J.M.L.V. v. City of Mississauga, 2020 CanLII 99835

Tribunals Ontario / Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario

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

ISSUE DATE: December 11, 2020

FILE NO.: WR 167447

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.: 737123

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

APPEARANCES:

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

HEARD: December 07, 2020 by telephone conference call

ADJUDICATOR(S): Jean-Paul Pilon, Member

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-hearing teleconferences is 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 a.m.) 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.

6The pre-hearing teleconference on October 21, 2020 was adjourned because the Applicant had not appeared and the Board was concerned that the Applicant might have thought that the oral hearing had been converted to a written hearing, which was not the case. The adjournment was noted as peremptory on the Applicant and the Interim Decision that issued afterward said that if the Applicant did not appear at the next date, the application would be dismissed absent any extraordinary circumstances.

7The Applicant did not attend the second pre-hearing teleconference on December 7, 2020 at 9:30 a.m. and had not attended by the time the pre-hearing teleconference ended at 9:50 a.m. The Board finds that the Applicant was aware of the pre-hearing teleconference because the Municipality’s representative indicated that he reminded the Applicant of the pre-hearing teleconference in a telephone call on December 4, 2020. In addition, the Applicant submitted further documentation to the Municipality only, despite the Board’s direction in the Interim Order that the Board should be copied on any documentation sent to the Municipality, the night before the second pre-hearing teleconference. It is noted that this documentation was incomplete and would not have been sufficient to support the application.

8There was no explanation for the Applicant’s non-attendance at either pre-hearing teleconference, nor was there any submission citing extraordinary circumstances pursuant to Rule 82 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure that would justify any further adjournment. The Board therefore finds that this application should be dismissed.

ORDER

9This application is dismissed.