Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

November 18, 2020

FILE NO.:

DM 2020M22

Assessed Person(s):

Ploutos Holdings Inc.

Appellant(s):

Ploutos Holdings Inc.

Respondent(s):

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 09

Respondent(s):

City of Toronto

Property Location(s):

1680 Midland Avenue, Unit 1

Municipality(ies):

City of Toronto

Roll Number(s):

1901-043-670-04320-0000

Taxation Year(s):

2019

Hearing Event No.:

735977

Legislative Authority:

Rule 26(b) of the Assessment Review Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Representative

Moving Party

Lori Tsiatsiamis

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation

Adrianna Combdon

City of Toronto

Submissions not received

REQUEST FOR:

Late appeal(s)

HEARD:

October 26, 2020 in writing

ADJUDICATOR(S):

Jean-Paul Pilon, Member

MOTION DECISION

OVERVIEW

1Ploutos Holdings Inc. (the “Moving Party”) is the owner of an industrial condominium unit located at 1680 Midland Avenue, Unit 1 (the “Subject Property”) in Toronto. It filed this motion with the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) for the Board to accept its late appeal for the 2019 taxation year. The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) opposed this motion and the City of Toronto filed no submissions in the motion.

2This motion was brought pursuant to Rule 26(b) of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”). Rule 26(b) provides that:

The Board may accept an appeal received after the time set out in the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 if the appellant satisfies the Board, by way of affidavit evidence that…the appellant is a person entitled to receive a notice of assessment who did not receive notice and filed the appeal with the Board within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment or classification that is the subject of the appeal.

3In this decision, the Board finds that the Moving Party was the person entitled to receive notice of the assessment and therefore met the first requirement of Rule 26(b). The Moving Party did not, however, meet the second requirement of Rule 26(b) because there was no evidence that the Moving Party or its principal Lori Tsiatsiamis did not receive the notice of assessment. The Moving Party also did not meet the third requirement of Rule 26(b) because there could not then be a finding that an appeal was filed within 30 days of the Moving Party or Ms. Tsiatsiamis becoming aware of the assessment, as is explained in further detail below.

Result

4This motion is dismissed.

Background

5The Moving Party relied entirely on Ms. Tsiatsiamis’ affidavit sworn on January 22, 2020, which exhibited the 2019 Property Assessment Notice (“PAN”) for the Subject Property that was issued by MPAC on November 27, 2018.

6In her affidavit, Ms. Tsiatsiamis wrote that when she discovered she had missed the April 1, 2019 deadline to file an appeal, she contacted MPAC who advised her to file a form with the Board to request an extension of time to file a reconsideration (“RfR”). The affidavit indicated that the form was filed on June 6, 2019 and that no response was received from the Board.

7On January 8, 2020, Ms. Tsiatsiamis again contacted the Board by email and enclosed the same form. Board staff wrote back saying that the June 6, 2019 email had been responded to but that the response was sent to an incorrect email address.

8The Moving Party did not ultimately request an extension of time to file an RfR but instead filed this motion pursuant to Rule 26(b).

ANALYSIS

9As noted above, Rule 26(b) sets out a three-part test to be considered in these motions. In addition, the Board determined in Cherry Beach Sailing Clubs v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp., Region 9, 2018 CanLII 107727 (ON ARB) at para. 8 that all three parts of the test must be met to succeed in these motions. These three requirements are:

a. That the Moving Party be a person entitled to receive a notice of assessment;

b. That the Moving Party did not receive notice of the assessment; and

c. That the Moving Party filed an appeal with the Board within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment that is the subject of the appeal.

Entitled to Receive Notice

10Ms. Tsiatsiamis did not explain her relationship to the Moving Party in the affidavit. However, in its response MPAC indicated that the Moving Party was the owner of the Subject Property and did not take issue with Ms. Tsiatsiamis’ standing to bring the motion. As a result, the Board finds that the Moving Party met the first requirement of Rule 26(b) and was entitled to receive notice of the assessment.

Did Not Receive Notice

11There was no indication, however, that the Moving Party or Ms. Tsiatsiamis did not receive the notice of assessment. Ms. Tsiatsiamis said only that she realized she missed the deadline of April 1, 2019 to file an appeal and emailed the Board on June 6, 2019. As a result, the Board finds that the Moving Party did receive the notice of assessment and did not meet the second requirement of Rule 26(b).

Filed an Appeal Within 30 Days

12The third requirement of Rule 26(b) is that the Moving Party filed an appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment.

13As noted above, Ms. Tsiatsiamis did not indicate when she became aware of the assessment. The only evidence before the Board was that the PAN was issued on November 27, 2018 and that Ms. Tsiatsiamis did not contact the Board until June 6, 2019, more than 30 days later. In any event, MPAC correctly quoted the Board’s decision in Easterbrook-Barna v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 20, [2019] CanLII 42125 (ON ARB) where, at para. 12, the Board wrote that “the final requirement of Rule 26(b) only needs to be considered when there is evidence that notice was not received.” As noted above, there was no evidence before the Board in this motion that notice was not received. As a result, the Board finds that the Moving Party did not meet the third requirement of Rule 26(b).

CONCLUSION

14The Board finds that the Moving Party met only the first of the three requirements of Rule 26(b). As a result, the motion is denied. It should also be noted that this result would have been the same even if the email problem described in Ms. Tsiatsiamis’ affidavit had not occurred because there was no evidence before the Board that the PAN was not received. What appears to have occurred here is that the Moving Party simply forgot to file an appeal on time, which is not a situation that Rule 26(b) is intended to remedy.

ORDER

15Ploutos Holdings Inc.’s motion to file a late appeal for the 2019 taxation year is dismissed.