Bev Evans v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2019 CanLII 96133

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: October 08, 2019

FILE NO.: DM 2019M49

Moving Party(ies): Bev Evans

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

Respondent(s): Woolwich Township

Property Location(s): 11 Flax Mill Drive, Conestogo

Municipality(ies): Woolwich Township

Roll Number(s): 3029-020-002-05102-0000

Taxation Year(s): 2016, 2017 and 2018

Hearing Event No.: 724766

Legislative Authority: Rule 26(b) of the Assessment Review Board Rules of Practice and Procedure and section 39.1 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31

Heard: October 02, 2019 by written submission

Parties

Counsel+/Representative

Submissions

Bev Evans

Moving Party

MPAC

Doug Keyes

Received

Woolwich Township

Not Received

DISPOSITION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY JEAN-PAUL PILON

DISPOSITION OF MOTION

1Bev Evans, the owner of 11 Flax Mill Drive, Conestogo, located in Woolwich Township, brought this motion to extend time to file appeals for the 2016 to 2018 taxation years. MPAC, represented by Doug Keyes, opposed the motion. Woolwich Township, which would be a party to any appeal filed, made no submissions on the motion.

2For the reasons that follow, the motion is denied.

Background

3Ms. Evans filed a notarized letter dated August 13, 2019. In it, she wrote that she filed a Request for Reconsideration (“RfR”) of her assessment in the 2019 taxation year and “accepted the new valuation.”

4The letter goes on to say that: “prior to the MPAC adjustment I received additional bills and paid additional taxes for three years between June 25 and October 1, 2018 to avoid being in arrears.” She wrote: “I was told that when the new assessment came through, the township would adjust the taxes accordingly.” Ms. Evans’ submissions are clear that she assumed that the 2019 RfR would somehow operate retroactively to adjust assessments for previous years.

5Ms. Evans’ reply email dated September 25, 2019 provides additional information to support the request. The earlier assessments in question were omitted assessments made in 2018 for the 2016 to 2018 taxation years pursuant to section 33 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”). These resulted in the supplementary tax bills that Ms. Evans received from Woolwich Township in 2018. The reply goes on to describe at some length Ms. Evans’ contact with the Board and with MPAC.

6In its written submission dated September 20, 2019, MPAC argued that the request to extend time to file appeals should be denied because Ms. Evans did not meet the three requirements set out in Rule 26(b) of the Assessment Review Board’s (the “Board”) Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”).

Request for Reconsideration

7This property is in the residential tax class and, pursuant to section 40(3) of the Act, no appeal in the residential tax class can be brought absent the filing of an RfR first within the times set out in the Act.

8Section 39.1(3.1) of the Act provides that a person who received a notice of omitted assessment would have had until 90 days after the mailing date or March 31 of the same year, whichever is later, to request a reconsideration in the 2016 taxation year. For the 2017 and 2018 taxation years, section 39.1(3) provides that a person who received a notice of omitted assessment had 120 days from the issuance date printed on the notice of assessment to request a reconsideration.

9There is, however, no specific provision for situations like the one in this motion, where an owner did not receive a notice of omitted assessment, and the Act is not clear as to what date would apply in such circumstances. Most likely, the applicable dates would be those that would apply to general, rather than omitted appeals. For 2016, this would have been slightly different, 90 days after the return of the roll or March 31, whichever is later, for the 2016 taxation year, pursuant to section 39.1(2.1) of the Act. For 2017, it was 120 days after the issuance date because 2017 was a general reassessment year pursuant to section 39.1(1.2) of the Act. For 2018, it was March 31 pursuant to section 39.1(1.1) of the Act.

10According to Ms. Evans’ submission, her first contact with the Board was August 12, 2019, long after the passage of all of these dates.

11The Act provides the Board with the authority to extend time to file an RfR in section 40(4) of the Act where there are “extenuating circumstances.” It provides that:

If, in the Board’s opinion, there are extenuating circumstances explaining why a request for reconsideration in respect of a property was not made within the time required under section 39.1 by a person who was required to do so as a precondition of appeal under subsection (3), the Board may, on an application by the person during the taxation year, extend the deadline for making a request under that section. (Board’s emphasis)

12The problem here is that the Board’s authority to extend time to file an RfR is limited to requests made in the taxation year in which the request is made. In other words, a request to extend time for 2017 could only have been granted in 2017. It does not answer how the Board would consider a retrospective omitted assessment, where in Ms. Evans’ case a 2016 omitted assessment would have been issued in 2018, but, in any event, the latest of the requests is for the 2018 taxation year and the request was made in 2019. As a result, the Board has no authority to extend time to file an RfR, and without an RfR, no appeal can be filed where the property is in the residential tax class.

Rule 26(b)

13MPAC’s written argument addresses only Rule 26(b) which permits the Board to extend time to file an appeal if three requirements are met. It provides as follows:

26. The Board may accept an appeal received after the time set out in the Assessment Act 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.

14Had it been the case that the Board could have accepted appeals (which it cannot because there are no RfRs preceding them), Ms. Evans would have met the first requirement being the owner entitled to receive a notice of assessment. The second requirement would also have been met because she did not receive the notice of assessment. The request would, however, have failed on the third requirement because Ms. Evans did not file her appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment. This is because her submission says that she first contacted the Board on August 12, 2019 but she was also aware of the assessments because she received supplementary tax bills from the municipality in 2018.

15The Board recognizes that Ms. Evans experienced difficulties in the process and was somehow left with the impression that the 2019 RfR would result in an adjustment to the assessments in earlier years. It remains the case, however, that the appeals that Ms. Evans now wants to file cannot be filed without filing RfRs first, and the Board has no authority outside of what is provided for in the Act to extend time for those filings.

16As a result, the motion must be dismissed.

CONCLUSION

17Bev Evans’ motion to file a late appeal is denied because she cannot file an appeal without filing an RfR first. In addition, the Board does not have any jurisdiction to extend time to file RfRs for 2016 to 2018 in 2019. That request is also therefore dismissed.