Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: August 28, 2020

FILE NO.: RR 20-008

Assessed Person(s): Riotrin Shoppers City East Inc.

Appellant(s): Shoppers Drug Mart

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 03

Respondent(s): City of Ottawa

Property Location(s): 2102 - 2036 Ogilvie Road

Municipality(ies): City of Ottawa

Roll Number(s): 0614-600-195-01400-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3239820 and 3289357

Taxation Year(s): 2017 and 2018

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

Parties

Representative

Shoppers Drug Mart

Steve M. Pocrnic

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation

Megan Cyr

City of Ottawa

Submissions not received

REQUEST FOR: Reinstatement of appeals 3239820 and 3289357

HEARD: In writing

ADJUDICATOR(S): Jean-Paul Pilon, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1Shoppers Drug Mart (the “Requestor”) requests that the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) reinstate appeals 3239820 and 3289357 pursuant to Rule 122 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”). This request for reinstatement was filed with the Board on January 28, 2020.

Background

2The appeals in question relate to a Shoppers Drug Mart store in a shopping centre owned by Riotrin Shoppers East Inc. (“Riotrin”) in City of Ottawa (the “Municipality"). The Requestor is a commercial tenant of Riotrin at this shopping centre.

3The Requestor had appeals before the Board for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years. Riotrin also had appeals for the same taxation years before the Board.

4All of these appeals had a March 15, 2018 commencement date and Statements of Issues were due on August 9, 2018 pursuant to the Schedule of Events. The Requestor served its Statement of Issues on the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) on August 13, 2018. Riotrin did not serve any Statement of Issues on MPAC.

5On December 6, 2019, MPAC filed a request to dismiss Riotrin’s appeals for failing to comply with the Schedule of Events. However, MPAC’s request also included the Requestor’s appeals as appeals to be dismissed, where the Requestor had substantially complied with the Schedule of Events by serving its Statement of Issues on MPAC.

6The Board then correctly dismissed Riotrin’s appeals but also dismissed the Requestor’s appeals.

7MPAC consented to the motion and no submissions were received from the Municipality.

ANALYSIS

8Rule 122 provides that an appeal can be reinstated if the appeal was “withdrawn, removed or dismissed in error” or “natural justice or procedural fairness require that the appeal be reinstated.”

9MPAC’s request to dismiss appeals should only have referred to Riotrin’s appeals and not the Requestor’s appeals because only Riotrin failed to serve a Statement of Issues on MPAC. That error led to the Board erroneously dismissing the Requestor’s appeals where the Requestor had complied with the Schedule of Events by serving its Statement of Issues on MPAC.

10The Requestor’s appeals were dismissed in error. The Requestor’s appeals should therefore be reinstated.

ORDER

11Appeals 3239820 and 3289357 for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years respectively are reinstated.