Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: June 18, 2019

FILE NO.: DM 160942

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

Respondent(s): Ian Walker, Coreen Walker and MNRA Corp.

Respondent(s): City of Mississauga

Property Location(s): 2326 Camilla Road

Municipality(ies): City of Mississauga

Roll Number(s): 2105-010-067-20800-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3274280, 3307097 and 3360218

Taxation Year(s): 2017, 2018 and 2019

Hearing Event No.: 715197

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

Heard: June 5, 2019 by written submission

Parties	Counsel⁺/Representative	Submissions
MPAC	Brandy Pitz	Moving Party
Ian Walker, Coreen Walker, MNRA Corp		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 appellants, Ian Walker and Coreen Walker (“the Walkers”), did not serve a Statement of Issues (an “SOI”) on or before the date specified by the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”).

2The Board’s notice of the motion, indicating how and by what date parties could make submissions on the motion, was initially sent to the Walkers but not to a party listed as an assessed person in the 2018 and 2019 deemed appeals described below, named as MNRA Corp. MPAC relies on the affidavit of Marissa Cheddi sworn April 9, 2019 in the motion which indicates that the Walkers are tenants of MNRA Corp. In any event, a further notice of the motion was copied to MNRA Corp. with additional time allowed for submissions.

3Neither the Walkers, nor MNRA Corp. made any submissions on this motion despite having been served with notice by MPAC and the Board.

4The City of Mississauga, also a party to the appeals, also made no submissions on the motion.

5For the reasons that follow, the appeals for the 2017, 2018 and 2019 taxation years are dismissed for non-compliance with the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”).

Background

6The Walkers, owners of 2326 Camilla Road, filed an appeal with the Board for the 2017 taxation year. They were deemed to have brought the same appeals in respect of the property related for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years pursuant to subsection 40(26) of the Assessment Act for a total of three appeals.

7The Board assigned a commencement day of February 15, 2018 for the appeals pursuant to Rule 33. The first significant event in the Schedule of Events set out in the Rules was that MPAC would provide its initial disclosure to all other parties, but there is no indication in Ms. Cheddi’s affidavit that this was done. The next significant event in the Schedule of Events was that the Walkers would serve MPAC and the City of Mississauga with their documentary disclosure and an SOI on or before July 12, 2018, but this was also not done. Ms. Cheddi’s affidavit goes on to say that MPAC emailed the Walkers on July 30, 2018 to request that an SOI be provided, and again on December 5, 2018 when it also indicated to the Walkers that their failure to provide an SOI prejudiced MPAC. The Walkers did not respond to this correspondence and did not provide MPAC with an SOI.

Dismissal

8MPAC argues in this motion that the Walkers have not complied with the Rules and submits that the appeals should therefore be dismissed.

9The motion was brought pursuant to Rule 24(e) which 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.”

10A 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.”

11MPAC 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 Walkers failed to serve an SOI.

12The 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.

13The Walkers are in breach of the Rules in a clear, egregious and unilateral way, and that this breach has caused prejudice to MPAC. Their appeals for the 2017 to 2019 taxation years are therefore dismissed.

CONCLUSION

14MPAC’s motion to dismiss the 2017, 2018 and 2019 appeals is granted. Ian Walker and Coreen Walker are in breach of the Rules and the breach is entirely attributable to them, and MPAC has been prejudiced as a result. The Board therefore dismisses these 2017, 2018 and 2019 appeals.