Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: May 7, 2019

FILE NO.: DM 2019M24

Moving Party(ies): Sandra Easterbrook-Barna

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 20

Respondent(s): Norfolk County

Property Location(s): 114 Brown Street, Unit 4

Municipality(ies): Norfolk County

Roll Number(s): 3310-334-030-74910-0000

Taxation Year(s): 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016

Hearing Event No.: 713473

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

Heard: April 26, 2019 by written submission

Parties	Representative	Submissions
Sandra Easterbrook-Barna	Self-represented	Moving Party
MPAC	Michael Radan	Received
Norfolk County		Not Received

DISPOSITION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY SCOTT McANSH

1Sandra Easterbrook-Barna seeks permission from this Assessment Review Board (this “Board”) to file appeals well after the filing deadline set in the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”). She argues that she should be permitted to file late because she had other things going on in her life over those years, which made it difficult to manage her property assessment.

2MPAC argues that Ms. Easterbrook-Barna does not meet the legal test for when this Board can grant late appeals. Specifically, it says that she has not proven that she did not receive the notices of assessment for the tax years at issue and that she did not file this application in a timely way. Norfolk County did not file any material in this motion, despite being properly served.

3Ms. Easterbrook-Barna has not provided any evidence that she did not receive the notice of assessment that she was entitled to receive. Proof that notice was not received is an essential requirement of the legal test for a late appeal. The burden to provide that evidence is on Ms. Easterbrook-Barna. Her application is denied.

Background

4Ms. Easterbrook-Barna is the owner of the townhouse property that is Unit 4 at 114 Brown Street in Norfolk County. She filed a request for reconsideration of the 2018 taxation year assessment of the property with MPAC. MPAC reconsidered the 2018 assessment of $461,000 and reduced it to $361,000 due to errors in the information it had on the property. MPAC encouraged Ms. Easterbrook-Barna to apply for tax relief for the 2017 taxation year from Norfolk County and MPAC also corrected the assessment for the 2019 taxation year.

5Ms. Easterbrook-Barna asked MPAC for the historical assessment of the property. On August 28, 2018 MPAC sent assessment information from 2006 through 2016 by email. It showed the following values:

a. 2006 and 2007 - $313,000;
b. 2009 to 2012 - $444,000; and
c. 2013 to 2016 - $449,000.

6She argues that the trend shows that an error in MPAC’s data likely occurred in 2009 because the increase of $133,000 for that tax year is not supported by evidence. She says that she did not appeal at the time because her mother was ill and moved into her home, making her life very stressful. She acknowledges that it was her obligation to watch the assessment and challenge it if it was in error, but she says that the stress at the time was too much for her to properly manage her tax affairs.

Law

7This Board has a very limited power to extend the filing deadlines set by law in the Act. That power was confirmed by the Ontario Superior Court in Fleming and Smith Ltd. and Regional Assessment Commissioner Region No. 31 et al., 1979 CanLII 1870 (ON SC) and has been codified in Rule 26(b) of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. That Rule states:

26 The Board may accept an appeal received after the time set in the Assessment Act only if the appellant satisfies the Board, by way of affidavit evidence, that: …

(b) 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 or classification that is the subject of the appeal.

8As noted in Sabl Corp v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 9, 2018 CanLII 67821 (ON ARB), at paragraph 9, the Rule has three components: “(1) that the person was entitled to receive notice; (2) that they did not receive notice; and (3) that they filed the appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment.” Each component must be proven by affidavit evidence before a late appeal can be granted.

Entitled to Notice

9Ms. Easterbrook-Barna is the owner of the property and owners are entitled to an annual notice of assessment. The first requirement of Rule 26(b) is met.

Did not Receive Notice

10There is no evidence that Ms. Easterbrook-Barna did not receive the annual notice of assessment for the 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, or 2016 taxation years. She has not met the second essential requirement of Rule 26(b).

11The common law basis of the Board’s power to permit late filing flows from a failure to receive notice. Without that evidence, Ms. Easterbrook-Barna’s application must fail.

Timely Application

12The final requirement is that the person bring an application within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment. However, that requirement only comes into play if the person has not received the notice of assessment. If the person received the notice of assessment they would be aware of the assessment from the time it is received. The final requirement of Rule 26(b) only needs to be considered when there if evidence that notice was not received.

13Without evidence to the contrary, I presume that Ms. Easterbrook-Barna received her annual notices of assessment. The filing deadlines in the Act would generally provide her with more than 30 days to appeal. This is not a timely application.

CONCLUSION

14Ms. Easterbrook-Barna has not proven that she did not receive her notice of assessment for the 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 taxation years. Without proof that notice was not received, this Board has no legal power to extend the filing deadlines set out in the Act. Her application for late filing is denied.