted Mr. Owchar stating that it has yet to receive his Statement of Issues and further extending a grace period until June 25, 2018 for him to provide his Statement of Issues. MPAC also advised Mr. Owchar that if a response of his intention to provide his Statement of Issues and a proposed date is not received by June 18, 2018, or if his Statement of Issues is not received by his proposed date, it will proceed to have the Board dismiss his appeals. MPAC did not receive a response.

7On November 14, 2018, MPAC contacted Mr. Owchar again, stating that his breach is contrary to the Rules and MPAC is prejudiced by the breach, which has resulted in MPAC being unable to deliver a response. MPAC then filed this motion seeking to dismiss these appeals.

8The Board finds that Mr. Owchar is in breach of the Rules in a way that is completely attributable to him. 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

9MPAC argues that Mr. Owchar's breach of the Rules 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. In line with this, MPAC states that it has committed significant resources to its case management by increased staffing and increased information technology resources. This was done in order to comply with the Board's goal of completing appeals within its assessment cycle, pursuant to the Rules. MPAC emphasizes that its management and staff has developed a plan allocating its resources to comply with the Rules and it has to carefully manage its resources to meet these deadlines. In order to carry this out, MPAC states that this pushes its resources to capacity.

10According to MPAC, if appellants do not comply with the Rules, as in this appeal, MPAC 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.

11The Board finds that Mr. Owchar's breach of the Rules has caused prejudice to MPAC. His failure to provide his 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

12The Board determines that MPAC is prejudiced by Mr. Owchar's non-compliance with the Rules. The Board grants MPAC's motion and dismisses the appeals for the 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 taxation years.