Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: February 8, 2019

FILE NO.: DM 2019M09

Moving Party(ies): Benjamin Munroe

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, (“MPAC”), Region 05

Respondent(s): City of Kingston

Property Location(s): 1056 Rosanna Avenue

Municipality(ies): City of Kingston

Roll Number(s): 1011-080-200-18170-0000

Taxation Year(s): 2016 and 2017

Hearing Event No.: 710467

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

Heard: February 6, 2019 by written submission

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Representative

Benjamin Munroe

Self-represented

MPAC

No one appeared

City of Kingston

No one appeared

DISPOSITION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY SCOTT McANSH

1Benjamin Munroe is the owner of the property located at 1056 Rosanna Avenue in the City of Kingston. He is seeking permission to file an appeal of omitted assessment issued against the property in 2017. The house on the property is newly constructed and was not occupied by Mr. Munroe until March 24, 2017. Yet the omitted assessment increased the value by $232,000 effective September 26, 2016, and also increased the 2017 assessment by $227,000, effective January 1, 2017. Those increases made the total assessed value of the property $310,000 for the 2016 taxation year and $335,000 for the 2017 taxation year.

2Mr. Munroe received the omitted assessment and immediately contacted his lawyer because he was of the view that those taxes should be payable by the previous owner. The notice he received stated, in bold, that the “deadline for filing a RfR is November 17, 2017.” He did not turn his mind to that process however, until he received his municipal tax bill in January 2018. That tax bill showed overdue amounts, which made him realize that the issues with the omitted assessment were not resolved.

3He applied to this Assessment Review Board (this “Board”) on January 8, 2018, seeking an extension of time to file a request for reconsideration of the omitted assessment. The Board sent him its decision, denying the extension of time, on March 3, 2018. Mr. Munroe then filed a request for reconsideration of the 2018 assessment with MPAC. MPAC informed him that it found the assessed value for 2018 to be correct, and he appealed that determination to the Board. However, that did not address the omitted assessments, which were issued in 2017.

4Mr. Munroe now seeks an extension of time to appeal the 2017 omitted assessments. This Board has no legal ability to extend the time for filing appeals of residential property that has completed a request for reconsideration. Mr. Munroe’s application is denied.

Law

5This Board has a very narrow authority to permit filing in breach of the timelines set in the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”). That legal authority flows from the decision of the Ontario Superior Court in Fleming and Smith Ltd. and Regional Assessment Commissioner Region No. 31 et al., 1979 CanLII 1870 (ON SC). The Court held that the Board could permit late filing if certain conditions were met. Board codified those conditions in Rule 26(b), which states:

26 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: …

(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.

6The Rule requires that three things be proven: (1) an entitlement to notice; (2) a lack of receipt of notice, and (3) a timely application.

Notice

7The common law power that Rule 26(b) is built upon flows from the fairness concern of a taxpayer not being able to appeal an assessment that it was never aware of. Mr. Munroe received the notice of omitted assessment in August 2017. That notice clearly stated his review options and the November 17, 2017 filing deadline. His receipt of the notice makes him ineligible for relief under Rule 26(b).

8A request for reconsideration is a mandatory step that must be taken for property in the residential property class before an appeal can be filed with this Board, see subsection 40(3) of the Act. The Act also sets out the limited circumstances in which the Board can extend the time for filing a request for reconsideration in subsection 40(4). Mr. Munroe has already applied for that relief, and was denied. That legislative barrier to filing an appeal has removed any common law power that the Board may have had to remedy the late filing of a residential appeal.

Conclusion

9Mr. Munroe received the 2017 omitted assessment notice, so he does meet one of the essential requirements of Rule 26(b). His application to file a late appeal of that assessment is denied.