Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: November 13, 2020

FILE NO.: RR 19-021

Assessed Person(s): Penguin-Calloway (Vaughan) Inc.

Requester: Walmart Canada Corp

Respondent(s): City of Vaughan

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 14

Property Location(s): 101 Edgeley Boulevard

Municipality(ies): City of Vaughan

Roll Number(s): 1928-000-230-31401-0000

Appeal Numbers(s): 3288170

Taxation Year: 2018

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

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
Walmart Canada Corp.	Paula Kalogritsas
MPAC	Submissions not received
City of Vaughn	Submissions not received

REQUEST FOR: Reinstatement of appeal 3288170

HEARD: In writing

ADJUDICATOR(S): Vincent Stabile, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1Walmart Canada Corp. seeks an Order of the Board reinstating appeal 3288170 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by filing an affidavit with the Board, copied to all parties, no more than 30 days after the appeal was dismissed or withdrawn by the Board setting out that:

(a) The appeal was withdrawn, removed or dismissed in error;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

2There are three threshold requirements: the requester must be a party to former proceedings, the request is made within 30 days of the appeal(s) being dismissed or withdrawn, and an affidavit is filed in support of the request. All three of these requirements must be met in order for a request for reinstatement be granted.

3Walmart argues that the appeal was withdrawn in error.

Decision

4For reasons set out below, the request to reinstate appeal 3288170 is denied.

ANALYSIS

Issue 1 – Threshold Requirements

Timing

5The appeal at issue was dismissed on March 15, 2019, pursuant to a Notice of Withdrawal filed February 12, 2019. The request for Review was received March 20, 2019.

Party

6The Assessment Review Board (“Board”) has confirmed that Walmart Canada Corp. was a party to the former proceedings.

Affidavit

7A one-page Affidavit sworn May 30, 2019 has been filed. The affiant, Karen Campbell, states that she is an Appeal Coordinator in the offices of AEC Paralegal Professional Corporation, representative of the Appellant/Requestor.

Issue 2 – Was the appeal withdrawn in error?

8The singular statement relied upon by Walmart in support of its request is found at paragraph 3 which simply states that the appeal “was withdrawn in error”. A similar statement is found in part 5 of the Request for Review: “The withdrawal of this appeal, appeal number 3288170, was made in error. Could you kindly reinstate”

9The Affidavit is completely silent as to any fact leading to the purported error in filing the Notice of Withdrawal. The Notice states “as per instructions from our client”, yet there is no explanation as to who made the error and how it arose.

10There is no evidence as to the status of the appeal at issue. There is no evidence as to any exchange of pleadings with the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) or any discussions with MPAC’s assessor.

11The Affidavit is silent as to any negative consequences that would flow to the Appellant if the appeal is not reinstated. Is the error such that would result in prejudice to the appellant? Is the Board being asked to consider principles of fairness and natural justice?

12Reinstatement Orders from the Board are not automatic. The Rules of the Board are enacted pursuant to the provisions of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R. S.O. 1990, c. S.22 (“SPPA”). The Rules have a purpose, ultimately to control its own process.

13In Precision Resource Canada Ltd. v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 21, 2019 CanLII 7197 (ON ARB) (“Precision”) at para. 8 the Board held that:

the requirement that the appeal be withdrawn in error is a legal determination to be made by the Board. Parties must provide the facts of how the withdrawal took place, which the Board can then evaluate against a reasonableness standard to determine if a reasonable error was made.

14At paragraph 9 of Precision the Board refers with approval to Cascades Containerboard Packaging v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 09, 2018 CanLII 78263 (ON ARB), (“Cascades”) at paragraph 10: “applications without sufficient evidence will fail to be reinstated.”

15In Precision and Cascades, the applications were denied for lack of evidence.

16It is significant that the Board is being asked to make a legal finding without facts or evidentiary foundation. Simply reinstating the appeal without some reliable evidence to support a conclusion that the appeal was withdrawn in error would result in diminishing the significance of the Rules. That would be contrary to the purpose of the Rules.

17The requester has failed to explain the purported error. It has therefore failed to meet the minimum standard required to allow the Board to make an informed decision thereby maintaining a fair and reasonable control of its process.

ORDER

18Under the circumstances, the application to reinstate appeal 3288170 is denied.