Bank of Nova Scotia v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”), Region 16, 2019 CanLII 55295

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

June 14, 2019

FILE NO.:

WR 160593

Assessed Person(s):

Supertrin Properties Inc.

Appellant(s):

Bank of Nova Scotia

Respondent(s):

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”), Region 16

Respondent(s):

City of Barrie

Property Location(s):

44 Collier Street

Municipality(ies):

City of Barrie

Roll Number(s):

4342-022-010-03701-0000

Appeal Number(s):

3237422, 3308695 and 3362619

Taxation Year(s):

2017, 2018 and 2019

Hearing Event No.:

714566

Legislative Authority:

Rule 24(e) and 57 of the Assessment Review Board Rules of Practice and Procedure

Heard:

May 23, 2019 by telephone conference call

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Representative

Bank of Nova Scotia

No one appeared

MPAC

Alex Donald, David Zhao and Robin McCallum

City of Barrie

Pam Childs (observing)

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY SUBUOLA AWOLERI ON MAY 23, 2019

DECISION

The Board Orders:

1The Appellant’s appeals for the 2017, 2018 and 2019 taxation years are dismissed for non-compliance with the Assessment Review Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”).

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

2This is a ruling that was delivered orally by the Assessment Review Board (“the Board”) granting MPAC’s request to dismiss the Appellant’s 2017, 2018 and 2019 appeals for lack of compliance with the Rules. MPAC submits that it suffers prejudice due to this breach.

Settlement Conference of May 23, 2019

3In accordance to Rule 34, and as set out in the Schedule of Events, the Board set up a settlement conference (“hearing event”) for the Appellant’s appeals. This was scheduled to be heard on May 23, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. The parties’ submitted the evidence to be used at this hearing event on March 22, 2019. On May 23, 2019, at the commencement of the hearing event, all the representatives of MPAC were present. Pam Childs was observing on behalf of the Municipality. Iqbal Nasser, the Appellant’s representative was not present.

4The Board requested that David Zhao, MPAC’s representative contact Mr. Nasser regarding his attendance at the hearing event. Mr. Zhao advised the Board that at 9:40 a.m., he sent an e-mail to Mr. Nasser to inquire about his participation. Mr. Nasser responded stating that he was at a meeting and was not aware of the settlement conference.

5The Board confirmed that on April 4, 2019, notice of this hearing event was sent to all the parties and Mr. Nasser by regular mail.

6Mr. Zhao submits that the Board should dismiss these appeals, since MPAC has suffered prejudice by the Appellant’s non-compliance with the Rules, due to the resources that had been spent in preparation for the hearing event. He further cites Rules 24(e) and 57 of the Rules, which provides:

A Board Member may dismiss an appeal without holding a hearing event, or after a hearing event, if:

(e) the appellant has not complied with statutory requirements or these Rules.

Notwithstanding Rule 12(a), parties, or a person with authority to settle on the parties’ behalf, and their representatives must appear at a settlement conference, unless:

(a) the party is deemed not to oppose any settlement pursuant to Rule 39; or

(b) the Board directs otherwise.

7Mr. Zhao submits that Mr. Nasser as the Appellant’s representative, must participate in the hearing event and his absence is in breach of the Rules. He further added that in addition to the prejudice MPAC will suffer, the Board may dismiss an appeal without holding a hearing event for non-compliance with the Rules.

8Ms. Childs, although observing the hearing event, had no objection to MPAC’s request for dismissal.

9The Board agrees with MPAC. Rule 57 makes appearance at the settlement conference mandatory. The Notice of the settlement conference call clearly states:

…if you do not participate and are not represented at the start of the hearing (09:30 am), the Board may proceed in your absence and may dismiss your appeal(s) and you will not be entitled to any further notice of the proceedings…

10The Appellant’s breach of the Rules has caused prejudice to MPAC. MPAC has expended resources to participate in the appeals. The Appellant filed the appeals and it is incumbent on the Appellant to actively pursue its appeals. The Board waited for 33 minutes, to afford Mr. Nasser the opportunity to call in for the hearing event. Mr. Nasser did not further communicate with the Board on the day of the hearing event to explain his non-appearance. There was no request from Mr. Nasser to adjourn the hearing event. The Board dismissed the appeals at 10:03 a.m.

CONCLUSION

11The Board finds that MPAC is prejudiced by the Appellant’s breach of the Rules due to the resources MPAC has invested in the appeals and in the preparation and attendance at the settlement conference. This breach is entirely attributable to the Appellant. The Board grants MPAC’s request to dismiss the Appellant’s appeals for the 2017, 2018 and 2019 taxation years.