Higher Living Development Inc. v. City of Mississauga, 2020 CanLII 28971

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: April 15, 2020

FILE NO.: WR 163597

Assessed Person(s): Higher Living Development Inc.

Appellant(s): Higher Living Development Inc.

Respondent(s): City of Mississauga

Property Location(s): 90 Dundas Street East

Municipality(ies): City of Mississauga

Roll Number(s): 2105-010-068-27800-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3209455

Taxation Year(s): 2014

Hearing Event No.: 727964

Legislative Authority: Section 364(24) of the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, c. 25

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative/Counsel*
Higher Living Development Inc.	No one appeared
City of Mississauga	Robert Ryan*

HEARD: January 14, 2020 by telephone conference call

ADJUDICATOR: Joanne Laws, Member

DECISION

1This appeal is dismissed. This decision was delivered orally by the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) and the City of Mississauga requested written reasons.

OVERVIEW

2The Appellant, Higher Living Development Inc., filed a vacancy tax rebate application with the City of Mississauga (the “City”) for the 2014 taxation year. The City determined that a vacancy rebate was warranted, but later cancelled the rebate upon discovering that the affidavit evidence supporting the application was sworn before a person whose appointment as a Commissioner had expired.

3The Appellant, through its representative, YYZed Project Management (“YYZed”), appealed the City’s decision to the Board pursuant to s. 364(24) of the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, c.25. Attached to the appeal were copies of documents supporting the City’s cancellation of the rebate, a September 28, 2016 Property Standards Order against the property as well as a December 5, 2016 letter from the Appellant’s representative indicating the property had been vacant from 2012.

4The City sought a dismissal of the appeal based on the Appellant’s non-compliance with the Schedule of Events.

Background

5In December of 2017, in preparation of a hearing, the Board issued a Schedule of Events pursuant to the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”). The Schedule of Events included a commencement date of January 8, 2018 and directed the parties to complete certain actions by specific dates, including disclosure to each other, filing of the exchanged documents with the Board and a Mandatory Meeting.

6The Board had scheduled two hearing dates for this matter. The first was scheduled for June 17, 2019 and the second for December 5, 2019. Both of these dates were adjourned at the request of the City. This third hearing date was set as peremptory. No one appeared for the Appellant.

7The parties did not comply with the Schedule of Events. Specifically, the City failed to submit a Mandatory Meeting form by the deadline of April 2, 2018 and the parties did not file their evidence to the Board by the April 16, 2018 deadline.

8The City states it has not received a Statement of Issues from the Appellant as required in the Schedule of Events and argues that the appeal should be dismissed on the grounds that the Appellant failed to comply with the Board’s Rules.

9The City also argues that the appeal should be dismissed because the Appellant failed to comply with the City’s evidentiary requirements for vacancy tax rebates by not submitting a valid affidavit.

10Maria Foz, of Emblem Developments (“Emblem”), attended the hearing as an observer and did not seek party status. She states Emblem became the Property’s owner in 2019. She could not identify what interest Emblem has in the 2014 vacant rebate appeal, only that her superior asked her to attend the hearing.

11No one attended the hearing on behalf of the Appellant and the Board received no evidence or submissions other than what was attached to the appeal. Further, no evidence was provided with respect to the allegations of non-compliance with the Schedule of Events. I considered the evidence submitted with the Appeal but found that it does not directly address the state and condition of the property during the relevant 2014 taxation year. The lack of communication from the Appellant along with the non-compliance conduct indicates to me that the appeal has been abandoned.

CONCLUSION

12Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.