Orangeville Agricultural Society v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2019 CanLII 72766

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

August 01, 2019

FILE NO.:

DM 2019M37

Moving Party(ies):

Orangeville Agricultural Society

Respondent(s):

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”), Region 22

Respondent(s):

Town of Orangeville

Property Location(s):

76 Fifth Street

Municipality(ies):

Town of Orangeville

Roll Number(s):

2214-010-001-12150-0000

Taxation Year(s):

2016 and 2017

Hearing Event No.:

717768

Legislative Authority:

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

Heard:

June 28, 2019 by written submission

Parties

Counsel⁺/Representative

Submissions

Orangeville Agricultural Society

James Orton

Moving Party

MPAC

Douglas Keyes

Received

Town of Orangeville

Not Received

DISPOSITION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY JEAN-PAUL PILON

DISPOSITION OF MOTION

1James Orton is the president of the Orangeville Agricultural Society (the “Society”), owner of a property at 76 Fifth Street in the Town of Orangeville. He brings this motion on behalf of the Society to file late appeals for the 2016 and 2017 taxation years.

2MPAC represented by Douglas Keyes consents to the motion. The Town of Orangeville filed no submissions in the motion.

3The Society’s motion is granted for the reasons that follow. Its appeals for the 2016 and 2017 taxation years are accepted.

Background

4There are two supporting documents submitted by Mr. Orton in the motion: his affidavit affirmed on May 6, 2019 and a letter dated June 10, 2019. Mr. Orton says in his affidavit that the Society did not receive a “notice of Re-Assessment” from MPAC. He only became aware of the assessments when a tax bill and notice of arrears were received from the Town of Orangeville on April 10, 2019.

5MPAC does not dispute the allegations in Mr. Orton’s affidavit and consents to the relief requested. MPAC also points out in its submission that “there have been documented communication issues between Mr. Orton and the Board.” In particular, MPAC cites the fact that time was extended for submissions in this motion at Mr. Orton’s request because he received the Board’s motion letter after the date set for those submissions.

Late Appeal

6Rule 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.

7On the first question of the three questions to be determined in applying Rule 26(b), Mr. Orton is the president of the organization that owns the property. He would therefore be entitled to receive the notice of assessment on behalf of the Society.

8On the second question in Rule 26(b), Mr. Orton indicates in his affidavit that the first time he became aware of the assessment was when he received a tax bill and notice of arrears from the Town of Orangeville on April 10, 2019. He refers to the form of notice as “notice of Re-assessment from MPAC” which might have suggested that the notice is the result of a notice of reconsideration. This could have been significant because the Board determined in Werzberger v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 09, 2018 CanLII 107717 (ON ARB), 2018 CanLII 73665 that notices of assessment and notices of reconsideration are two different things, and that Rule 26(b) only applies to a notice of assessment. However, there was no suggestion in the affidavit that any request for reconsideration was filed or that any notice was received prior to this. In any event, it is most likely that MPAC would have raised in its submission had that been the case.

9The Board is therefore satisfied that the reference made to notice in Mr. Orton’s affidavit is, in fact, the “notice of assessment” contemplated in the second part of Rule 26(b).

10On the third question in Rule 26(b), Mr. Orton states in his affidavit that he became aware of the assessments on April 10, 2019, and that he filed his affidavit on May 6, 2019, within 30 days. Although reference is made in the Rule to having “filed the appeal with the Board within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment or classification that is the subject of the appeal,” where Mr. Orton filed only his affidavit, the Board has previously considered the submission of affidavit evidence alone to sufficiently meet the requirement of filing an appeal in these circumstances.

11Therefore, it is determined that the Society has met all of the requirements of Rule 26(b) and that its request to file appeals for the 2016 and 2017 and taxation years should be granted.

CONCLUSION

12The motion is granted. The Board accepts the appeals of the Orangeville Agricultural Society for the 2016 and 2017 taxation years.