Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 31 v. RG Taxi Management Ltd., 2019 CanLII 34545

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: April 18, 2019

FILE NO.: DM 159442

Moving Party(ies): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, (“MPAC”), Region 31

Respondent(s): RG Taxi Management Ltd.

Respondent(s): City of Elliot Lake

Property Location(s): 57 Mississauga Avenue

Municipality(ies): City of Elliot Lake

Roll Number(s): 5741-000-011-16200-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3170557

Taxation Year(s): 2016

Hearing Event No.: 711764

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

RG Taxi Management Ltd.

No one appeared

Not Received

City of Elliot Lake

No one appeared

Not Received

DISPOSITION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY JEAN-PAUL PILON

1MPAC requests the dismissal of this appeal because the appellant, RG Taxi Management Ltd. (the “Appellant”), did not serve a Statement of Issues (an “SOI”) on or before the date specified by the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”). The Appellant did not make any submissions on this motion despite having been served with notice. The City of Elliot Lake also made no submissions on the motion.

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 Appellant is the owner of 57 Mississauga Avenue in the City of Elliot Lake. Its representative, Roger Tanguay, filed an appeal with the Board for the 2016 taxation year assessment of the property.

4The Board assigned a commencement date of March 15, 2018 for the appeal pursuant to Rule 33. MPAC sent its initial disclosure to the Appellant on April 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 Appellant would serve MPAC and the City of Elliot Lake with its documentary disclosure and an SOI on or before August 9, 2018. This was not done.

5In support of its motion, MPAC filed the affidavit of David Zhao, a Senior Case Management Analyst employed by MPAC, sworn on January 24, 2019. In it, Mr. Zhao stated that on December 5, 2018, MPAC emailed the Appellant to indicate three things: that its failure to provide an SOI was a breach of the Board’s Rules, that the breach had prejudiced MPAC, and that MPAC was unable to deliver any response as a result. There was no reply to the email.

6The City of Elliot Lake is a party to the appeal but did not indicate that it intends to participate in the appeal.

Dismissal

7MPAC argues in this motion that the Appellant has not complied with the Rules. It submits that the appeal should therefore be dismissed.

8Rule 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, 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, the Board specified that the “clearest of cases are those where there are wilful breaches of the Board’s orders or Rules that are entirely attributable to the taxpayer.”

9A party’s failure to provide an SOI 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. However, the Board also determined in Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 14 v. Upper Keele Inc., 2018 CanLII 126632 (ON ARB), 2018 CanLII 248 that “the prejudice to each party will always be the primary consideration on a dismissal motion.”

10MPAC provided evidence of prejudice. It argues that 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. MPAC had to take additional procedural steps when the Appellant failed to serve an SOI.

11The Board accepts MPAC’s submission that a failure of an appellant to serve a timely SOI makes its overall case management more difficult. MPAC cannot provide a response in the absence of an SOI. The Board finds there is prejudice to MPAC flowing from a failure to provide an SOI.

12The Appellant 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.

CONCLUSION

13MPAC’s motion to dismiss the Appellant’s appeal is granted. The Appellant is in breach of the Rules and the breach is entirely attributable to the Appellant, and MPAC has been prejudiced as a result. The Board therefore dismisses RG Taxi Management Ltd.’s 2016 appeal.