Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: March 30, 2020

FILE NO.: DM 2020M09

Moving Party(ies): Joice Heynen

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 26

Respondent(s): Municipality of Chatham-Kent

Property Location(s): 10256 Base Line Rd RR6,

Municipality(ies): Municipality of Chatham-Kent

Roll Number(s): 3650-410-005-17304-0000

Taxation Year(s): 2019

Hearing Event No.: 728364

Legislative Authority: Rule 26 of the Assessment Review Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure

Parties	Representative
Joice Heynen	Self-represented
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation	Michael Radan
Municipality of Chatham-Kent	No one appeared

REQUEST FOR: Late appeal

HEARD: January 16, 2020 in writing

ADJUDICATOR(S): Carly Stringer, Member

MOTION DECISION

OVERVIEW

1This is a motion to file a late appeal pursuant to Rule 26 of the Assessment Review Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”). The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) opposes the motion, while the Board has not received submissions from the Municipality of Chatham-Kent.

2For the reasons outlined below, the motion is dismissed.

Background

3The Moving Party is a property owner of 10256 Base Line Rd in Dresden, Ontario (the “subject property”).

4The Notice of Assessment for the subject property was issued by MPAC on December 1, 2017, identifying the subject property assessed as a farm in the residential property class. The Notice of Assessment also identified a request for reconsideration deadline of April 1, 2019 for the 2019 taxation year.

5It appears the property owners filed a Request for Reconsideration (“RfR”) for the 2019 taxation year that was denied by AgriCorp on January 7, 2019. The Moving Party has sworn she was unaware of this decision.

6On September 16, 2019, the Moving Party filed a request for an extension of time to file a RfR for the 2019 taxation year. On September 24, 2019, the Moving Party was granted an extension of time to October 18, 2019 in which to file the RfR.

7The Board was subsequently advised that it had made an error in the roll number for the subject property, and when correcting the error, AgriCorp brought to the Board’s attention that the Moving Party had already filed a RfR for the subject property for the 2019 taxation year. AgriCorp further advised that a decision had been rendered dated January 7, 2019.

8On November 6, 2019, the Board advised the Moving Party that since she had already filed the RfR for 2019 and a decision had been made, the Board’s previous decision extending time to file an RfR for 2019 was void. If she wanted to appeal her assessment, she would have to make a request to file a late appeal.

9The Moving Party made a request to file a late appeal on November 21, 2019.

ISSUES

10The Board may accept a late appeal if the Moving Party satisfies the requirements of either Rule 26(a) or (b) of the Board’s Rules. Therefore, the issues on this motion are:

A. Has the Moving Party satisfied the Board she meets the requirements of Rule 26(a)?

B. If the answer to (a) is no, has the Moving Party satisfied the Board she meets the requirements of Rule 26(b)?

LAW AND ANALYSIS

A. Has the Moving Party satisfied the Board she meets the requirements of Rule 26(a)?

11Rule 26(a) provides that the Board may accept an appeal received after the time set in the Assessment Act (“Act”) only if the appellant satisfies the Board that the appeal was mailed within the time set out in the Act.

12AgriCorp rendered its decision on the RfR for the subject property on January 7, 2019. The Act required the Moving Party to submit the appeal to the Board within 90 days of the RfR decision being issued. This motion to extend time for filing an appeal was brought on November 21, 2019. The Moving Party did not provide evidence that she mailed the appeal within the time prescribed in the Act, and does not satisfy the criteria for this Board to accept a late appeal in accordance with Rule 26(a).

B. Has the Moving Party satisfied the Board she meets the requirements of Rule 26(b)?

13In Cherry Beach Sailing Clubs v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 09, 2018 CanLII 107727 (ON ARB) at para. 2, this Board confirmed the Moving Party has to prove three things before a late appeal can be accepted under Rule 26(b):

1. That the person was entitled to receive a Notice of Assessment;
2. That the person did not receive notice; and
3. That the person filed an application for a late appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of the issues.

14The Moving Party is a registered owner of the subject property, and therefore has satisfied the Board they are a person entitled to receive a notice of assessment. I find the first part of the test is satisfied.

15The Moving Party has not provided evidence and has not claimed she did not receive the Notice of Assessment issued December 1, 2017. The second part of the test is not satisfied.

16The Moving Party has not provided evidence or otherwise claimed they filed the appeal with the Board within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment or classification. The Moving Party has failed to directly identify when the property owners became aware of the assessment, and it cannot be ascertained from the material before me. I cannot find the third part of the test is satisfied, in the circumstances.

17Overall, the Moving Party has not satisfied the Board of two of the three necessary elements of the test for accepting a late appeal pursuant to Rule 26(b).

18Rule 17 permits me to alter any timeline set by the Rules, considering elements such as fairness, prejudice, and finality: see Cherry Beach, supra at para. 6. There is insufficient evidence before me to consider these elements, and I do not view this as an appropriate case in which to extend time.

CONCLUSION

19The Moving Party’s motion is dismissed.