Tribunals Ontario

Assessment Review Board

ISSUE DATE: December 08, 2020

FILE NO.: WR 167395

Assessed Person(s): "Canada Corp."

Appellant(s): "Canada Corp."

Respondent(s): City of Toronto

Property Location(s): Withheld

Municipality(ies): City of Toronto

Roll Number(s): Withheld

Appeal Number(s): 3419740

Taxation Year(s): 2019

Hearing Event No.: 736077

Legislative Authority: Section 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel*/Representative
"Canada Corp."	No one appeared
City of Toronto	J. Boyczuk*

HEARD: November 12, 2020 by telephone conference call

ADJUDICATOR(S): Dan Weagant, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

Background

1The Applicant, Canada Corp. filed an application to the City of Toronto (the “City”) to have its 2019 property taxes cancelled, reduced or refunded due to an inability to pay because of sickness or extreme poverty under Section 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A.

2This was a pre-hearing event, scheduled for the benefit of the Parties so that they would have the information necessary to prepare for and attend at a full hearing of the evidence, at a later date.

3The pre-hearing commenced at the appointed time of 1:30 p.m. At that time, the only Party present was the City. It is the Board’s normal practice to allow a ten-minute grace period for any participant in a telephone conference call hearing event in case there are technical difficulties in connecting to the call, or to facilitate delays caused be unforeseen or exceptional circumstances that might affect a party’s ability to attend at the prescribed time. By 1:50 p.m. there was no representative of the Applicant present.

4The Board sought a submission from the City on the administration of this application, given the Applicant’s absence. The City submitted that, in its view, the Board had two choices; the first being an adjournment of the matter to a later date; and secondly, dismissal of the application due to the absence / non-attendance of the Applicant. The City did not submit a position on the Board’s options.

Issues for the Hearing

5At issue in this proceeding was whether the application should be dismissed owing to the non-attendance of the Applicant or its representative, or if the proceeding should be adjourned.

Result

6The application is dismissed, for the following reasons.

ANALYSIS

7Rule 104 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”) states:

Non-Attendance

104. If a party fails to appear at a hearing event, the Board may proceed with the hearing event, or take any other steps that it deems appropriate.

8Further, Rule 82 states:

Dates Fixed

82. After the day set in Rule 33 as the start of a proceeding the Board will not alter any timeline set out in the schedule of events, other than in exceptional circumstances.

9Rule 82 is clear in that any adjournment considered by the Board must have regard for any exceptional circumstances leading to the reason for that adjournment. In this case, the Applicant did not attend, and the Board had no evidence or reason for that non-attendance.

CONCLUSION

10There were no reasons before the Board to explain the Applicant’s non-attendance. In the absence of any evidence of exceptional circumstances, the Board finds that the proceeding should not be adjourned. Having determined the question of adjournment, the Board applies Rule 104 and dismisses the application.

ORDER

11The Board orders that the application is dismissed.