Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l'évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: June 23, 2020

FILE NO.: WR 164942

Assessed Person(s): B.B.

Appellant(s): B.B.

Respondent(s): City of Mississauga

Property Location(s): Withheld

Municipality(ies): City of Mississauga

Roll Number(s): Withheld

Appeal Number(s): 3386663

Taxation Year(s): 2018

Hearing Event No.: 730181

Legislative Authority: Section 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
B.B.	No one appeared
City of Mississauga	Sean Doyle

HEARD: May 4, 2020 by telephone conference call

ADJUDICATOR(S): Dan Weagant, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1The City of Mississauga (the "City") made an oral motion at the hearing to have the application dismissed because B.B. (the "Applicant") or the Applicant's representative P.B. was not in attendance. The Assessment Review Board (the "Board") rendered its decision to dismiss the application at the hearing. Upon receiving the Board's decision on the motion, the Applicant requested written reasons for that decision. Those reasons follow.

Background

2This application was originally scheduled for March 6, 2020. That hearing was convened in person in the City. At that time, the Applicant's representative P.B. requested an adjournment.

3Sean Doyle, representing the City, consented to the adjournment as long as he received the Applicant's submissions and evidence in advance of the next hearing event and that the new date be scheduled as soon as possible.

4The Board issued a procedural order, directing the Parties to exchange documents prior to the new hearing date. The next hearing was scheduled on consent for on May 4, 2020 by telephone conference call. The parties agreed that the new hearing would be peremptory and that the present panel assigned would be seized.

Issues for the Hearing

5At issue in this proceeding was whether the application should be dismissed owing to the non-attendance of the Applicant or her representative.

Result

6The application was dismissed at the hearing, for the following reasons.

ANALYSIS

7This hearing commenced at the appointed time of 9:30 a.m. At 9:48 a.m., the Board heard from the Mr. Doyle who submitted that the application should be dismissed for non-attendance by the Applicant for the following reasons:

1. The Applicant's representative was aware of the hearing date and time as he was present at the March 6, 2020 hearing when the current hearing event date and time were set;

2. The matter was set to this peremptory hearing event and the representative was aware that this was the last opportunity to argue the case, in the absence of exceptional circumstances; and,

3. The Board has previously granted motions for dismissal for non-attendance by a party to this type of hearing in the past.

8Rule 104 of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure ("Rules") states:

Non-Attendance

104. If a party fails to appear at a hearing event, the Board may proceed with the hearing event, or take any other steps that it deems appropriate.

9There was no information before the Board to explain the absence of the Applicant or her representative at the hearing.

CONCLUSION

10There were no reasons before the Board to explain the Applicant's non-attendance. The submissions indicate that the Applicant was aware of the hearing and its start time by telephone. In the absence of any submission by the Applicant relating to the non-attendance, the Board granted the City's motion to dismiss the application.

ORDER

11The Board orders that the application is dismissed.