Toronto Community and Culture Centre v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 09, 2020 CanLII 26225

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

March 30, 2020

FILE NO.:

WR 163844

Assessed Person(s):

Toronto Community and Culture Centre

Appellant(s)

Toronto Community and Culture Centre, Xinsheng Zhong

Respondent(s):

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 09

Respondent(s):

City of Toronto

Property Location(s):

222 Spadina Avenue Unit 217

Municipality(ies):

City of Toronto

Roll Number(s):

1904-065-270-02014-0000

Appeal Number(s):

3251466, 3297009 and 3353224

Taxation Year(s):

2017, 2018 and 2019

Hearing Event No.:

728467

Legislative Authority:

Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Representative

Toronto Community and Culture Centre

Simon Sheng Zhong

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation

Daniel Leduc

City of Toronto

No one appeared

HEARD:

February 4, 2020 by telephone conference call

ADJUDICATOR(S):

Jennifer Griffith, Member

DECISION

BACK GROUND

1The Toronto Community and Culture Centre (the “Appellant”) filed an appeal with the Board respecting 222 Spadina Avenue, Unit 217, Toronto for the 2017, 2018 and 2019 taxation years.

2Under the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”), the appeals are being heard by way of General Proceeding, and the Board assigned a Commencement Date of August 15, 2018 for these appeals. Under the associated Schedule of Events, which was mailed to the Appellant on July 9, 2018, the due date for the Appellant to serve its Statement of Issues is January 9, 2019.

3The Appellant does not dispute that it has failed to serve a Statement of Issues, or that it did not apply to the Board for an extension of this serving due date.

4As a result of the Appellant’s non-compliance the Board has scheduled this peremptory default hearing.

5At the commencement of the hearing, the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) has moved to dismiss the appeals for the 2017, 2018 and 2019 taxation years on the basis that the Appellant failed to serve its Statement of Issues. In response, the Appellant requests an adjournment of this hearing and an extension of the due date to file its Statement of Issues.

RESULT

6The Board denies the Appellant’s requests for an adjournment of the hearing and an extension of the due date for serving its Statement of Issues. Consequently, the Board dismisses the appeals for the 2017, 2018 and 2019 taxation years.

ANALYSIS

Submissions

7The Appellant admits receiving the Schedule of Events. However, the Appellant claims that it only saw this document on the day of this hearing and offers no explanation as to why the document was not seen before this date.

8The Appellant submits it has not complied with the Schedule of Events because it did not understand the Board process and indicates that it wishes to retain a representative to assist it in proceeding with its appeals.

Findings

9The Appellant has been aware of this appeal proceeding since 2017 when the Appellant first filed its appeal and has been aware of the requirements set out in the Schedule of Events since it was sent to the Appellant on July 9, 2018. The only submission advanced by the Appellant in support of its requests, is that the Appellant does not understand the appeal process and that an adjournment will allow the Appellant time to retain a legal representative.

10Rule 82 provides that, after the start of the proceedings, the Board will not alter any timeline set out in the Schedule of Events, other than in exceptional circumstances. While the Board can accept that the Appellant required assistance in understanding the appeal process, the Appellant has had two years to arrange for such assistance and has made no effort to do so prior to this hearing. The Board finds that this does not constitute an exceptional circumstance.

11In overview, Rule 48 provides that a document may be admitted into evidence at a hearing if it has been disclosed and filed with the Board in accordance with the due dates set out in the Schedule of Events. Rule 49 makes a similar provision respecting issues to be raised at the hearing. As the Appellant has not complied with the Schedule of Events, it cannot file any evidence or raise any issues at this hearing.

12Under Rule 84, one of the factors to be considered in determining whether an adjournment should be granted is “the integrity of the Board’s process, including the Board's ability to efficiently resolve all appeals filed with the Board within the current four-year cycle.” In this case, the Appellant’s non-compliance with the Schedule of Events does not support the integrity of the Board’s process, nor does it ensure the timely resolution of this appeal proceeding.

CONCLUSION

13As the Board has found that the Appellant has not established any exceptional circumstances, the Board denies the Appellant’s requests to extend the Schedule of Events and to adjourn this hearing. As the Appellant has no evidence or issues to raise at this hearing, the appeals are dismissed.

ORDER

14Appeals 3251466, 3297009 and 3353224 for taxation years 2017, 2018 and 2019 are dismissed.