Rustic Fence Farms Limited v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2019 CanLII 47971

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: May 21, 2019

FILE NO.: DM 2019M26

Moving Party(ies): Rustic Fence Farms Limited

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 15

Respondent(s): Town of Oakville

Property Location(s): Davis Road

Municipality(ies): Town of Oakville

Roll Number(s): 2401-040-060-01301-0000

Taxation Year(s): 2017

Hearing Event No.: 714366

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

Heard: May 10, 2019 by written submission

Parties

Representative

Submissions

Rustic Fence Farms Limited

Kay Fisher

Moving Party

MPAC

Not Received

Town of Oakville

Not Received

DISPOSITION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY JEAN-PAUL PILON

DISPOSITION OF MOTION

1Kay Fisher is the owner of Rustic Fence Farms Limited, which in turn owns this property at an unspecified municipal address on Davis Road in Oakville. Ms. Fisher requests leave of the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) to file an appeal for the 2017 taxation year because an appeal was not filed prior to the deadline set out in the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”).

2The single document filed by Ms. Fisher in support of the motion is a one page affidavit she swore or affirmed on March 25, 2019. No submissions were received from the MPAC or from the Town of Oakville.

3To be successful in the motion, Ms. Fisher had to meet the requirements of Rule 26(b) of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”) which she did not do. As a result, and for the reasons that follow, Ms. Fisher’s motion to file an appeal for the 2017 taxation year late is denied.

Background

4Ms. Fisher’s short affidavit says only the following: that she was in two car accidents in 2016 and 2017, that her grandson “was dealing with my payments including property taxes during the period of my recovery time,” and that she was not aware that he had not filed an appeal for the 2017 taxation year prior to the deadline of March 31, 2017 on her behalf.

5Ms. Fisher’s affidavit goes on to say that “an appeal regarding the Property Tax (sic) was filed by me on August 16, 2017 with respect to the property Davis Drive, Oakville, Ontario,” but the affidavit provides no information as to what happened next. Presumably, with this motion before the Board, that attempt to file the appeal in question was unsuccessful.

6The final paragraph of Ms. Fisher’s affidavit indicates that it is directed only to an appeal for the 2017 taxation year and, apart from the reference to a car accident in 2016, no facts in the affidavit refer to any events in another year. In the absence of any further submissions from Ms. Fisher, this motion only considers late filing of an appeal for the 2017 taxation year.

Late Appeal

7The property is in the industrial tax class. It is not in the residential, farm or managed forests property classes which require an appellant to file a request for consideration first pursuant to subsection 40.(3) of the Act. It would have been open to Ms. Fisher to file a request for reconsideration before filing an appeal (and to request an extension of time for that purpose), but she did not.

8The affidavit correctly identifies the last day for filing an appeal for the 2017 taxation year as March 31, 2017. It also refers to an attempt to file an appeal on August 16, 2017, but no such appeal is before the Board.

9Rule 26(b) of the Board’s Rules sets out the Board’s authority to accept a late appeal. It says that “the Board may accept an appeal received after the time set in the Act only if the appellant satisfies the Board, by way of affidavit evidence, that…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.”

10On the first question, it is assumed that Ms. Fisher was entitled to receive a notice of assessment as the owner of Rustic Fence Farms Limited.

11However, on the second question, Ms. Fisher’s affidavit does not say that she or her delegate grandson did not receive a notice of assessment. It says only that the grandson did not file an appeal on time.

12On the third and most important question here, the affidavit fails to identify when Ms. Fisher or her grandson became aware of the assessment, or whether her attempt to file an appeal on August 16, 2017 was within 30 days of that. Without clear affidavit evidence that Ms. Fisher or her grandson did not receive the notice of assessment and file an appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment, the motion to file a late appeal cannot succeed.

13Ms. Fisher only meets one of the three essential requirements of Rule 26(b). Her motion is therefore denied with respect to an appeal for the 2017 taxation year.

CONCLUSION

14Ms. Fisher cannot file an appeal for the 2017 taxation year because the mandatory requirements of Rule 26(b) are not met. Rustic Fence Farms Limited’s motion to file its appeal for the 2017 taxation year is therefore denied.