Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

August 31, 2020

FILE NO.:

RR 20-014

Assessed Person(s):

Hanson Pressure Pipe Inc., Fort-Nom Holdings (ONQC) Inc.

Appellant(s):

Hanson Pressure Pipe Inc., Fort-Nom Holdings (ONQC) Inc.

Respondent(s):

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 14

Respondent(s):

Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville

Property Location(s):

5387 Bethesda Road

Municipality(ies):

Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville

Roll Number(s):

1944-000-060-60200-0000

Appeal Number(s):

3035411, 3204255, 3081496, 3204256, 3150869, 3250655, 3302536 and 3356520

Taxation Year(s):

2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019

Legislative Authority:

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

Parties

Counsel*/Representative

Hanson Pressure Pipe Inc., Fort-Nom Holdings (ONQC) Inc.

Michelle Tomascik

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation

Submissions not received

Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville

Submissions not received

REQUEST FOR:

Reinstatement of appeals 3035411, 3204255, 3081496, 3204256, 3150869, 3250655, 3302536 and 3356520

HEARD:

In writing

ADJUDICATOR(S):

Tyrone D. Skanes, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1Michelle Tomascik, (the “Requester”) is requesting the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) to reinstate the appeals 3035411, 3204255, 3081496, 3204256, 3150869, 3250655, 3302536 and 3356520 (the “Appeals”) 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 December 20, 2019.

Background

2Hanson Pressure Pipe Inc. and Fort-Nom Holdings (ONQC) Inc. is the owner of the Subject Property located at 5387 Bethesda Road in the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville. Hanson Pressure Pipe Inc. and Fort-Nom Holdings (ONQC) Inc. had appeals for the 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 taxation years before the Board. On November 5, 2019 Adrianna Frijio, a clerk at the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) emailed the Board, Altus Tax Consulting Group (“Altus”) and the Municipality requesting that appeal numbers 3035411, 3204255, 3081496, 3204256, 3150869, 3250655, 3302536 and 3356520 be dismissed as the Statements of Issues (“SOI”) had not been delivered.

3On November 20, 2019, Altus delivered the 2012 and 2016 Current Value Assessment SOIs to MPAC and the Municipality via email.

4On November 25, 2019, Megan Cyr, a Case Management Analyst with MPAC, emailed Altus and confirmed that it was in receipt of the SOIs and requested an extension for serving the Statements of Response.

5On November 26, 2019, Ms. Cyr emailed Altus and advised that as it was now in receipt of the SOIs, MPAC would notify the Board to withdraw the request to dismiss the appeals.

6On November 26, 2019, Ms. Cyr sent an email to the Parties requesting the Board withdraw the request to dismiss the appeals, and copied what she thought was the Board at arbrepresentative@vaughan.ca. This was an incorrect email address for the Board and therefore the Board never received the request.

7On December 6, 2019, the Board dismissed the appeals. On December 19, 2019, having been notified of the Board’s dismissal decision, Altus contacted the Board, MPAC, and the Municipality requesting reinstatement of the dismissed appeals. On December 20, 2019, MPAC consented to this request.

8The Municipality has been copied on all of the correspondence and was asked for submissions by the Board on June 10, 2020. To date, the Municipality has not responded to any of the requests.

ANALYSIS

Relevant Rules of Practice and Procedure

9Rule 122 sets out the circumstances in which the Board will reinstate appeals that were withdrawn, removed, or dismissed in error. The relevant provision of the Rule for this application is in clause 122(a), which states, in relevant part that “a party to a former proceeding may seek an order… to reinstate an appeal by filing an affidavit with the Board… no more than 30 days after the appeal was… withdrawn… setting out that… the appeal was withdrawn… in error.”

10There are three essential components to Rule 122(a). First, it is only open to parties to the appeal that was withdrawn. Secondly, the order must be sought within 30 days after the appeal was dismissed or withdrawn. Finally, the Board must be satisfied that the appeal was dismissed or withdrawn in error. All three conditions must be met before an appeal will be reinstated.

11Hanson Pressure Pipe Inc. and Fort-Nom Holdings (ONQC) Inc. were the Appellants in the dismissed appeals and have sought reinstatement in accordance with Rule 122.

12The second part of the Rule that must be satisfied is the timely application for reinstatement of dismissed appeal, within 30 days of being notified that the Board has issued a dismissal decision. The Board issued the dismissal decision on December 6, 2019 and Altus contacted the Board on December 19, 2019, 13 days after the decision was issued and well within the 30-day time limit prescribed in the Rule. Therefore, the second part of Rule 122 is met.

13The key ground for reinstatement is that the appeal was withdrawn, removed, or dismissed in error. Based on the information provided, I am satisfied that the Appeals were erroneously dismissed in error due to a clerical-type error. It would appear that the email address for the Board was incorrectly entered into MPAC’s email system. When the email was sent to the Board with the request to withdraw the request to dismiss the appeals it was never received by the Board.

ORDER

14Hanson Pressure Pipe Inc. and Fort-Nom Holdings (ONQC) Inc. has met all of the requirements in Rule 122. The Board therefore orders that tax appeals 3035411, 3204255, 3081496, 3204256, 3150869, 3250655, 3302536 and 3356520 for the 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 taxation years be reinstated.

“Tyrone D. Skanes