Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: May 17, 2019

FILE NO.: WR 159145

Assessed Person(s): André Benoit Venne

Appellant(s): André Benoit Venne

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 30

Respondent(s): Municipality of Markstay-Warren

Property Location(s): 219 Therrien Road

Municipality(ies): Municipality of Markstay-Warren

Roll Number(s): 5208-000-001-17902-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3284673, 3314434 and 3367895 (deemed 2019 appeal)

Taxation Year(s): 2017, 2018, and 2019 (deemed appeal)

Hearing Event No.: 710466

Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, as amended

Heard: March 05, 2019 by telephone conference call

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel+/Representative
Andre Benoit Venne	No one appeared
MPAC	Marc Serré
Municipality of Markstay-Warren	Celine Anderson

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY JEAN-PAUL PILON ON MARCH 05, 2019

INTRODUCTION

1André Venne is the owner of 219 Therrien Road in the Municipality of Markstay-Warren, a property including land in the residential, farm land, and managed forest tax classes.

2Pursuant to the provisions of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”) the assessment of land shall be based on its current value. The Act also provides that, for the 2017 to 2020 taxation years, MPAC is required to assess this value as of the valuation date, January 1, 2016.

3MPAC assessed the value of the Subject Property as of January 1, 2016 at $338,000 broken down as follows: $252,900 in the residential property tax class, $45,400 in the farm property class, and $39,700 in the managed forests property class.

4The Appellant filed an appeal for the 2017 taxation year with the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”), and he has been deemed to have brought the same appeal with respect to the Subject Property for the 2018 and 2019 taxation year pursuant to s. 40(26) of the Act.

5Mr. Venne did not appear at the hearing to support the appeals which he is deemed to have abandoned for the reasons that follow.

DISCUSSION

6Mr. Venne filed his appeal for the 2017 taxation year on February 5, 2018. On May 23, 2018, the Board emailed its Schedule of Events to the parties, including Mr. Venne, pursuant to Rule 34 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. A delivery receipt was received by the Board for Mr. Venne’s copy.

7The Schedule of Events indicated, among other things, that the parties were to complete documentary disclosure to each other on or before July 3, 2018. It also specified that a mandatory meeting was to take place on or before August 28, 2018.

8At the hearing, MPAC’s representative Marc Serré said that the mandatory meeting was held on August 28, 2018, and that Mr. Venne’s documentary disclosure amounted to a list of five addresses, presumably proposed comparable properties, that was provided to MPAC at that time. No documentation was received by the Board from Mr. Venne despite the fact that the Schedule of Events indicated that all documents had to be filed with the Board on or before September 11, 2018.

9On February 7, 2019, Mr. Venne emailed the case coordinator saying he would be abroad on March 5, 2019 and would not be able to attend the hearing. He asked whether the hearing could be rescheduled. The case coordinator replied on February 13, 2019 that the consent of the other parties to the appeals, MPAC and the municipality, would be required. The case coordinator enclosed a form which Mr. Venne could use in the event he obtained their consent. There was no further correspondence from Mr. Venne who did not attend the hearing on March 5, 2019 which proceeded at 1:40 pm.

10At the hearing, the Board heard that neither MPAC, nor the municipality’s representative Celine Anderson, were aware that Mr. Venne would not be attending or that he wanted to adjourn the hearing. Mr. Venne did not comply with Rule 83, which would have required him when bringing a motion for an adjournment not on consent to give detailed reasons for the request, along with evidence that he made all reasonable efforts to avoid the adjournment. The only information explaining Mr. Venne’s non-attendance was in the single email to the Board in which he said only that he would be out of the country on the date of the hearing. It is noted that the hearing was scheduled to proceed by telephone, and no explanation was given as to why Mr. Venne could not participate by telephone, wherever he might have been.

11The appeals are dismissed because Mr. Venne did not attend the hearing to support them, he did not seek or obtain the consent of the other parties to adjourn the hearing, and he did not provide sufficient reasons for the Board to consider any adjournment.

CONCLUSION

12The appeals are dismissed.