The Effort Trust Company v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 19, 2020 CanLII 24883

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: March 27, 2020

FILE NO.: RR 2020M02

Assessed Person(s): 1 King Street West (Hamilton)

Appellant(s): The Effort Trust Company

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 19

Respondent(s): City of Hamilton

Property Location(s): 1 King Street West

Municipality(ies): City of Hamilton

Roll Number(s): 2518-020-124-00050-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3227284, 3310426 and 3364105

Taxation Year(s): 2017, 2018 and 2019

Legislative Authority: Rule 122(c) of the Assessment Review Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure

Parties

Representative

The Effort Trust Company

Virgina Rowe, Steve Pocrnic

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation

Michael Radan

City of Hamilton

David Janasszek

REQUEST FOR: Reinstatement of appeals 3227284, 3310426 and 3364105 and Extension of Time

HEARD: In writing

ADJUDICATOR(S): Maureen Helt, Acting Associate Chair

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) is requesting that the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) grant its request to reinstate Appeal Numbers 3227284, 3310426 and 3364105 under Rule 122(c) of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules) which was dismissed on September 13, 2019. As the request for reinstatement was made outside the 30-day filing timeframe, the parties were directed to file submissions with respect to whether the Board should grant an extension to the filing time frame.

2By way of background, the appeals relate to asessments made for a property located at 1 King Street West in Hamilton, Ontario for the 2017, 2018 and 2019 tax years. Both the request for an extension of time and the request for reinstatement of Appeal Numbers 3227284, 3310426 and 3364105 are made on consent of all parties.

3On January 3, 3019, MPAC revised the 2016 Current Value Assessment (CVA) of the Subject Property from $26,502,000 to $22,744,000 and presented the revised assessment to the Appellant, which was accepted on January 30, 2019.

4On or about April 25, 2019, MPAC submitted the mandatory settlement meeting form to the Board indicating that the appeals have been settled and Minutes of Settlement drafted.

5Due to an acknowledged error on the part MPAC, the Minutes of Settlement were never generated. As the parties failed to comply with Rule 69, which requires that the fully executed Minutes of Settlement be filed with the Board within ninety seven days of the parties advising the Board the matter has settlement, the Board dismissed the appeals on September 13, 2019.

6On October 31, 2019, 31 days after the dismissal MPAC filed a request for reinstatement.

Issue

7The issue in this proceeding is whether Appeal Numbers 3227284, 3310426 and 3364105 should be reinstated under Rule 122(c) of the Board’s Rules. The relevant provision of the Rule for this application is in Rule 122(c), which states, in part, that “a party to a former proceeding may seek an order… to reinstate appeals by filing an affidavit with the Board…no more than 30 days after the appeals were dismissed…setting out that… natural justice or procedural fairness require that the appeals be reinstated.”

8As the first criteria is met, the issues that need to be considered are:

1. the timeliness of the request for reinstatement;

2. if natural justice or procedural fairness requires that the appeals be reinstated.

RESULT

9The Board grants the request for late filing and the request for reinstatement of Appeal numbers 3227284, 3310426 and 3364105 for the purpose of accepting the fully executed Minutes of Settlement.

ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Timeliness

10MPAC filed its request for reinstatement of the appeals under Rule 122 on October 15, 2019, thirty one days after the Board dismissed the appeals. Rule 122 provides for a 30-day time frame. Given that the request for reinstatement was filed only one day later than required 30 days, and the request is on consent and further, that the parties are seeking reinstatement to have the fully executed Minutes of Settlement filed, the Board grants the request for an extension of time to file the request for reinstatement.

Issue 2 - Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness

11MPAC’s evidence is that the Minutes of Settlement were agreed to in January 30, 2019; however, due to an internal communication issue at MPAC the Minutes of Settlement were never circulated.

12As the Minutes of Settlement were not circulated, they were not provided to the Board on a timely basis and as result the appeals were dismissed by the Board in a decision dated September 16, 2019.

13In its submission, MPAC takes the position that the Board erred in dismissing the appeals for failure to comply with Rule 69, which sets out a timeline for the execution and filing of Minutes of Settlement once the Board is satisfied that the matter has been resolved.

14The Board notes that parties are given 97 days from the time of advising the Board that the matter is resolved to filing the fully executed Minutes of Settlement with the Board. In this case, MPAC admits that the Minutes of Settlement were essentially agreed to at the end of January 2019 yet, through inadvertence, the Minutes of Settlement were not filed in accordance with Rules and on September 19, 2020 the appeals were dismissed.

15As with any time frame established in the Board’s Rules, the intention is to ensure that the Board acts in accordance with its mandate and the public interest in ensuring that matters proceed before the Board in a timely and efficient manner.

16That being said, in this case the prejudice falls on the Appellant for MPAC’s failure to meet the time frame. It is clear to the Board, from the evidence submitted, that there is corroborating evidence that the parties fully agreed to the values noted in the Minutes of Settlement within the 97-day timeline provided for in Rule 69. Further, all parties understood that they would be bound by the Minutes of Settlement, they agreed to resolve the appeals by way of Minutes of Settlement, and MPAC agreed to submit the Minutes of Settlement to the Board. Given the importance of the appeals to the Appellant, dismissal of the appeals will be prejudicial to the Appellant to deny this request to reinstate the appeals so that the agreed upon terms of settlement can be applied to the appeals.

17The Board finds that procedural fairness and natural justice require reinstatement of the appeals.

ORDER

18Appeal Numbers 3227284, 3310426 and 3364105 for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years are reinstated and the Board is directed to apply the fully executed Minutes of Settlement in resolution to the appeals