Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: May 03, 2019

FILE NO.: DM 159642

Moving Party(ies): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, (“MPAC”), Region 5

Respondent(s): Luc Francois Valiquette

Respondent(s): City of Kingston

Property Location(s): 105 Cherry Street

Municipality(ies): City of Kingston

Roll Number(s): 1011-040-060-06900-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3244252

Taxation Year(s): 2016

Hearing Event No.: 712964

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

Heard: April 4, 2019 by written submission

Parties	Representative	Submissions
MPAC	Makael Nur	Moving Party
Luc Francois Valiquette	Self-represented	Received
City of Kingston	No one appeared	Not Received

DISPOSITION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY SCOTT McANSH

1MPAC seeks an order from this Assessment Review Board (this “Board”) dismissing Luc Valiquette’s appeal of the assessment of 105 Cherry Street for the 2016 taxation year. MPAC argues that Mr. Valiquette has not served a Statement of Issues as required by the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”). Mr. Valiquette argues that he provided a spreadsheet to MPAC in September of 2017 and that the appeal should not be dismissed. The City of Kingston did not file any material in this motion, despite being properly served.

2For the reasons that follow, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance with the Rules.

Background

3Mr. Valiquette is the owner of the multi-residential property at 105 Cherry Street in the City of Kingston. He filed an appeal of the 2016 taxation year assessment of the property with the Board.

4The Board assigned a commencement date of March 15, 2018 to the appeals pursuant to Rule 33. MPAC sent its initial disclosure to Mr. Valiquette on April 10, 2018, in compliance with the schedule of events set by the Rules. The next major step in the schedule of events was for Mr. Valiquette to provide MPAC and the City of Kingston with his Statement of Issues on or before August 9, 2018. He did not do so.

5MPAC requested Mr. Valiquette’s Statement of Issues on August 17, 2018. There was no response. MPAC wrote to Mr. Valiquette again on December 7, 2018, again seeking a Statement of Issues. MPAC filed this motion on February 27, 2019. Mr. Valiquette responded to MPAC’s motion on March 22, 2019, stating that he had provided a spreadsheet to MPAC in September 2017, and attaching a copy of that spreadsheet.

Dismissal

6MPAC argues that Mr. Valiquette has not complied with the Rules, and that his appeal should be dismissed on that basis. I find that Mr. Valiquette is in breach of the Rules in a clear, egregious, and unilateral way. I therefore dismiss his appeal.

7Rule 24(e) permits dismissal without a hearing if “the appellant has not complied with statutory requirements or these Rules.” This Board held, in Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region No. 9 v 234900 Ontario Ltd., 2018 CanLII 248 (ON ARB), 2017 CanLII 74719 (ON ARB) at paragraph 8, that dismissal “is an extreme remedy and should only be granted in the clearest of cases.” The Board stated, in Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region No. 7 v Cherry, 2018 CanLII 60392 (ON ARB), at paragraph 10, 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.”

8A party’s failure to provide a Statement of Issues when required can be a valid basis for dismissal, see Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 19 v Wentworth Property Management Inc., 2018 CanLII 89428 (ON ARB). Mr. Valiquette seems to be arguing that the spreadsheet he provided in September 2017, six months before the commencement date of this appeal, should be considered a Statement of Issues. I do not accept that submission. Rule 38 sets out what must be contained in a Statement of Issues. The spreadsheet filed by Mr. Valiquette does not meet the standard set in Rule 38.

9MPAC also argues that the spreadsheet was served on MPAC in the request for reconsideration process for the 2017 taxation year. That is, it was not connected to the 2016 appeal at all. I accept that submission. It seems unlikely that Mr. Valiquette would serve material for this appeal before the proceeding had begun.

10Mr. Valiquette has not explained why he did not respond to any of MPAC’s requests for a Statement of Issues, nor has he indicated that he will provide a compliant Statement of Issues in the future. I find that his failure to serve a Statement of Issues by August 17, 2018 is a breach of the Rules that is entirely attributable to him. He has not cured that breach. However, that is not enough to ground a dismissal.

11The “prejudice to each party will always be the primary consideration on a dismissal motion,” Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 14 v Upper Keele Inc., 2018 CanLII 126632 (ON ARB), 2018 CanLII 248 (ON ARB) at paragraph 10. MPAC argues that it is prejudiced by Mr. Valiquette’s breach of the Rules in how much more difficult it is to meet its other obligations when appellants fail to comply. MPAC argues that the prejudice cannot be cured by an award of costs.

12MPAC provided evidence of prejudice. It had to take additional procedural steps when Mr. Valiquette did not provide his Statement of Issues. I accept MPAC’s claim that a failure of an appellant to provide a timely Statement of Issues makes its overall case management more difficult. It cannot provide a response when there is no Statement of Issues, and MPAC’s deadline to serve a response has now passed. MPAC must also take some steps to see if a Statement of Issues is likely. I accept that there is prejudice to MPAC flowing from Mr. Valiquette’s failure to provide a Statement of Issues.

CONCLUSION

13MPAC’s motion to dismiss Mr. Valiquette’s appeal is granted. He is in breach of the Rules and that breach is entirely attributable to him. MPAC is prejudiced by his breach. I therefore dismiss the 2016 appeal filed by Mr. Valiquette.