John David Tripp v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2019 CanLII 94112

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

October 3, 2019

FILE NO.:

DM 2019M41

Moving Party(ies):

John David Tripp

Respondent(s):

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”)

Region 6

Respondent(s):

City of Quinte West

Property Location(s):

Plan 21M117 Lot 5 Less RP 21R13410 Part 11

Municipality(ies):

City of Quinte West

Roll Number(s):

1204-211-045-00105-0000

Taxation Year(s):

2019

Hearing Event No.:

723464

Legislative Authority:

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

Heard:

September 26, 2019 by written submission

Parties

Counsel⁺/Representative

Submissions

John David Tripp

Peter Elston⁺

Moving Party

MPAC

Ashtyn Rank

Received

City of Quinte West

Not Received

DISPOSITION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY JEAN-PAUL PILON

DISPOSITION OF MOTION

1John David Tripp is the owner of the above property in the City of Quinte West. On July 25, 2019 he filed a motion for the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) to accept his late appeal for the 2019 taxation year.

2MPAC is represented in the motion by Ashtyn Rank who, by written submission dated September 6, 2019, indicated that MPAC takes no position in the motion.

3The City of Quinte West (the “Municipality”), which would be a party to the appeal if accepted, filed no submission in the motion.

4For the reasons that follow, Mr. Tripp’s motion is granted and his appeal is accepted for the 2019 taxation year.

Background

5Mr. Tripp filed two affidavits in the motion: one in the form of a letter addressed to the Board’s Associate Chair dated July 25, 2019, and another dated August 15, 2019. In the latter affidavit, Mr. Tripp indicates that he only received a single Property Assessment Notice from MPAC dated October 18, 2016 for the 2017 to 2020 taxation years. In this 2016 assessment notice, the property had an assessed value of $154,500 and it was in the vacant industrial land tax class.

6Mr. Tripp says in his second affidavit that the tax bill he received from the Municipality for the 2018 taxation year reflected the same assessed value and tax class as in the 2016 notice of assessment from MPAC, but that the tax bill that he received for 2019 on July 9, 2019 did not. That tax bill was based on assessed value of $426,786 and classification of the property in the commercial tax class.

Late Appeal

7Section 40(3) of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”) requires the filing of a request for reconsideration (“RfR”) with MPAC if the property is in the residential, farm or managed properties tax class an appeal can be filed. Since this property has been assessed in the industrial and commercial tax classes, and not in the residential, farm or managed properties tax classes, there was no precondition that Mr. Tripp file an RfR before filing an appeal.

8Section 40(6) of the Act provides that if no RfR has been filed and none is required as a precondition of an appeal, the last day for the filing of an appeal is March 31, 2019 for the 2019 taxation year. This motion was filed by way of his first affidavit addressed to the Associate Chair after that date on July 25, 2019.

9Rule 26(b) of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (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.

10The first requirement set out in Rule 26(b) is that the prospective appellant be entitled to receive a notice of assessment. Mr. Tripp indicates in his second affidavit that he is the registered owner of the property, therefore he meets the first part of the test.

11The second requirement set out in Rule 26(b) is that Mr. Tripp did not receive the notice of assessment in question. In paragraph 3 of his first affidavit he says that “the last previous notice” that he received from MPAC was in 2016. In paragraph 2 of his first affidavit and paragraph 5 of his second affidavit he says he only became aware of the change in assessment on July 9, 2019 and that he “did not receive any notices of correspondence advising of the change in assessment or the increased tax rate, prior to receiving this 2019 Tax Bill.” Mr. Tripp therefore meets the second requirement because he did not receive the notice of assessment MPAC says it sent on November 27, 2018.

12The third requirement set out in Rule 26(b) was that Mr. Tripp filed the appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment or classification that would be the subject of the appeal. Based on the uncontested evidence submitted by Mr. Tripp, the Board finds that Mr. Tripp became aware of the assessment on July 9, 2019 and he filed this motion on July 25, 2019. He therefore meets the requirement in the third part of the Rule.

13It is therefore determined that Mr. Tripp has met all of the requirements of Rule 26(b) and that his request to file an appeal for the 2019 taxation year should be granted.

CONCLUSION

14The motion is granted. The Board accepts John David Tripp’s appeal for the 2019 taxation year.