Greek Community of Metropolitan Toronto Inc. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2019 CanLII 96142

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: October 11, 2019

FILE NO.: DM 2019M51

Moving Party(ies): Greek Community of Metropolitan Toronto Inc.

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 09

Respondent(s): City of Toronto

Property Location(s): 136 Sorauren Avenue

Municipality(ies): City of Toronto

Roll Number(s): 1904-023-270-06200-0000

Taxation Year(s): 2016, 2017 and 2018

Hearing Event No.: 724172

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

Heard: September 27, 2019 by written submission

Parties

Counsel⁺/Representative

Submissions

Greek Community of Metropolitan Toronto Inc.

Daniel Attard⁺

Moving Party

MPAC

Drew Samuels

Received

City of Toronto

Not Received

DISPOSITION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY JOANNE LAWS

DISPOSITION OF MOTION

1The Greek Community of Metropolitan Toronto Inc. is the registered owner of 136 Sorauren Avenue (the “Property”) in the City of Toronto. It seeks permission from the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) to file late appeals of the Property’s assessments for the 2016, 2017 and 2018 taxation years after the time set in the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”). These appeals are the result of a 2018 omitted assessment pursuant to s. 33 of the Act.

2To be successful in the motion, the Moving Party must meet the requirements of Rule 26(b) of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”), which it did not do. As a result, and for the reasons that follow, the motion to file late appeals for the 2016, 2017 and 2018 taxation years is denied.

Background

3The evidence before the Board consists of the Moving Party’s arguments and Georgia Papaspyrou’s affidavit sworn on May 14, 2019, MPAC’s response, and, the Moving Party’s reply statement. The City of Toronto did not participate in this motion.

4Ms. Papaspyrou affirms that:

a. She is the Office Manager for the Greek Community of Metropolitan Toronto Inc.

b. The Property is owned by a religious organization and, therefore, has been exempt from taxation pursuant to s. 4 of the Act.

c. The Moving Party entered into a ten-year lease with Odyssey Montessori School in April 2016 and the leased premises are located on the lower level of the Property’s building.

d. In October 2018 MPAC issued a Property Assessment Change Notice (“PACN”) to the Moving Party to reflect a commercial business at the Property.

e. The PACN indicates the deadline to file a Request for Reconsideration is March 11, 2019.

f. The PACN was addressed to the proper organization but she did not receive the notice.

g. In December 2018 the Moving Party received Supplementary/Omitted Tax Bills from the City of Toronto for the 2016, 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

h. On February 14, 2019 she contacted the City of Toronto’s property tax department asking for clarification.

5On June 20, 2019 the Board received the Motion for a late appeal.

6MPAC argues that the Motion should be dismissed because the Moving Party failed to meet the criteria set out in the Board’s Rule 26(b).

Law

7Rule 26(b) sets out the Board’s authority to accept a late appeal. It says that:

the Board may accept an appeal received after the time set in the Assessment Act only if the appellant satisfies the Board, by way of affidavit evidence, that…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.

Entitled to Notice

8On the first question, the parties agree that the Greek Community of Metropolitan Toronto Inc. is the owner of the Property and is entitled to receive a notice of assessment.

9Accordingly, I find that the first requirement of 26(b) was met.

Did not Receive Notice

10Ms. Papaspyrou affirms that the PACN was addressed correctly but that she did not receive it. She does not indicate whether or not it was received by the Greek Community of Metropolitan Toronto Inc., only that she did not receive the notice.

11There is no dispute over the correct mailing address of the PACN. The Moving Party does not say that it was not received only that the Office Manager Ms. Papaspyrou did not receive it. Based on the information before me, I am satisfied that the Greek Community of Metropolitan Toronto Inc. received the PACN even though Ms. Papaspyrou may not have received it herself

12Accordingly, I find that the second requirement of 26(b) was not met.

Timely Application

13The final requirement in Rule 26(b) is that the application for a late appeal be brought to “the Board within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment or classification that is the subject of the appeal.”

14While Ms. Papaspyrou states she did not see the PACN, she affirmed that she received a property tax bill from the City of Toronto dated December 19, 2018. Had I found that the PACN was not received by the Moving Party, December 19, 2018 is the latest date that Ms. Papaspyrou became aware of the assessment. She then waited until February 14, 2019 to contact the City about the tax bill. This motion was not filed until June 20, 2019. Ms. Papaspyrou provided no explanation as to what happened between “becoming aware of the assessment or classification that is the subject of the appeal” and June 20, 2019 that would justify the delay in filing an application.

15Accordingly, I find that the third requirement of 26(b) was not met.

CONCLUSION

16Greek Community of Metropolitan Toronto Inc. cannot file 2016, 2017 or 2018 taxation year appeals late because the mandatory requirements of Rule 26(b) are not met. The motion is therefore denied.