Jerry Calkowski v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2019 CanLII 98699

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: October 18, 2019

FILE NO.: DM 2019M54

Moving Party(ies): Jerry Calkowski

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 9

Respondent(s): City of Toronto

Property Location(s): 40 Jackson Avenue

Municipality(ies): City of Toronto

Roll Number(s): 1919-011-440-02100-0000

Taxation Year(s): 2018

Hearing Event No.: 724178

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

Heard: October 2, 2019 by written submission

Parties

Representative

Submissions

Jerry Calkowski

Self-represented

Moving Party

MPAC

Drew Samuels

Received

City of Toronto

Not Received

DISPOSITION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY JOANNE LAWS

DISPOSITION OF MOTION

1Jerry Calkowski is the owner of 40 Jackson Avenue in the City of Toronto (“Property”). He seeks permission from the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) to file an appeal for the 2018 taxation year because he did not file an appeal prior to the deadline set out in the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (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 he did not do. As a result, and for the reasons that follow, the motion to file a late appeal for the 2018 taxation year is denied.

Background

3Rule 26(b) of the Board’s Rules sets out the Board’s authority to accept a late appeal. It 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.

4Mr. Calkowski submitted a short affidavit and supporting documents in support of his motion to file a late appeal. Drew Samuels of MPAC filed response arguments and evidence including the affidavit of Katelyn Morrow. The City of Toronto did not take part in this motion.

5Mr. Calkowski’s motion to file a late appeal was received by the Board on June 10, 2019. His affidavit in support of a late appeal contains only one sentence. He affirms that he was “entitled to receive a notice of assessment who did not receive the notice, and filed the appeal with the Board within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment that is the subject of the appeal.” This is a direct quote from Rule 26(b).

6In addition to the affidavit, he submitted a copy of his “ARB Property Assessment Appeal Form.” On that form, Mr. Calkowski indicated he received MPAC’s Property Assessment Change Notice effective January 1, 2018. His evidence is that the Property had undergone renovations and he argues that, because it was not occupiable until April 1, 2018, the January 1, 2018 effective date for the reassessment is premature.

7In her affidavit, Katelyn Morrow affirmed that MPAC issued a Supplementary Property Assessment Change Notice for the Property on May 11, 2018 and that it was mailed to Mr. Calkowski at the Property’s address.

8Mr. Samuels submits that the deadline to file a Request for Reconsideration (RfR), which is a prerequisite to filing an appeal for residential properties, was September 10, 2018. Mr. Samuels included a copy of the Property Assessment Change Notice which included the RfR deadline in bold. However, MPAC is silent on whether an RfR for the Property was received.

Late Appeal

9Rule 26(b) sets out the Board’s authority to accept a late appeal. The use of the word “and” in the Rule indicates that all three elements of the Rule must be satisfied for a prospective Appellant to be successful.

Entitled to Notice

10The first requirement is that Mr. Calkowski be a person entitled to receive a notice of assessment. This was not disputed. I find that Mr. Calkowski is a person who was entitled to receive the notice of assessment for the Property.

Did not Receive Notice

11The second requirement is that Mr. Calkowski did not receive a notice of assessment. Although he affirmed that he did not receive the notice, his supporting documentary evidence is that he did receive it as he provided the Board with a copy of his “ARB Property Assessment Appeal Form” in which he indicated that he received MPAC’s Property Assessment Change Notice effective January 1, 2018. Mr. Calkowski provided no details about when he received the notice, only that he was aware that the change in assessment took place effective January 1, 2018.

12I accept MPAC’s evidence that the Property Assessment Change Notice was mailed to Mr. Calkowski at the Property on May 11, 2018. Based on MPAC’s evidence and the documentary evidence submitted by Mr. Calkowski on the ARB Property Assessment Appeal Form, I find it is likely that Mr. Calkowski received that notice soon afterward.

Timely Application

13On the third question, Mr. Calkowski fails to identify when he first became aware of the assessment. He provided no explanation as to what transpired between the date the notice was mailed on May 11, 2018 and the date he filed a motion with this Board on June 10, 2019. These dates are more than a year apart.

14Based on the evidence received, the earliest date Mr. Calkowski became aware of the change is assessment was shortly after May 11, 2018 which is the mailing date of the notice. Mr. Calkowski cannot qualify for a ‘timely application’ as contemplated in Rule 26(b) because I find that the period between the mailing of the Property Assessment Change Notice and the motion date of June 10, 2019 exceeds 30 days.

CONCLUSION

15Mr. Calkowski only meets one of the three essential requirements of Rule 26(b) and, therefore, cannot file a 2018 taxation year appeal late because the mandatory requirements of Rule 26(b) are not met. Accordingly, his motion to file an appeal for the 2018 taxation year is denied.