Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: January 15, 2020

FILE NO.: DM 2020M02

Moving Party(ies): Rick Ainsley

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region No. 15

Respondent(s): Town of Caledon

Property Location(s): 8260 Mayfield Road

Municipality(ies): Town of Caledon

Roll Number(s): 2124-010-007-01500-0000

Taxation Year(s): 2019

Hearing Event No.: 728165

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

Heard: January 7, 2020 in writing

Parties	Counsel+/Representative	Submissions
Rick Ainsley	Moving Party
MPAC		Not Received
Town of Caledon		Not Received

MOTION DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY JEAN-PAUL PILON

1Rick Ainsley is the executor of the estate of Marlene Ainsley. Marlene Ainsley owned a property at 8260 Mayfield Road in the Town of Caledon.

2Mr. Ainsley brings this motion to file a late appeal for the 2019 taxation year pursuant to Rule 26(b) of the Assessment Review Board’s (the “Board”) Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”).

3For the reasons that follow, this motion is denied.

REASONS FOR DISPOSITION OF MOTION

Background

4The single document filed in support of the motion is Mr. Ainsley’s affidavit sworn on November 4, 2019. In it, Mr. Ainsley says he received a notice of reconsideration from MPAC dated July 16, 2019, which arose from his Request for Reconsideration (RfR) of the assessment of the property for the 2019 taxation year.

5The affidavit says that the notice of reconsideration set out a deadline to appeal of October 14, 2019, which Mr. Ainsley assumed would be extended to the next business day, October 15, 2019. On that day, however, Mr. Ainsley says he was unable to submit his appeal online because he is not proficient with computers, although he obtained assistance in attempting to do so. The next day, Mr. Ainsley contacted the Board by telephone. The day after that, he sent an email to the Board containing the same text as the affidavit upon which he relies in this motion.

6Neither MPAC nor the Town of Caledon, who would be parties to any appeal accepted by the Board, filed any submissions on the motion.

Analysis

7Mr. Ainsley’s notice of reconsideration was not attached to his affidavit, but he would be correct that the deadline to file an appeal would have been October 15, 2019 if the notice of reconsideration was dated July 16, 2019. This is because section 40(5) of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”) allows for the filing of an appeal within 90 days of the issuance date of a notice of reconsideration, and October 14, 2019 was a statutory holiday. As noted above, Mr. Ainsley’s first communication with the Board was on October 17, 2019 by email.

8Rule 26(b) provides that the Board can accept a late appeal if three conditions are met: first, the appellant is a person entitled to receive a notice of assessment; second, the appellant did not receive the notice; and third, the appellant filed the appeal with the Board within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment.

9Mr. Ainsley meets the first requirement of being entitled to receive the notice as executor of the estate of the owner. He does not, however, meet the second or the third requirements of the Rule. This is because on the second requirement, he must have received the notice of assessment because he knew to file the RfR. On the third requirement, he did not file an appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment. The affidavit does not say when he became aware of the assessment, but he must have known of it prior to filing the RfR and before receiving the notice of reconsideration on July 16, 2019. His first contact with the Board was on October 17, 2019, more than 30 days later.

10The Board cannot extend the time for filing an appeal based on the timing of the notice of reconsideration. In Werzberger v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 09, 2018 CanLII 107717 (ON ARB), the Board determined that a notice of assessment, the term used in Rule 26(b), is not a notice of reconsideration. The Board noted at para. 18 of that decision that:

…there is nothing in the Act that grants me the authority to extend the time for filing an appeal, and none of the common law context supports stretching the meaning of “notice of assessment” beyond a notice sent by MPAC in accordance with the Act. It does not include a notice of reconsideration. Rule 26(b) does not generally apply when a request for reconsideration is made.

11Mr. Ainsley has not, therefore, met the requirements of Rule 26(b) and there are no other provisions in the Act or the Rules that would allow the Board to extend time to file an appeal in the circumstances. As a result, the motion to file a late appeal must be denied.

CONCLUSION

12Rick Ainsley cannot file an appeal for the 2019 taxation year because his circumstances do not meet the requirements of Rule 26(b).