Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: May 07, 2020 FILE NO.: RR 19-061

Assessed Person(s): Canadian Tire Properties Inc. Appellant(s): Canadian Tire Properties Inc. Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 01 Respondent(s): South Dundas Municipality

Property Location(s): 12329 County Road 2 Municipality(ies): South Dundas Municipality Roll Number(s): 0506-002-007-58100-0000 Appeal Number(s): 3237929, 3288824 and 3345105 Taxation Year(s): 2017, 2018 and 2019 Hearing Event No.: 728316

Legislative Authority: Rule 120 of the Assessment Review Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure

Parties	Counsel
Canadian Tire Properties Inc.	Kathleen Poole and Lauren Lackie
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation	Carl Davis
South Dundas Municipality	No submissions received

REQUEST FOR: Reinstatement of appeals 3237929, 3288824 and 3345105 HEARD: January 15, 2020 in writing ADJUDICATOR(S): Maureen Helt, Acting Associate Chair

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) jointly with the Appellant, Canadian Tire Properties Inc. (the “Moving Parties”), makes this motion in writing to the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) to extend the time for filing their request for review and further, to reinstate the appeals 3237929, 3288824 and 3345105 as these appeals were dismissed in error.

2No materials have been received from South Dundas Municipality (the “Municipality”), although MPAC’s affidavit indicates the Municipality supports this motion.

Background

3On or about March 26, 2019, the Board issued and mailed a Notice of Settlement Conference for the applicable appeals, notifying the Parties the settlement conference was scheduled to proceed at 9:30 am on May 22, 2019. No one attended at the settlement conference. The appeals were dismissed by the Board at the settlement conference.

4On May 22, 2019, Canadian Tire’s representative executed Minutes of Settlement (“Minutes”) for the appeals. The Minutes appear to have been executed by MPAC before that, on April 15, 2019.

5On May 22, 2019, almost two hours after the settlement conference was to start, Canadian Tire’s representative advised the Board she had checked the e-status of the matters on May 21, 2019 and no information was populated on the Board’s website as of May 21, 2019 about the settlement conference which led the parties to believe the settlement conference scheduled for May 22, 2019 had been cancelled. The Moving Parties submit that at this time, the Appellant’s representative requested that this same email correspondence be accepted as formal notice to the Board that the appeals concerning the subject property had been settled. No response was received. Also on May 22, 2019, MPAC emailed the Board advising that the delay in delivery of the Minutes was due to MPAC’s own inadvertence and that Minutes were to be delivered upon return from the Municipality. No response was received from the Board.

6On September 16, 2019, the Parties learned that the appeals had been dismissed by the Board by way of the Board’s website, effective May 22, 2019 (the date of the Settlement Conference and the correspondences noted above).

7MPAC filed an Expedited Board Direction Form dated September 17, 2019 to seek review and reinstatement of the appeals, and was advised it had to first bring a motion to extend the time for requesting a review.

Result

8For the reasons outlined below, the motion is granted.

ANALYSIS

9Rule 120 permits a party to file a request to review any final decision of the Board, however such request must be made no more than 30 days after the decision was issued.

10Notwithstanding Rule 120, a party to a former proceeding may seek an order from the Board to reinstate an appeal by filing an affidavit with the Board, copied to all parties, no more than 30 days after the appeal was dismissed or withdrawn by the Board setting out that:

a) The appeal was withdrawn, removed, or dismissed in error;

b) A party failed to appear at a hearing event through no fault of their own; or,

c) Natural justice or procedural fairness require that the appeal be reinstated.

11The decision to dismiss the appeals in this case was made on May 22, 2019. The decisions were issued by the Board and mailed to the Parties on June 28, 2019. The request for review and reinstatement was not filed until September 17, 2019, well outside the 30-day period.

12The Moving Parties submit that natural justice and procedural fairness requires that the appeals be reinstated. They submit that there is no negative impact on 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. This reinstatement will not delay the appeals as Minutes have been fully executed. Further, the Parties have all agreed to the Minutes, with two of the Parties executing the Minutes as early as April and May 2019.

13I understand that the Parties’ failure to attend was in part due to a mistaken belief that the settlement conference had been cancelled. While Parties are expected to meet timelines as established by the Board or otherwise face the possibility of dismissal, in this case, I am satisfied that the Parties had a good faith belief that the settlement conference had been cancelled. The Board finds that fairness, in this particular case, weighs towards granting the reinstatement of the appeals.

14I also find that MPAC did not file evidence of prejudice, nor did the Appellant or the Municipality. That said, I am mindful of MPAC’s evidence that all Parties support this motion. Furthermore, fully executed Minutes have been provided to the Board which can be immediately processed. The prejudice of not granting the motion is that the Parties will not be able to rely on the Minutes that they had agreed to before the settlement conference.

15There is no evidence of concerns over finality. Based on MPAC’s evidence and the lack of materials filed by the Municipality, the Municipality does not appear to have significant concerns respecting finality in the roll and the impact of an extension of time to seek review.

CONCLUSION

16The timeline for filing an application under Rule 120 should be extended and that appeal numbers 3237929, 3288824 and 3345105 for the 2017, 2018 and 2019 taxation years should be reinstated in order to allow the fully executed Minutes filed with the Board with the motion be processed by the Board.

ORDER

17The Board orders that the time for filing an application under Rule 120 is extended and that appeal numbers 3237929, 3288824 and 3345105 for the 2017, 2018 and 2019 taxation years are reinstated to allow the fully executed Minutes of Settlement filed with the Board to be processed.