Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: May 15, 2019

FILE NO.: DM 159942

Moving Party(ies): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 15

Respondent(s): 2269577 Ontario Inc.

Respondent(s): City of Mississauga

Property Location(s): 6300 Northam Drive

Municipality(ies): City of Mississauga

Roll Number(s): 2105-050-118-09200-0000

Appeal Number(s): 2965736, 3031447, 3084711 and 3151613

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

Hearing Event No.: 713364

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

Heard: April 24, 2019 by written submission

Parties

Representative

Submissions

MPAC

Joseph Fantetti

Moving Party

2269577 Ontario Inc.

Not Received

City of Mississauga

Not Received

DISPOSITION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY JEAN-PAUL PILON

DISPOSITION OF MOTION

1MPAC requests the dismissal of these appeals because the appellant, 2269577 Ontario Inc. (the “Company”), did not serve a Statement of Issues (an “SOI”) on or before the date specified by the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”). The Company did not make any submissions on this motion despite having been served with notice.

2The City of Mississauga, also a party to the appeals, made no submissions on the motion.

3For the reasons that follow, the appeals for the 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 taxation years are dismissed for non-compliance with the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”).

Background

4The Company, a previous owner of the property in question at 6300 Northam Drive in the City of Mississauga, filed an appeal with the Board for the 2013 taxation year assessment of the property. The Company was represented by a paralegal firm when the appeal was filed, but the Board was notified by letter dated July 18, 2016 that that firm no longer represented the Company and that there was a new owner. The Board was not otherwise advised of any change of ownership, nor was it told who the new owner was other than as described below.

5A person who identified herself only as Andrea, who Board staff assumed was the new owner of the property, contacted the Board and was provided a copy of the appeal and the paralegal’s letter by email on March 22, 2018. That person provided no other information so they could be added as a party to the appeals or to this motion, and no submissions were received from that person.

6The Corporation was deemed to have brought the same appeal in respect of the property for the 2014 to 2016 taxation years pursuant to subsection 40(26) of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (“Act”).

7The Board assigned a commencement date of January 15, 2018 for the appeals pursuant to Rule 33. MPAC then sent its initial disclosure to the Company at the address of the property on January 31, 2018 in compliance with the Schedule of Events set out in the Rules. The next significant event in the Schedule of Events was that Company would serve MPAC and the City of Mississauga with its documentary disclosure and an SOI on or before June 11, 2018. This was not done.

8In support of its motion, MPAC filed the affidavit of Marissa Cheddi, a Case Management Analyst employed by MPAC, sworn on March 7, 2019. In that Affidavit, Ms. Cheddi confirmed the initial disclosure above was sent on January 31, 2018. She said further correspondence was sent to the Company on November 14, 2018 indicating that its failure to provide an SOI was in Breach of the Board’s Rules, that the breach prejudiced MPAC and that MPAC could not deliver any response as a result. The Affidavit went on to say that the Company remains in breach of the Rules and has failed to file an SOI.

9The Board notes that these appeals have been outstanding for six years.

Dismissal

10MPAC argues in this motion that the Company has not complied with the Rules. It submits that the appeal should therefore be dismissed.

11Rule 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.”

12A 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.”

13MPAC 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 Company failed to serve an SOI.

14The 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.

15The Company is in breach of the Rules in a clear, egregious and unilateral way, and that this breach has caused prejudice to MPAC. Its appeals for the 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 taxation years are therefore dismissed.

CONCLUSION

16MPAC’s motion to dismiss the 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 appeals is granted. The Corporation is in breach of the Rules and the breach is entirely attributable to it, and MPAC has been prejudiced as a result.

17The Board therefore dismisses 2269577 Ontario Inc.’s 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 appeals.