Annette Mancini v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 15, 2020 CanLII 97408

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: November 25, 2020

FILE NO.: RR 20-044BA

AMENDED DECISION ISSUED ON: December 01, 2020

Assessed Person(s): Annette Mancini

Appellant(s): Annette Mancini

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 15

Respondent(s): City of Mississauga

Property Location(s): 717 St. Nicholas Court

Municipality(ies): City of Mississauga

Roll Number(s): 2105-020-026-10920-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3404729 (deemed appeal)

Taxation Year(s): 2020

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

Parties

Representative

Annette Mancini

Self-represented

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation

Submissions received

City of Mississauga

No one appeared

REQUEST FOR: Reinstatement of appeal(s) 3404729 (deemed appeal)

HEARD: In writing

ADJUDICATOR(S): Jennifer Griffith, Member

DECISION

AMENDED DECISION

In accordance with Rule 114 of the Assessment Review Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, as amended May 2019, related to the correction of minor errors and in accordance with Rule 21.1 of the Statutory Powers and Procedure Act regarding the correction of errors, this Amended Decision is issued to address a clerical error in the original order. The Board did receive MPAC’s submissions, but due to an administrative omission, they were not included in the file for the adjudicator to review. The Decision is amended above to note that MPAC’s submissions were received. The amendment is underlined for ease of reference. As MPAC’s submissions were consistent with the Requester’s submissions, no other changes are required and there are no other changes to this Amended Decision.

OVERVIEW

1Annette Mancini (the “Requester”) is requesting that the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) grant her Request to Reinstate Appeal 3404729 (deemed appeal) for the 2020 taxation year pursuant to Rules 122 - 123 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”). The appeal was dismissed on June 5, 2020 and the Request to Reinstate the appeal was filed with the Board on July 3, 2020.

Background

2As Appeal 3386772 pursuant to s. 40 of the Assessment Act R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the Act”) for the 2019 taxation year was not finally disposed of before March 31, 2020, the deemed Appeal 3404729 was created by the Board for the 2020 taxation year pursuant to s. 40(26), which states:

Deemed appeals, 2009 and subsequent years, - For 2009 and subsequent taxation years, an appellant shall be deemed to have brought the same appeal in respect of a property,

a) In relation to the assessments under sections 32, 33 and 34 for the year; and

b) In relation to the assessment, including assessments under sections 32, 33 and 34, for a subsequent taxation year to which the same general reassessment applies, if the appeal is not finally disposed of before March 31 of the subsequent taxation year or, if an assessment has been made under sections 32, 33 or 34, before the 90th day after the notice of assessment was mailed.

3Appeal 338772 for the 2019 taxation year was heard on April 2, 2020 (Hearing 729868) and was dismissed by the Board on May 1, 2020 because the Requester did not attend the hearing. The Requester filed a Request for Reinstatement with the Board on July 3, 2020 for the 2019 taxation year and the Request for Reinstatement was dismissed on August 24, 2020 because it was not submitted within the 30-day timeline.

MPAC’s Submissions

4MPAC has provided submissions.

Municipality’s Submissions

5The Municipality has provided no submissions.

Issue

6The issue in this proceeding is whether Appeal 3404729 for the 2020 taxation year should be reinstated under Rule 122(c) of the Board’s Rules on the basis that natural justice or procedural fairness requires it.

The Reinstatement Rules

7The relevant provision of the Rule for this application is in Rule 122(c), which states, in 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 dismissed … setting out that … natural justice or procedural fairness require that the appeal be reinstated.

8As the first criteria is met (the Requester is a party to a former proceeding), the issues that need to be considered are:

1. the timeliness of the request for reinstatement;

2. if natural justice or procedural fairness requires that the appeals be reinstated; and

3. if reinstated, should the SOE be appropriately revised.

Result

9The Board denies the Requester’s Request to Reinstate Appeal 3404729 for the 2020 taxation year for the reasons stated below.

ANALYSIS

Issue 1 – Timeliness

10The Requester filed her Request to Reinstate Appeal 3404729 for the 2020 taxation year under Rule 122 on July 3, 2020, which is 28 days after the Board dismissed the appeal on June 5, 2020, 2019. Rule 122 provides for a 30-day time frame. The Requester is therefore, in compliance with the Rule.

Issue 2 - Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness

11In her written submission which included an affidavit, copies of appeals Decisions Notices and other acknowledgement letters from the Board, the Requester is of the view that the Board erred in dismissing the appeal for the following reasons:

I. The Board failed to communicate with her after filing the appeal for the 2019 taxation year on September 16, 2019 and she only became aware of the Summary Proceeding Schedule of Events (“the SOE”) by MPAC on December 19, 2019, at which time, she noticed that her email address was incorrect; and

II. The Board had communicated with her on February 24, 2020 to advise that the Teleconference Hearing 729371 which was scheduled for March 17, 2020 for the 2019 appeal was cancelled and will be rescheduled (the method of communication was not stated). However, the Board failed to notify her that the hearing for the appeal for the 2019 taxation year was rescheduled hearing on April 2, 2020 which she did not attend. As a result, the appeal for the 2019 taxation year was dismissed on May 1, 2020 and subsequently, the deemed appeal for the 2020 taxation year (the subject of this request) was also dismissed on June 5, 2020.

12The Board’s review of the Requester’s submissions shows that the Requester:

1. Submitted no evidence to show that she contacted the Board to follow-up on the status of the appeal, after a reasonable amount of time (e.g. four to six weeks) had passed after filing the appeal with the Board on September 16, 2019;

2. Submitted no evidence to show that she contacted the Board to advise the it that her email was stated incorrectly on SOE which she obtained from MPAC on December 19, 2019;

3. Submitted no evidence to show that she contacted the Board, to find out when the new rescheduled date would be for the 2019 appeal which was cancelled on March 17, 2020; and

4. Submitted no explanation for the late filing of the Request for Reinstatement of Appeal 3386772 for the 2019 taxation year, 63 days after the appeal was dismissed on May 1, 2020. The deadline for filing is 30 days after the Board’s decision. This appeal for the 2019 taxation year was especially important because Appeal 3404729 for the 2020 taxation year (subject to this request) was deemed off the appeal for the 2019 taxation year and was also cancelled on June 5, 2020. Although, the Board dismissed the Request for Reinstatement of the 2019 on August 24, 2020, it allowed the Request for Reinstatement of the 2020 appeal which was cancelled on June 5, 2020 because it was filed on time.

13The Board finds that the above analysis of the submissions, seems to indicate that the Requester did not feel any obligation on her part to contact the Board to inquire about the status of her appeals for the 2019 and deemed 2020 taxation years after a reasonable period (e.g. four to six weeks) had passed since filing the appeal on September 16, 2019, without any communication and/or correspondence. The Board finds that contacting the Board would have been a reasonable effort to ensure that she was made aware of the hearing date on April 2, 2020 and was given an opportunity to present her case.

14The Board finds that the Requester had a couple of opportunities to contact and update the Board with her correct contact information and failed to do so. These opportunities are when the Requester was provided with a copy of the SOI by MPAC on December 19, 2019 which showed her email was incorrect; and when she was contacted by the Board on February 24, 2020, advising her that teleconference hearing 729371 of the March 17, 2020 was cancelled and would be rescheduled. There was no evidence adduced by the Requester that she contacted the Board to advise it that her email was incorrect and to provide it with the correct email address. As stated below Rule 29 clearly states that the Board sends documents (e.g. hearing notices, appeal decision notices etc.) by any of these methods of communication such as personal delivery, regular mail, fax, courier and email). Therefore, the notice of the rescheduled hearing for the 2019 appeal would have been sent by one of these methods of communication and would not have been given over the telephone.

15The Board finds that although there is no stated obligation in the Rules on the part of the Requester to contact the Board to advise it that email address was incorrect and that she had not receive any correspondence (e.g. SOI, hearing notices) regarding her appeal, Rule 29 clearly states that documents would be deemed to have been received; and the only exception to this rule would be for special circumstances beyond a person’s control pursuant to Rule 30. In this case, the Requester was in control because she was aware since December 19, 2019 that her email address was stated incorrectly on the SOE, and she was also contacted by the Board on February 24, 2020 advising her that the hearing on March 17, 2020 for the 2019 appeal was cancelled and was going to be rescheduled.

Deemed Receipt, Rule 29 states:

Where a document is served by a person, filed with Board, or sent by the Board, receipt is deemed to have occurred when served or sent by:

a) personal delivery, when given to the party;

b) regular mail, on the fifth day after the postmark date;

c) fax, when the person sending the document receives a confirmation of successful transmission;

d) courier or registered mail, on the confirmed delivery date; or

e) email, on the day sent.

Deemed Receipt Exceptions, Rule 30 states:

Rule 29 does not apply if the person for whom the document was intended establishes that through absence, accident, illness or other cause beyond that person’s control, the document was not received until a later date or not at all.

16Regarding Appeal 3404729 for the 2020 taxation year. This appeal was deemed off the 2019 appeal pursuant to s. 40(26) and the Requester was deemed to have brought the same appeal for the 2020 taxation year because the appeal for the 2019 taxation was not finally disposed of before March 31 of the subsequent taxation year.

17On May 1, 2020 Appeal 3386772 for the 2019 taxation year was dismissed; and on August 24, 2020 a Request for Reinstatement of Appeal 3386772 for the 2019 taxation was also dismissed. The fact that Appeal 3404729 for the 2020 taxation year was deemed off the appeal for the 2019 taxation year, the same decisions rendered by the Board for the appeal for the 2019 would also be deemed to be the result of the appeal for the 2020 taxation year. Therefore, Appeal 3404729 for the 2020 taxation year was correctly dismissed.

18Rule 122 (c) permits reinstatement if natural justice or procedural fairness requires reinstatement. However, in this case, there is nothing unfair and unjust because the 2020 appeal was deemed off the 2019 appeal pursuant to s. 40(26). This means that to challenge the 2020 appeal dismissal, the Requester would have to reopen the 2019 dismissal, which she cannot do because the request for reinstatement was not filed on time and was filed 63 days after the appeal was dismissed on May 1, 2020 (deadline is 30 days after it was dismissed).

19The Board finds that the Requester cannot challenge the dismissal of the 2020 appeal, without setting aside the dismissal of the 2019 appeal, as the result of the 2020 appeal flows directly from the 2019 appeal. Because the Requester did not file a request for reinstatement of the 2019 appeal on time, there would be no purpose in reinstating the 2020 appeal. Therefore, procedural fairness and natural justice require that Requester’s Request to Reinstate Appeal 3404729 for the 2020 taxation year be denied.

ORDER

20The Requester’s Request to Reinstate Appeal 3404729 for the 2020 taxation year is denied.

21The Board having denied the Requester’s Request to Reinstate the appeal for the 2020 taxation year, there is no need to revisit the SOE.