Municipal Property Assessment Corporation v. C/O Baywood Homes, 2019 CanLII 7188

Assessment Review Board / Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: January 28, 2019

FILE NO.: DM 157945

Moving Party(ies): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation ("MPAC") Region 16

Respondent(s): C/O Baywood Homes

Respondent(s): Town of Wasaga Beach

Property Location(s): 31 Marlwood Avenue

Municipality(ies): Town of Wasaga Beach

Roll Number(s): 4364-010-011-38800-0000

Appeal Number(s): 2996419, 3022935, 3087540, and 3155201

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

Hearing Event No.: 709774

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

Heard: January 11, 2019 by written submission

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
MPAC	Makael Nur
C/O Baywood Homes	No one appeared
Town of Wasaga Beach	No one appeared

DISPOSITION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY SCOTT McANSH

1MPAC seeks to have these appeals dismissed because C/O Baywood Homes (the "Company") did not serve a statement of issues on or before the date specified by the Assessment Review Board (the "Board"). The Company did not make any submissions on this motion, despite being served with notice.

2For the reasons that follow, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance with the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure (the "Rules").

Background

3The Company is the previous owner of the Marlwood Golf and Country Club, located at 31 Marlwood Avenue in the Town of Wasaga Beach. It filed an appeal of the 2013 taxation year assessment of the property with the Board. Appeals were deemed for the 2014, 2015, and 2016 taxation years because the appeal has not yet been resolved.

4The Board assigned a commencement date of December 15, 2017 to the appeals pursuant to Rule 33. MPAC sent its initial disclosure to the Company on January 11, 2018, in compliance with the schedule of events set by the Rules. That mail was returned to MPAC marked "return to sender." The next major step in the Schedule of Events was for the Company to provide MPAC and the Town of Wasaga Beach with its statement of issues on or before May 11, 2018. It did not do so.

5MPAC requested the Company's statement of issues on May 15, 2018. The Company never responded to that request. MPAC first sought dismissal of these appeals in December of 2018. The Town consents to MPAC's dismissal request.

Dismissal

6MPAC argues that the Company has not complied with the Rules, and that the appeals should be dismissed on that basis. I find that the Company is in breach of the Rules in a clear, egregious, and unilateral way. I therefore dismiss the appeals.

7Rule 24(e) permits dismissal without a hearing if "the appellant has not complied with statutory requirements or these Rules." This Board held, in Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region No. 9 v 234900 Ontario Ltd., 2018 CanLII 248 (ON ARB), 2017 CanLII 74719 (ON ARB) at paragraph 8, that dismissal "is an extreme remedy and should only be granted in the clearest of cases." The Board stated, in Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region No 7 v Cherry, 2018 CanLII 60392 (ON ARB), at paragraph 10, that the "clearest of cases are those where there are willful breaches of the Board's orders or Rules that are entirely attributable to the taxpayer."

8A party's failure to provide a statement of issues when required can be valid basis for dismissal, see Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 19 v Wentworth Property Management Inc., 2018 CanLII 89428 (ON ARB). The failure of the Company to serve a statement of issues on the other parties by May 11, 2018 was a breach that is entirely attributable to the Company. The Company has not cured that breach. However, that is not enough to ground a dismissal.

9The "prejudice to each party will always be the primary consideration on a dismissal motion," Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 14 v Upper Keele Inc., 2018 CanLII 126632 (ON ARB), 2018 CanLII 248 (ON ARB) at paragraph 10. MPAC argues that it is prejudiced by the Company's breach of the Rules both in the expense 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.

10MPAC provided evidence of prejudice. It had to take additional procedural steps when the Company did not provide its statement of issues. I accept MPAC's assertion that a failure of an appellant to provide a timely statement of issues makes its overall case management more difficult. It cannot provide a response when there is no statement of issues, and must take some steps to see if a statement of issues is likely. I accept that there is prejudice to MPAC flowing from the Company's failure to provide a statement of issues.

CONCLUSION

11MPAC's motion to dismiss the Company's appeal is granted. The Company is in breach of the Rules and that breach is entirely attributable to the Company. MPAC is prejudiced by the Company's breach. I therefore dismiss the 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 appeals filed by the Company.