J.M.L.V. v. City of Mississauga, 2020 CanLII 97954

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: October 26, 2020 FILE NO.: ID 166694 Assessed Person(s): J.M.L.V. Applicant(s): J.M.L.V. Respondent(s): City of Mississauga Property Location(s): Address withheld Municipality(ies): City of Mississauga Roll Number(s): Roll number withheld Appeal Number(s): 3412751 Taxation Year(s): 2019 Hearing Event No.: 735791

Legislative Authority: Section 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel/Representative*
J.M.L.V.	No one appeared
City of Mississauga	Sean Doyle and Barbara Malta

HEARD: October 21, 2020 by telephone conference call

ADJUDICATOR(S): Jean-Paul Pilon, Member

INTERIM DECISION

1J.M.L.V. (the “Applicant”) filed an application with the City of Mississauga (the “Municipality”) to have her taxes reduced, cancelled or refunded because she was unable to pay the taxes levied in 2019 because of sickness or extreme poverty.

2The Municipality delegated the authority to consider these applications to the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”), a provincial administrative tribunal independent of the Municipality.

3The Board scheduled a pre-hearing teleconference to be held on October 21, 2020 at 9:30 a.m. to provide information about the application and the hearing to follow, and to confirm what documents are required to support the application. Attendance by all parties at these pre-hearings are necessary because they form an important part of the Board’s process in resolving these applications.

4The notice of hearing for the pre-hearing teleconference indicated in bold letters that “if you do not participate and are not represented at the start of the hearing (9:30 am) the Board may proceed in your absence and may dismiss your appeal(s) and you will not be entitled to any further notice of the proceedings.”

5The Applicant did not attend the pre-hearing teleconference at 9:30 a.m. on October 21, 2020 and had not attended by the time the teleconference ended at 9:50 a.m. The Municipality’s representative emailed the Applicant about her attendance at the pre-hearing at 9:35 a.m. the same day but received no reply.

6Rather than dismiss the application, as it could have done, the Board decided to adjourn the pre-hearing teleconference to another date to be indicated in new notices of hearing to be issued. This decision was made for two reasons. First, as noted above, the Applicant submitted documentation prior to the hearing (although only to the Municipality, and not to the Board) which indicated that she continued to have an interest in proceeding with her application. Second, the Applicant indicated in correspondence to the Board that she was requesting a written hearing and might have had the impression that request had been granted. This was not the case because it is a decision that would have to be made by the Board at a pre-hearing with reference to Rules 96 and 97 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”), available on the Board’s website.

7The next pre-hearing teleconference will be peremptory on the Applicant. This means that no adjournments will be granted before the pre-hearing teleconference except in accordance with Rule 82 which requires that there be “extraordinary circumstances.” It also means that if the Applicant does not appear at the next pre-hearing teleconference and there are no extraordinary circumstances, the application will be dismissed.

8The Applicant also submitted similar applications to the Municipality for other taxation years, but the only application before the Board in this proceeding is for the 2019 taxation year.

ORDER

9The Board orders that the pre-hearing teleconference be adjourned to another date and time to be indicated in new notices of hearing to be issued.

10All documentation sent to the Municipality must be copied to the Board, and all documentation sent to the Board must be copied to the Municipality pursuant to Rule 9.

11I am not seized of this matter.