Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: October 08, 2019

FILE NO.: DM 2019M50

Moving Party(ies): Lingjie Meng

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 14

Respondent(s): Township of King

Property Location(s): 62 Sir Henry Court

Municipality(ies): Township of King

Roll Number(s): 1949-000-024-30007-0000

Taxation Year(s): 2019

Hearing Event No.: 724373

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

Heard: September 26, 2019 by written submission

Parties	Representative	Submissions
Lingjie Meng	Self-represented	Moving Party
MPAC	Sabrina Vizzacchero	Received
Township of King		Not Received

DISPOSITION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY JOANNE LAWS

DISPOSITION OF MOTION

1Lingjie Meng is the registered owner of 62 Sir Henry Court (the “Property”) in the Township of King (the “Township”) and seeks permission from the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) to file an appeal of the Property’s 2019 assessment after the time set in the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”).

Background

2The evidence before the Board consists of Lingjie Meng’s affidavit sworn on June 20, 2019, and supporting evidence, MPAC’s response, including the affidavit of Jason Brimstin, sworn September 17, 2019, and, Lingjie Meng’s reply statement. The Township stated that it will actively participate in the Motion but filed no evidence and took no position on the issues.

3The agreed upon facts are:

a. On January 19, 2019 MPAC received a Request for Reconsideration (RfR) from Lingjie Meng for the 2019 taxation year.

b. On February 12, 2019 MPAC issued its reconsideration decision letter in which it confirmed the assessment as returned and set out May 13, 2019 as the deadline to file an Appeal of their decision with this Board.

4Lingjie Meng affirmed that:

a. MPAC’s February 12, 2019 reconsideration decision letter was not received.

b. On June 17, 2019 Lingjie Meng called MPAC and it was at that time that Lingjie Meng first became aware of the February 12, 2019 letter.

5On July 9, 2019 the Board received Lingjie Meng’s Motion to file a late appeal pursuant to Rule 26.

6MPAC does not dispute that Lingjie Meng did not receive its reconsideration decision or that Lingjie Meng was not aware of that decision until June 17, 2019. However, MPAC takes the position that Rule 26 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rule”) does not apply in this case and that the Board has no jurisdiction to otherwise extend the deadline for filing an appeal. MPAC argues that the Motion should be dismissed.

Filing Deadlines

7Section 39.1(1.1) provides that a request for reconsideration “must be made no later than March 31 of the taxation year in respect of which the request is made. Lingjie Meng filed a request for reconsideration on January 19, 2019.

8Section 39.1(7) provides that MPAC shall mail the “results of its reconsideration no later than 180 days after the request is made”; in this instance that date would be July 18, 2019. MPAC submits it mailed its decision on February 12, 2019. Lingjie Meng, whose uncontested evidence is that MPAC’s decision was not received, called MPAC to follow up on the reconsideration request on June 17, 2019, a month before MPAC’s deadline of July 18, 2019.

9Section 40.(5) of the Act sets out two appeal filing deadlines for parties when they have filed a request for reconsideration with MPAC. The first is 90 days after the issuance date printed on the notice where MPAC “mailed a notice of reconsideration”. In this instance, that date would be May 13, 2019 (February 12, 2019 + 90 days). The second is 90 days after the date the “notice should have been mailed” by MPAC, which is October 16, 2019 (July 18, 2019 + 90 days). Both timeline scenarios are hinged to the provisions of 39.1(7). It is clear from section 40.(5) that the intent of the Act is to provide the taxpayer with at least 90 days to contemplate filing an appeal.

10In Werzberger v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 09, 2018 CanLII 107717 (ON ARB), 2018 CanLII 73665 (ON ARB) (“Werzberger”), at paragraph 17, this Board held that taxpayers “can, and should, know their ultimate filing window from the moment they submit their request for reconsideration: between 180 and 270 days from when they submit their request for reconsideration”. Lingjie Meng was aware of the filing window and followed up with MPAC on June 17, 2019, a month before the end of MPAC’s 180 day window.

11In Candida Holdings (Sarnia) v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 26, 2019 CanLII 14343 (ON ARB) (“Candida”), the Board held that the taxpayer missed the 90 day deadline provided for in section 40.(5) because MPAC mailed the notice to an incorrect address. The Board went on to reference paragraph 5 of Werzberger finding that it “would be unfair to consider the notice to have been “mailed” when MPAC sent it to an address it ought to have know was wrong” and, therefore, the second appeal filing date of section 40.(5) of the Act was engaged.

12I find that Lingjie Meng did not receive the notice despite MPAC having mailed it to the correct address. I further find that this case is similar to Candida and that there should be no distinction between MPAC mailing a notice to an incorrect address or mailing it to a correct address but that notice not arriving through no fault of the Moving Party. The effect of both circumstances is that the notice was not received by the taxpayer.

13Accordingly, the second appeal filing deadline of October 16, 2019 is engaged. Lingjie Meng submitted this application, seeking to appeal, on July 9, 2019. Therefore, it is a timely appeal.

14The Board will process Lingjie Meng’s timely appeal of the 2019 taxation year assessment and assign a commencement date.