Damian Anthony Smith and Michelle Lynne Smith v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 23 and City of London, 2020 CanLII 80890

Assessment Review Board / Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: October 20, 2020

FILE NO.: DM 165744

Assessed Person(s): Damian Anthony Smith, Michelle Lynne Smith

Appellant(s): Damian Smith, Michelle Smith

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 23

Respondent(s): City of London

Property Location(s): 23 Winship Close

Municipality(ies): City of London

Roll Number(s): 3936-050-580-37220-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3384575, 3419697 and 3419698

Taxation Year(s): 2018, 2019 and 2020

Hearing Event No.: 733868

Legislative Authority: Sections 32 and Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel/ Representative*
Damian Smith and Michelle Smith	Michelle Smith
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation	Lisa Hexter
City of London	Geoff Belch*

HEARD: August 5, 2020 by telephone conference call

ADJUDICATOR(S): Dan Weagant, Member

MOTION DECISION

INTRODUCTION

1Michelle Smith and Damian Smith (the “Appellants”) filed appeals with the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) respecting the assessment of 23 Winship Close, London for the 2018, 2019 and 2020 taxation years.

2The City of London (the “City”) moved for dismissal of the appeals in accordance with Rule 24(e) of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”) which states: “A Board member may dismiss an appeal without holding a hearing event, or after a hearing event, if: (e) the appellant has not complied with statutory requirements or these Rules.”

3The Appellants asked the Board to dismiss the City’s motion and to adjourn the hearing to allow additional time to confer with the other Parties and to disclose relevant information in support of the appeals.

4The City submitted that the appeals should be dismissed for the following reasons:

1. the Appellants are experienced in filing appeals to the Assessment Review Board;
2. the Appellants received the Schedule of Events (“SOE”);
3. the SOE is clear in its requirements;
4. the SOE included the date for exchange of documents of December 2, 2019; and
5. Rule 24(e) of the Board’s Rules states that the Board may dismiss an appeal without holding a hearing if an appellant has not complied with the statutory requirements or the Rules.

5The Appellants opposed the motion to dismiss and submitted that they did not comply with the Board’s Rules because:

1. the process has changed from previous years and the new process was unfamiliar. They expected the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) to contact them to discuss the matter and to potentially schedule an inspection of the subject property like it had done in previous appeals;
2. Ms. Smith’s time was limited in the pursuit of the appeals once it had been filed because she is a front-line worker and has been very busy at work since mid-March 2020 due to the Covid-19 pandemic; and
3. there is new information available that the Appellants intended to provide to the Board and the other Parties in the consideration of these appeals.

6MPAC was in favor of a dismissal of the appeals and agreed with the City’s submissions.

Result

7The City’s motion is granted. The appeals are dismissed.

Background

8This motion is brought by the Respondent, City of London, following a scheduled hearing of the appeals filed by the Appellants, pursuant to s. 32 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”). The appeals had been scheduled to be heard by the Board on August 5, 2020. The hearing was conducted by telephone conference call.

9Up to that date, the Appellants had not followed any of the required procedural steps involved in an appeal before the Board. The procedural steps and the dates for their completion were assigned by the Board in a SOE. In this case, the Appellants, by their own admission, had not completed an exchange of documents, nor had they scheduled and participated in a mandatory settlement meeting.

10Under the Board’s Rules, the appeals are being heard by way of a Summary Proceeding, and the Board assigned a Commencement Date of November 4, 2019. The SOE was sent to the Parties on October 7, 2019. The due date for the Parties to exchange documents was December 2, 2019.

11The City was the only Party to comply with the disclosure requirement prior to the due date. Nothing else prescribed by the SOE occurred on the appeals until July 7, 2020, when the Board issued its Notice of Hearing (“Notice”) to the Parties.

12In response to the Notice, the City filed a request to the Board to dismiss the appeals due to the Appellants’ failure to comply with the SOE. This request was filed by an Expedited Board Direction Form. The Appellants disputed the request and MPAC did not respond. The Board denied the City’s written request, indicating that the issue could be raised at the hearing.

13At the commencement of the hearing, the City moved to dismiss the appeals for the 2018, 2019 and 2020 taxation years on the basis that the Appellants failed to serve their disclosure as required by the SOE.

Issues

14The Board needs to decide if the City’s motion to dismiss the appeals is granted or denied. If the motion is denied, the Board must then decide if the matter should be adjourned to a later date to provide additional time for the Appellants to serve their documents on the other Parties.

ANALYSIS

15The Appellants submitted that they received the SOE in October 2019. Their chief concern is that the Board’s process had changed since they last appealed the assessment of the subject property for the 2008 and 2012 valuation days. They were expecting MPAC to contact them to set up a property inspection among other things; this despite the clear direction in the SOE that disclosure to the other Parties was required by December 2, 2019. The Appellants’ provided no other explanation for why they missed the deadlines in the SOE.

16It is clear from the submissions that the SOE was properly issued in October 2019. The Appellants have been aware of these appeals and their assigned SOE since then. They should not have expected to be able to rely on practices and procedures related to previous appeal cycles that have since been updated and that were evident from the SOE.

17The only Party to file its disclosure by the date stipulated in the SOE was the City. The City submitted that the failure of the Appellants to exchange the documents they intended to rely on did not permit the City to respond in any meaningful or timely way. Further, the City submitted that the Appellants took no action to pursue the appeals.

18It is the responsibility of the Appellants to take the necessary steps to advance their appeals through the process stipulated in the SOE. The Appellants failed to do so. Therefore, the City’s motion is granted.

19Having granted the City’s motion to dismiss the appeals, there is no need to decide the question of whether to extend the dates in the SOE or to adjourn the matter further.

ORDER

20Appeals 3384575, 3419697 and 3419698 for taxation years 2018, 2019 and 2020 are dismissed.