Zadek Ramowski v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 02, 2020 CanLII 33560

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

May 07 2020

FILE NO.:

RD 19-011

Assessed Person(s):

Zadek Ramowski

Appellant(s):

Zadek Ramowski

Respondent(s):

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 02

Respondent(s):

Tay Valley Township

Property Location(s):

267 Upper Scotch Line

Municipality(ies):

Tay Valley Township

Roll Number(s):

0911-911-010-33900-0000

Taxation Year(s):

2018

Legislative Authority:

Rule 122 of the Assessment Review Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure

Parties

Counsel*/Representative

Zadek Ramowski

Self-represented

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation

Carl Davis*

Tay Valley Township

No one appeared

REQUEST FOR:

A review of the Board’s Decision DM 2018M039 issued on January 16, 2019

HEARD:

In writing

ADJUDICATOR:

Maureen Helt, Acting Associate Chair

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1Zadek Ramowski (the “Appellant”) is requesting that the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) review its decision DM 2018M039 issued January 16, 2019 (the “Decision”). In the Decision, the Board denied the Appellant’s request to file his appeal late as he had not met the test set out in Rule 26(b) of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”). The request for review was filed with the Board on February 13, 2019.

2In support of his request the Appellant filed a supporting affidavit and book of authorities, submitting that the Board made an error of fact in the Decision. The Appellant submits that the Board’s error was in its finding that the Appellant had received the Notice of Assessment and failed to file his appeal within the required 30-day period; and had the Board not made that error, then it likely would have changed the Decision.

Result

3The Appellant’s request for an extension of time and his request for review are granted for the reasons set out below.

Background

4The Appellant filed a motion under Rule 26(b) of the Rules requesting an extension of time to file his appeal. His appeal relates to the reclassification of his property from the residential tax class to the multi-residential tax class which has resulted in a substantial increase in his tax bill that he received “a few weeks” prior to the date of his affidavit, July 25, 2018.

5The Board denied his motion after going through an anlysis of the three part test set out under Rule 26(b):

I. he is a person entitled to receive a notice of assessment;

II. he did not receive the notice of assessment; and,

III. he filed the appeal with the Board within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment or classification that is the subject of the appeal.

Request for Review

6Rule 121 sets out the grounds for review:

Grounds for Review

121. A request for review will not be granted unless the Board is satisfied that:

(a) the Board acted outside its jurisdiction or violated the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness;

(b) the Board made a significant error of law or fact such that the Board would likely have reached a different decision;

(c) the Board heard false or misleading evidence from a party or witness, which was discovered only after the hearing and would have affected the result;

(d) there is new evidence that could not have reasonably been obtained earlier and would have affected the result; or

(e) any of the situations in Rule 122 exist.

7In his request for review the Appellant submits that the Board made an error in law or fact such that the Board would likely have reached a different decision.

8In its analysis on the motion, the Board found the evidence set out in the Appellant’s affidavit to be contradictory with respect to when he received the Notice of Assessment. He stated that “prior to the Tax Bill issued on June 2018 (he) did not receive any correspndences (sic) from MPAC to this effect.” However, the Appellant also stated that he received his tax bill “a few weeks” prior to the the date of the affidavit, July 25, 2018. In the Decision, the Board concluded that the Applicant failed to establish that he filed his appeal within the 30-day time limit stating that information in the affivait is inconclusive.

ANALYSIS

9The criteria set out in Rule 26(b) is clear and it is the only mechanism by which a late appeal can be granted. The question is whether the Board made errors in fact with respect to the second and third criteria set out in Rule 26(b) namely, when did the Appellant get Notice of Assessment and when did he file his appeal.

Receipt of Notice

10The Appellant’s evidence is that the Tax Bill was issued June 21, 2018 and prior to this he did not receive any correspondence from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) about the increase in his Tax Bill. On July 24, 2018 the Appellant filed his request to appeal his 2018 assessment.

11Based on the evidence it is clear that the Appellant was made aware of the Notice of Assessment. The only question that remains is whether or not the Appellant was timely in filing his appeal.

Timeliness of Appeal

12In considering when the Appellant became aware of the assessment we know the following:

i. The Appellant stated that notice was received from MPAC after March 31, 2018;

ii. The Appellant received his tax bill a “few weeks prior to the date of the affidavit, July 25, 2018”; and,

iii. The Request for Reconsideration Extension of Time Form is signed and dated July 17, 2018. In this form, under “reasons for Extension Request” he states that prior to the Tax Bill receipt on June 21, 2018 he did not receive any correspondence from MPAC.

13The timeline for filing an appeal is within 30-days of becoming aware of the assessment. Based on the evidence it it clear that the Appellant became aware of the assessment on June 21, 2018, when he received his tax bill.

14In the materials filed with this request for review, the Appellant included an email from the Board dated July 19, 2018 that states:

The Assessment Review Board (the Board) has received and reviewed your correspondence, related to Roll 0911-911-010-33900, in which you requested the Board grant you permission to file a late request for reconsideration (RfR) with the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) for the 2018 taxation year. The Board does not have the authority to extend the deadline to file a RfR with MPAC for properties other than residential, farm, managed forests and conservation land. Your request is therefore being treated as a request to file a late appeal with the Board.

15Based on the above I agree with the Appellant that he did file his request within the 30-day time period as set out in Rule 26(b). The Board acknowledged receipt of the Request for Review by letter on July 19, 2018, which is less than 30 days after the Appellant became aware of the assessment.

ORDER

16The Board therefore grants the request to file a late appeal.