Routleys Holdings Limited v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 09, 2020 CanLII 68652

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: September 18, 2020

FILE NO.: RR: 19-063

Assessed Person(s): Routleys Holdings Limited

Appellant(s): Routleys Holdings Limited, Robert McKay

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 09

Respondent(s): City of Toronto

Property Location(s): 1638 Avenue Road

Municipality(ies): City of Toronto

Roll Number(s): 1908-061-620-01500-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3209063, 3296130, and 3351869

Taxation Year(s): 2017, 2018 and 2019

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

Parties

Representative

Routleys Holdings Limited

Lawrence M. Moskovic

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation

Submissions not received

City of Toronto

Submissions not received

REQUEST FOR: Reinstatement of appeals 3209063, 3296130, and 3351869

HEARD: In writing

ADJUDICATOR(S): Vincent Stabile, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1Routleys Holdings Limited (“Routleys”) seeks an Order of the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) reinstating appeals 3209063, 3296130 and 3351869 pursuant to Rule 122 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedures (the “Rules”) which states as follows:

….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by filing an affidavit with the Board, copied to all parties, no more than 30 days after the appeal was dismissed or withdrawn by the Board setting out that:

(a) The appeal was withdrawn, removed or dismissed in error;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

2For the reasons set out below, the appeals listed above are reinstated.

Threshold requirements

3There are three threshold requirements: the requester must be a party to a former proceeding, the request is made within 30 days of the appeal(s)’ dismissal or withdrawal, and an affidavit must be filed in support of the request. All three requirements must be met for the Board to consider the request and to determine, whether in the circumstances, it is appropriate to reinstate the appeals.

Party/Timing

4A letter dated September 6, 2019, was filed with the Board on behalf of Routleys withdrawing three s. 40 appeals for the 2017, 2018 and 2019 taxation years with respect to the property known as 1638 Avenue Road, City of Toronto, Assessment Roll Number 1908-061-620-01500-0000. Routleys was a party to the proceeding.

5The appeals were dismissed by the Board on September 20, 2019. The request to reinstate the appeals was made by letter dated September 27, 2019, clearly within the 30-day rule. The Board finds that the first two threshold requirements for a request for review have been met.

Affidavit

6In support of the request for review, an affidavit, in the name of Lawrence M. Moskovic, lawyer and principal of Metropolitan Leasehold Consultants Inc. (“Metropolitan”), representative of Routleys, sworn September 25, 2019, was filed with the Board.

7In his affidavit, Mr. Moskovic states that Routleys is the owner of the subject property (1638 Avenue Road) and also the owner of an adjacent property known as 1640 Avenue Road, Roll No. 1908-061-620-01300-0000. Routleys did not intend to withdraw its appeals for 1638 Avenue Road. Rather on another property on Avenue Road. Thus the appeals were withdrawn in error. Accordingly, Routleys has met the third threshold requirement by filing an affidavit setting out that the appeal was withdrawn in error.

Should the appeal be reinstated because it was withdrawn in error?

8The Municipal Property Corporation (“MPAC”) was given an opportunity to file submissions in response to the request for review and indicated that it takes no position. There were no other parties to the appeals.

9Based on the evidence submitted, I accept that the requester intended to withdraw appeals on another property in close proximity to the subject and similar roll numbers. I am satisfied that the withdrawal of the appeals was a result of a clerical error made by the appellant and one made in good faith. I find that this type of error falls with the type of errors contemplated under Rule 122 (a).

10Having considered the principles of fairness, finality, and potential prejudice, I find that it is appropriate to exercise discretion to reinstate the appeals.

11Appeals 3209063, 3296130 and 3351869 are reinstated.