Keith Batho v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2019 CanLII 7192

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

January 30, 2019

FILE NO.:

DM 2019M03

Moving Party(ies):

Keith Batho

Respondent(s):

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”), Region 23

Respondent(s):

Township of Blandford-Blenheim

Property Location(s):

77505 Blandford Road

Municipality:

Township of Blandford-Blenheim

Roll Number(s):

3245-010-020-01900-0000

Taxation Year(s):

2017

Hearing Event No.:

709270

Legislative Authority:

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

Heard:

January 10, 2019 by written submission

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Representative

Keith Batho

Self-represented

MPAC

Brittany Allen

Township of Blandford-Blenheim

No one appeared

DISPOSITION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY SCOTT McANSH

1Keith Batho applies for permission to file an appeal of the 2017 assessment of his property after the time set in the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31. He is the owner of the farm property at 77505 Blandford Road in the Township of Blandford-Blenheim. That farm was not classified in the farm property class for the 2017 taxation year due to a change in ownership. It was in the residential property class for the 2017 taxation year. Mr. Batho missed the application deadline to contest the classification of the farm. He now seeks permission to file an appeal of the 2017 assessment late.

2Late appeals are only permitted in very narrow circumstances. A person seeking permission to file a late appeal must prove, through affidavit evidence, three things: (1) that they were entitled to the notice of assessment; (2) that they did not receive that Notice; and (3) that they made this application within 30 days of becoming aware of the issue in dispute. All three things must be proven before this Assessment Review Board (this “Board”) can effectively waive the statutory appeal filing deadline. Mr. Batho has not proven that he did not receive a notice of assessment, nor has he proven that he made this application within 30 days of becoming aware of the classification issue. His application is, therefore, denied.

Law

3The power to alter a filing deadline set in legislation is rare. The Ontario Superior Court found that this Board could extend the time to file an assessment appeal in Re Fleming and Smith Ltd. and Regional Assessment Commissioner Region No. 31 et al., 1979 CanLII 1870 (ON SC). The Board codified the conditions set by the Court in Rule 26(b) of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, which states:

26 The Board may accept an appeal received after the time set 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.

4As noted above, the Rule requires that three things be proven: (1) an entitlement to notice; (2) a lack of receipt of notice, and (3) a timely application.

Entitled to Notice

5Mr. Batho has proven that he is the owner of the property. Owners are entitled to an annual notice of assessment. He therefore meets the first requirement of Rule 26(b).

Did not Receive Notice

6Mr. Batho’s evidence indicates that he did not receive an application form from the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Farm, and Rural Affairs. That form is used to apply for classification in the farm property class. He makes no mention of the notice of assessment.

7This Board has held that the term “notice of assessment” in Rule 26(b) means the notice sent by MPAC of how the property is assessed, see Werzberger v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 09, 2018 CanLII 107717 (ON ARB), 2018 CanLII 73665 (ON ARB), paragraphs 11 to 18. The form that Mr. Batho says he did not receive is not a notice of assessment. The purpose of the Rule is to preserve appeal rights when a party is unaware of the issues it may wish to appeal. Mr. Batho has not proven that he did not receive notice that the property was assessed in the residential property class for the 2017 taxation year. He does not meet the second requirement of Rule 26(b).

Timely Application

8Mr. Batho first brought this application on May 2, 2018. He does not provide any evidence on when he first became aware of the classification for the 2017 taxation year. He included in his submissions a letter from MPAC, dated March 13, 2018. That letter stated that, after a review, the property would be placed in the farm property class for the 2018 taxation year. That is an indication that an application was made regarding classification some time before that date. This shows that Mr. Batho was aware of the classification well before March 2018.

930 days before May 2, 2018 is April 4, 2018. The evidence provided shows that Mr. Batho was likely aware of the classification issue well before that date. He does not, therefore, meet the final requirement of Rule 26(b).

Conclusion

10Mr. Batho has not proven that he did not receive a notice of assessment. He has also failed to prove that he made this application within 30 days of becoming aware of the incorrect classification of the property. He has not, therefore, proven that he falls within the narrow set of circumstances in which statutory filing deadlines can be altered by this Board. His application to file a late appeal of the 2017 assessment of the property at 77505 Blandford Road in Blandford-Blenheim Township is denied.