Garant v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2020 CanLII 3222

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

January 17, 2020

FILE NO.:

DM 2020M03

Moving Party(ies):

Shannon Garant

Respondent(s):

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”)

Respondent(s):

Town of Tecumseh

Property Location(s):

1972 Corbi Lane

Municipality(ies):

Town of Tecumseh

Roll Number(s):

3744-570-000-44665-0000

Taxation Year(s):

2010 to 2016

Hearing Event No.:

728175

Legislative Authority:

Rule 26(b) of the Assessment Review Board Rules of Practice and Procedure

Heard:

January 8, 2020 by written submission

Parties

Counsel⁺/Representative

Submissions

Shannon Garant

Self-represented

Moving Party

MPAC

Doug Keyes

Received

Town of Tecumseh

Not Received

DISPOSITION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY JEAN-PAUL PILON

1Shannon Garant is the owner of a property in the residential property class at 1972 Corbi Lane in the Town of Tecumseh. Ms. Garant brings a motion for, in her words, “reimbursement for the taxable years 2010 through 2016 for over taxation given the discrepancy and error on the part of MPAC for four (4) additional bathrooms.”

2The request was processed by the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) as a request to file late appeals and MPAC responded to it on that basis. In its submission on the motion, MPAC also addressed the fact that Ms. Garant filed no request for reconsideration (RfR) for the taxation years in question. Ms. Garant did not reply to MPAC’s submissions.

3The Town of Tecumseh (the “Municipality”) would be a party to any appeals filed but made no submissions in the motion.

4For the reasons that follow, the motion is denied.

Background

5The only document filed in support of the motion is Ms. Garant’s affidavit sworn on October 15, 2019. In that affidavit, Ms. Garant says that in January, 2019 she discovered through MPAC’s public website that her property built in 2000 had been assessed as having seven bathrooms, when it in fact only has three. Ms. Garant also says in her affidavit that MPAC agreed to amend their records to show the correct number of bathrooms in September, 2019, and that that the Municipality has also agreed to reimburse the resulting overpayment of taxes for the 2017 to 2019 taxation years.

6Ms. Garant’s purpose in bringing this motion is to recover the additional, presumed overpayments of taxes for the remaining taxation years, 2010 to 2016.

Analysis

7Reimbursement of property taxes is outside of the Board’s jurisdiction. Ms. Garant’s allegation is, in fact, that the assessments for those taxation years were too high because they were based on incorrect facts, which would be within the Board’s jurisdiction to consider if her late appeals were accepted.

8Rule 26(b) of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”) provides that the Board may accept a late appeal if: first, the appellant is a person entitled to receive notice of assessment; second, she did not receive a notice; and third, if she filed the appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment.

9Ms. Garant would have met the first requirement of Rule 26(b) as the person entitled to receive the assessment. She would not, however, have met the second or third requirements of Rule 26(b) because she did not file an appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment. This is because her affidavit indicates that she discovered this issue in January, 2019, but she did not file this motion until October 16, 2019.

10The more significant consideration, however, is section 40(3) of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”), which provides that if a property is in the residential property class, no appeal may be filed unless an RfR has been submitted to MPAC first. This is a mandatory requirement which the Board from which the Board has no authority to deviate.

11The deadline for filing an RfR is set out in section 39.1(1.1) of the Act as “no later than March 31 of the taxation year in respect of which the request is made.” The taxation years in question in this motion are 2010 to 2016, therefore the time to file an RfR for any of those years has long since passed.

12The only provision in the Act that allows the Board to extend time to file an RfR is section 40(4) of the Act, if there are “extenuating circumstances.” However, that request can only succeed if made during the taxation year in question pursuant to that subsection. Where the taxation years in issue are 2010 to 2016, the Board does not have the authority to extend time to file an RfR in 2019 or 2020.

13As a result, this motion must be denied.

CONCLUSION

14Shannon Garant’s motion to file a late appeal is denied because she cannot file an appeal without filing an RfR first. In addition, the Board does not have any jurisdiction to extend time to file RfRs for 2010 to 2016 several years later.