Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: July 24, 2019

FILE NO.: DM 2019M36

Moving Party(ies): Lammert Jacob De Boer and Henriette Schulkes-De Boer

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 16

Respondent(s): Township of Springwater

Property Location(s): 1107 Glengarry Landing Road North

Municipality(ies): Township of Springwater

Roll Number(s): 4341-030-008-00900-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3340361

Taxation Year(s): 2017

Hearing Event No.: 719067

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

Heard: July 2, 2019 by written submission

Parties	Counsel+/Representative	Submissions
Lammert Jacob De Boer and Henriette Schulkes-De Boer	Self-represented	Moving Party
MPAC	Justin Johnstone	Received
Township of Springwater	Anita Verstraten	Received

DISPOSITION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY JEAN-PAUL PILON

DISPOSITION OF MOTION

1Lammert Jacob De Boer and Henriette Schulkes-De Boer (the “Moving Parties”), the owners of a property at 1107 Glengarry Landing Road North in the Township of Springwater (the “Property”), bring this motion to extend time to file an appeal of their assessment for the 2017 taxation year. They also say that they filed a request to extend time to file a Request for Reconsideration (“RfR”) with the Assessment Review Board (“Board”). Even though they did not include a copy of that request with their motion and the Board has no record of it, it is a request that is also considered in the context of this motion.

2The Moving Parties’ submission indicates that the basis of their appeal would be that the Property was incorrectly classified. Their position is that the Property should have been classified in the farm property class, and not in the residential property class in the 2017 taxation year.

3In either the farm property class or the residential property class, the filing of an RfR is a requirement before an appeal can be filed, and no RfR was filed. Even without that precondition, the Moving Parties would not have succeeded in their request to extend time to file an appeal because they would not have met the requirements of Rule 26(b) of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”). This is because the appeal was not filed within 30 days of the Moving Parties becoming aware of the assessment or classification.

4As to the Moving Parties’ submission that time should be extended for the filing of an RfR, section 40(4) of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”) allows the Board to grant an extension for filing of an RfR, but only if the request is filed in the same year as the taxation year that is in issue. The Moving Parties indicate in their affidavit that the request was made on November 29, 2018, after the 2017 taxation year. That request is also therefore denied.

Background

5The Moving Parties filed their affidavit that they affirmed on January 28, 2019. Significant material facts are missing from that affidavit which are supplemented by a letter from the Township of Springwater (the “Municipality”) dated January 14, 2019, a short email from MPAC dated June 24, 2019 and a further email from the Municipality dated June 27, 2019 in which it indicated that it supported MPAC’s position that time should be extended for the filing of an RfR. Together, these documents provide a sufficient factual basis for the motion to be determined.

6The roll number above includes two pieces of land that were owned by a single person. Those two pieces of land were severed on November 25, 2016. One of the two severed parcels includes a farmhouse, and the other includes only land. This latter land-only parcel was purchased by the Moving Parties on December 1, 2016.

7No notice of assessment was sent by MPAC to the Moving Parties for the 2017 taxation year. The Municipality says that this is because the assessment remained in the original owner’s name, and both parcels were in the residential property class.

8A new roll number was established for the farmhouse parcel in 2018, but both parcels remained in the original owner’s name. It was not until October 2018 that the original owner notified the Municipality that they received tax bills for both properties, at which time the Municipality sent a bill to the Moving Parties.

9The bill received by the Moving Parties indicated the Property was assessed in the residential property class for 2017 and the farm property class in 2018. The Moving Parties’ position is that the Property should have been in the farm property class for 2017 as well. They then made attempts to resolve their issue by contacting the Municipality, MPAC and three provincial ministries including the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs through October and November, 2018, without obtaining any clarity as to how to proceed.

10The Moving Parties’ affidavit goes on to explain that they were told by MPAC to file a request to extend time to file an RfR on November 26, 2018. They say they did this on November 29, 2018. On December 17, 2018, they were told by Board staff to file an appeal. They then sought the assistance of the Municipality in completing the appeal form but were told that they could not be assisted until January, 2019. On January 15, 2019, they filed their appeal and were told by Board staff on January 21, 2019 that they should also file a request to extend time. Their affidavit supporting this motion is dated a week later, on January 28, 2019.

11In summary, the Moving Parties request an extension of time to file an appeal and say that they also filed a request to extend time to file an RfR. Both requests are therefore considered here.

Extension of Time: Appeal

12Rule 26(b) of the Rules provides that:

26. The Board may accept an appeal received after the time set out in the Assessment Act only if the appellant satisfies the Board, by way of affidavit evidence, that:

(b) 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.

13However, section 40(3) of the Act says:

40(3). If a property is in the residential, farm or managed forests properties class…no appeal may be brought to the Assessment Review Board under subsection (1) by a person who is entitled to make a request for reconsideration under section 39.1 in respect of the property, if the person has not made the request within the time required under that section.

14The Property was classified by MPAC as being the residential property class in 2017, therefore the Moving Parties could not have filed an appeal without filing an RfR first. Without the prerequisite of filing an RfR having been met, their right to file an appeal late must fail. In any event, even if the Property had been classified such that there was no RfR precondition, the Moving Parties’ request for an extension of time to file an appeal would have been unsuccessful.

15The Moving Parties are the owners of the Property and are entitled to receive notice of assessment, and therefore would have satisfied the first requirement of Rule 26(b). They did not receive notice and would have met the second requirement. They indicate in their affidavit, however, that they became aware of the classification, which would have been the subject their appeal, on October 19, 2018 when they received a letter from the Municipality. As their appeal was not filed until January 15, 2019, they would not have met the third requirement of the Rule because they did not file the appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment.

Extension of Time: RfR

16The deadline for filing an RfR is March 31 of the taxation in year in respect of which the request is made, pursuant to section 39.1(1) of the Act. In this case, that date was March 31, 2017 which has long since passed.

17Section 40(4) of the Act provides that the Board can extend time for filing an RfR in extenuating circumstances:

40(4) If, in the Board’s opinion, there are extenuating circumstances explaining why a request for reconsideration in respect of a property was not made within the time required under section 39.1 by a person who was required to do so a precondition of appeal under subsection (3), the Board may, on an application by the person during the taxation year, extend the deadline for making a request under that section.

18The taxation year in issue is 2017 but the request to extend time was not made until November 29, 2018, the year after the taxation year in question. Section 40(4) of the Act is clear that the Board’s authority to grant an extension is limited to the point that it can only be granted if the request is made in the same year as the taxation year to be appealed. This request was made the year after, therefore the Moving Parties’ request to extend time to file a request for reconsideration must be denied.

CONCLUSION

19The motion brought by Lammert Jacob De Boer and Henriette Schulkes-De Boer is denied because they cannot file an appeal without first filing an RfR and the Board lacks jurisdiction to extend time to file an RfR for extenuating circumstances beyond the tax year at issue.