Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: March 31, 2020

FILE NO.: RR 2020M03

Assessed Person(s): Omers Realty Corporation

Appellant(s): Oxford Properties Group

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 14

Respondent(s): City of Vaughan

Property Location(s): 100 Royal Group Crescent

Municipality(ies): City of Vaughan

Roll Number(s): 1928-000-321-36080-0000

Appeal Number(s): 2006914

Taxation Year(s): 2008

Hearing Event No.: 727674

Legislative Authority: Rules 120 and 122 of the Assessment Review Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure

Parties	Representative
Oxford Properties Group	Colin Francis
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation	Sabrina Vizzacchero
City of Vaughan	Jaroslaw Wowk

REQUEST(S) FOR: Reinstatement of appeal 2006914 and Extension of Time

HEARD: December 19, 2019 in writing

ADJUDICATOR(S): Maureen Helt, Acting Associate Chair

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) requests the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) both grant an extension of time to file its request for reinstatement and to reinstate Appeal Number 2006914. The request for reinstatement was filed with the Board on October 4, 2019. It is made with the consent of the Appellant and the Municipality.

Background

2100 Royal Group Crescent, in the City of Vaughan, filed appeals for the 2008 - 2019 tax years. The Appellant delivered its 2008 Statement of Issues to MPAC on October 7, 2009. Several years passed and more appeals were filed for the taxation years from 2008 – 2016. MPAC sent its Response to the Statement of Issues on February 1, 2017, which included Minutes of Settlement for the 2008 – 2016 tax years. A commencement date of August 15, 2018, was assigned to all outstanding appeals, namely 2017, 2018 and 2019.

3Due to a failure of the Appellant to comply with the Schedule of Events timeline by failing to serve a Statement of Issues, MPAC requested dismissal of the appeals for the 2017, 2018 and 2019 taxation years. The dismissal request was only intended for the 2017, 2018 and 2019 tax years. MPAC inadvertently added the Appeal Number 2006914, the 2008 taxation year appeal, in error.

4On June 21, 2019, the Board dismissed the 2008 and 2017-2019 taxation year appeals.

5Subsequent to the dismissal of the 2008 appeal, MPAC received the Minutes of Settlement signed by the Appellant on September 18, 2019, for the 2008 – 2016 taxation years. It was at this time that it was realized that the 2008 appeal was dismissed in error.

6The request for reinstatement is requested to allow the Minutes of Settlement to be fully executed and processed by the Board.

Issue

7The issue in this proceeding is whether Appeal Number 2006914 should be reinstated under Rule 122(a) and (c) of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”).

RESULT

8The Board grants the request for late filing and the request for reinstatement of Appeal Number 2006914 for the purpose of accepting the fully executed Minutes of Settlement for the 2008 taxation year appeal.

ANALYSIS

9Rule 122 sets out the circumstances in which the Board will reinstate appeals that were withdrawn. The relevant provisions of the Rule for this application are in clause 122(a) and 122(c), which state part that:

a party to a former proceeding may seek an order… to reinstate an appeal by filing an affidavit with the Board… no more than 30 days after the appeal was… withdrawn… setting out that…(a) the appeal was withdrawn… in error or (c) natural justice or procedural fairness require that the appeal be reinstated.

Each of these factors is set out below, namely the timeliness of the application, whether the appeal was withdrawn in error and natural justice or procedural fairness require that the appeal be reinstated. Note that the requirements of 122(a) and 122(c) are set out as alternatives and are not both required to satisfy the test. The issues that need to be considered are:

1. the timeliness of the request for reinstatement,
2. whether the withdrawal or dismissal was made in error, or
3. whether natural justice or procedural fairness requires that the appeal be reinstated.

Issue 1 - Timeliness

10Rule 122 sets a 30-day time frame on applications for reinstatement. The evidence before me is that the dismissal of the 2008 tax year appeal was not discovered until September 18, 2019. Shortly thereafter MPAC filed its request for reinstatement.

11Rule 122(a) gives the Board broad discretion to extend the time to request reinstatement for a “good reason.”

12In 347428 Ontario Ltd. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp., Region No. 27, [2004] O.A.R.B.D. No. 113 the Board held, at paragraph 19: a good reason “should be determined by the principles of fairness, lack of prejudice to the other parties and the need for certainty in final decisions.” I accept that those are relevant considerations in applying the extension of time in Rule 122(a).

13While the Board expects all parties to ensure that they comply with the timelines set out by the Board to ensure timely resolution of proceedings, the Board is satisfied that in this case there will be no undue delay of the appeals concerning the Subject Property to be resolved as Minutes of Settlement are on the verge of being fully executed.

Issue 2– Withdrawal or Dismissal made in Error

14Rule 122(a) requires that the appeal was withdrawn in error. The Rule is generally aimed at clerical errors but other errors are contemplated, on a case by case basis. As stated in Precision Resource Canada Ltd. v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 21, 2019 CanLII 7197 (ON ARB), paragraph 8, :

The requirement that the appeal be withdrawn in error is a legal determination to be made by this Board. Parties must provide the facts of how the withdrawal took place, which the Board can then evaluate against a reasonableness standard to determine if a reasonable error was made.

15MPAC submits that the 2008 taxation year appeal was dismissed in error, as its Appeal Number was inadvertently included on the request to dismiss the 2016 Current Value Assessment (CVA) appeals. MPAC further submits that it would cause significant prejudice to the Appellant if the appeal is not reinstated by the Board.

16I am satisfied that in this particular case, the error is a reasonable error and all of the parties are in agreement that the appeal should be reinstated. As I have found that the requirements of Rule 122(a) have been met I need not consider the requirements for reinstatement under Rule 122(c).

ORDER

17The Board orders that the 2008 taxation year appeal, Appeal Number 2006914, be reinstated to allow for the Minutes of Settlement to be fully executed.

18The Board directs the parties to file the fully executed Minutes of Settlement with the Board within 30 days of the Issue Date of this decision.