Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: January 28, 2019

FILE NO.: RR 2019M01

Assessed Person(s): WPW Properties of Canada Inc..

Appellant(s): Precision Resource Canada Ltd.

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 21

Respondent(s): City of Cambridge

Property Location(s): 4 Cherry Blossom Road

Municipality(ies): City of Cambridge

Roll Number(s): 3006-140-022-04001-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3234612

Taxation Year(s): 2017

Legislative Authority: Rule 122 of the Assessment Review Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure

Request for: Reinstatement of appeal 3234612

Heard: By written submission

Parties	Representative	Submissions
Precision Resource Canada Ltd.	Patricia Budd	Requester
MPAC	No one appeared	Not Requested
City of Cambridge	No one appeared	Not Requested

DECISION DELIVERED BY SCOTT MCANSH AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

1Precision Resource Canada Ltd. (“Precision”) asks that this Assessment Review Board (this “Board”) reinstate appeal 3234612 by way of a request for reinstatement pursuant to Rule 122 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”). This request for reinstatement was filed with the Board on December 1, 2017.

2The Board received a request to withdraw the appeal from Precision in November 2017 and the Board processed the appeal as withdrawn on November 24, 2017. Precision says that the appeal was withdrawn in error.

3For the reasons that follow, Precision’s request to reinstate the appeal is denied.

The Reinstatement Rule

4Rule 122 sets out the circumstances in which the Board will reinstate appeals that were withdrawn. The relevant provision of the Rule for this application is in clause 122(a), which states, in relevant part, that “a party to a former proceeding may seek an order… to reinstate an appeal by filing an affidavit with the Board… no more than 30 days after the appeal was… withdrawn… setting out that… the appeal was withdrawn… in error.”

5There are three essential components to Rule 122(a). First, it is only open to parties to the appeal that was withdrawn. Secondly, the order must be sought within 30 days after the appeal was dismissed or withdrawn. Finally, the Board must be satisfied, based on the evidence in the applicant’s affidavit, that the appeal was withdrawn in error. All three conditions must be met before an appeal will be reinstated. Precision’s application meets the first two requirements, but it is lacking information on the nature of the error. The application is denied.

Party

6Precision was the appellant in the withdrawn appeal. The first condition of Rule 122(a) is therefore met.

Timely Application

7The appeal was processed as withdrawn by the Board on November 24, 2017. Precision sent its request to reinstate the appeal on withdraw the appeal on December 1, 2017, a mere seven days later. While there were some procedural shortcomings with the application at that time, it was accepted as a reinstatement application on that date. That is a timely application, satisfying the second condition of Rule 122(a).

Withdrawn in Error

8The final requirement of Rule 122(a) is that the appeal was withdrawn in error. Precision’s evidence simply states that it was withdrawn in error. Its affidavit does not provide any information on the withdrawal at all. That is a conclusion, with no backing facts. The requirement that the appeal be withdrawn in error is a legal determination to be made by this Board. Parties must provide the facts of how the withdrawal took place, which the Board can then evaluate against a reasonableness standard to determine if a reasonable error was made.

9If this Board accepts all bald assertions that withdrawals were made in error then there is no control on the process. Other parties rely, in good faith, on withdrawals to organize their affairs. The minimum requirement that evidence be provided, rather than stated conclusions, in a fair and reasonable control on these applications. Precision did not meet that standard. As noted in Cascades Containerboard Packaging v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 09, 2018 CanLII 78263 (ON ARB), at paragraph 10: “applications without sufficient evidence will fail to be reinstated.” This application has insufficient evidence and therefore fails.

CONCLUSION

10Precision has not submitted sufficient evidence to show that it meets all of the requirements for reinstatement. Precision was a party to the withdrawn appeals and it filed this application in a timely way. However, it did not provide any evidence on how the withdrawal was an error. A stated conclusion without evidence is not enough to meet the requirements in Rule 122(a). Precision’s application to reinstate appeal 3234612 is therefore denied.