2365288 Ontario Inc. v. City of Mississauga, 2020 CanLII 26213

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

April 03, 2020

FILE NO.:

WR 163593

Assessed Person(s):

2066241 Ontario Inc.

Appellant(s):

2365288 Ontario Inc.

Respondent(s):

City of Mississauga

Property Location(s):

1150 Meyerside Drive

Municipality(ies):

City of Mississauga

Roll Number(s):

2105-050-116-29810-0000

Appeal Number(s):

3064175

Taxation Year(s):

2013

Hearing Event No.:

726795

Legislative Authority:

Section 364(14) of the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 2001, c.25,

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel*/Representative

2066241 Ontario Inc.

No one appeared

2365288 Ontario Inc.

No one appeared

City of Mississauga

Robert Ryan*

HEARD:

January 22, 2020 by telephone conference call

ADJUDICATOR(S):

Joanne Laws, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1No one appeared at this hearing on behalf of the assessed person or Appellant. The appeal was dismissed as abandoned. This decision was delivered orally by the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) at the hearing and the City of Mississauga requested written reasons.

Background

2The Appellant, 2365288 Ontario Inc., filed a vacancy rebate application for the 2013 taxation year with the City of Mississauga (the “City”) for 1150 Meyerside Drive, Mississauga (the “Property”). The City determined that a vacancy rebate was not warranted and on January 23, 2015 the Appellant appealed that decision to the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”), pursuant to s. 364(14) of the Municipal Act, R.S.O 2001 (the “Act”).

3In December 2017 the Board issued a pre-hearing Schedule of Events (“SOE”) to the parties setting out a commencement date of January 8, 2018 and subsequent deadlines for disclosures and a Mandatory Meeting.

4Upon receipt of the Board’s SOE, the Appellant’s representative, David Fleet, advised the Board via email, and copying the Appellant (“B Brar (bobby@microprinting.ca)”), that he no longer represents the Appellant and had been “unable to obtain instructions from [the Appellant] for approximately three years”.

5The Board’s records show that neither party has complied with the Schedule of Events.

6Immediately prior to the hearing the City filed materials seeking a dismissal on a number of grounds including the Appellant’s failure to provide the City with sufficient supporting evidence for a vacancy rebate.

7Robert Ryan, counsel for the City, outlined the City’s multiple attempts to communicate with the Appellant by receipted correspondence, emails and a telephone message left with an employee of Appellant. In a November 27, 2019 email to the Appellant the City reminded the Appellant of this hearing: “As you are aware, the Assessment Review Board has scheduled a full hearing via TCC for January 22nd, 2020 @ 1:30 PM”.

8Mr. Ryan submits that the City has received no direct communication from the Appellant since the appeal was filed five years ago. He states that the only contact the City received was in response to its September 25, 2019 email when, on September 30, 2019, the City received an email from “Raj” stating that the Appellant was out of town and that he placed a printed copy of the email on the Appellant’s desk.

9The Board’s records show that it has not been contacted by the Appellant since the appeal was filed.

CONCLUSION

10Based on the above and the Appellant’s failure to attend the hearing, I consider the appeal to be abandoned. It is, therefore, dismissed.