Tribunals Ontario / Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario

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

ISSUE DATE: October 14, 2021 FILE NO.: RD 20-034

Assessed Person(s): Charlene Lagrave Appellant(s): Charlene Lagrave Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 15 Respondent(s): City of Mississauga Property Location(s): 4180 Marblethorne Crt Municipality(ies): City of Mississauga Roll Number(s): 2105-030-096-71300-0000 Appeal Number(s): 3386665 and 3406037 Taxation Year(s): 2019 and 2020 Legislative Authority: Rules 101-103 of the Assessment Review Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure

APPEARANCES:

• Charlene Lagrave: Self-represented
• Municipal Property Assessment Corporation: Submissions not received
• City of Mississauga: Submissions not received

REQUEST FOR: A review of the Board’s Decision WR 164194 issued on April 15, 2020 HEARD: In writing ADJUDICATOR(S): Carly Stringer, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1Charlene Lagrave (the “Requestor”) requests a review of the Assessment Review Board’s (“Board”) Decision WR 164194 issued on April 15, 2020 (the “Decision”).

Background

2The Requestor is the owner of 4180 Marblethorne Crt in Mississauga, Ontario. The Requestor filed an appeal for the 2019 taxation year with the Board, pursuant to s. 40 of the Assessment Act R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”).

3The Board scheduled a hearing of the Requestor’s appeal on February 25, 2020. The Requestor did not appear, and the Board made an Oral Disposition dismissing her appeal. The Requestor subsequently contacted the Board requesting Written Reasons be provided, and the Board issued the Decision providing those written reasons.

Issues for Review

4The Requestor gave two reasons that the Decision should be reviewed:

1. The Board violated the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness; and
2. The Board made an error in law or fact such that the Board would likely have reached a different decision.

Result

5The request for review is dismissed.

ANALYSIS

The Rules

1Rule 101(b) of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure effective April 1, 2021 (the “Rules”) provides that “a party may request a review of any final decision or order of the Board by filing a request for review in writing no more than 30 days after the decision was issued, which shall include…the reasons for the request, addressing the factors set out in Rule 102.”

2Rule 102 provides that:

102. A request for review will not be granted unless the Board is satisfied that:

(a) the Board acted outside its jurisdiction or violated the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness;

(b) the Board made a significant error of law or fact such that the Board would likely have reached a different decision;

(c) the Board heard false or misleading evidence from a party or witness, which was discovered only after the hearing and would have affected the result; or

(d) there is new evidence that could not have reasonably been obtained earlier and have affected the result.

Issue 1 – Rules of Natural Justice or Procedural Fairness

Submissions

3The Requestor submits there has been a violation of the rules of natural justice and procedural fairness. The Requestor submits that she requested an in-person hearing on February 18, 2020. The Requestor states that she spoke with a Case Coordinator at the Board and was assured she would receive an answer. The Requestor further submits that she mentioned to the Case Coordinator that her son was having major surgery on February 20, 2020 and she would be at the hospital with him while he was having surgery and caring for his needs in the days thereafter.

4The Board denied the Requestor’s request for an in-person hearing on February 21, 2021, and sent an email to the Requestor to this effect. The Requestor submits that she did not receive the email from the Case Coordinator dated February 21, 2020 as it was sent one day after her son’s surgery and only two business days before the hearing was scheduled to take place. The Requestor submits this amounts to bias, and it was procedurally unfair for the Board to proceed with a teleconference hearing without acknowledgment from the Requestor that she had received the Board’s February 21, 2020 email.

Findings on Issue 1

6The Board is not satisfied that Issue 1 in the request for review discloses any violation of the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness.

7The Board sent a written Notice of Hearing to Ms. Lagrave on January 24, 2020. This Notice confirmed that the hearing would be conducted by a Telephone Conference Call on February 25, 2020, in accordance with the Board’s Rules which stipulate that all hearing events will be electronic unless the Board directs otherwise. On February 18, 2020, the Requestor submitted a request asking that the hearing be conducted in-person. The Requestor did not request adjournment of the hearing in the event her request was denied. According to the Requestor, the Case Coordinator told her she would receive an answer. She received that answer when the Board provided its response on February 21, 2020, denying conversion to an in-person hearing. The Board provided this response to the email address the Requestor supplied to Board for the purposes of communications.

8Moreover, when the Requestor failed to appear at the hearing, the Case Coordinator called and emailed the Requestor. No one answered the phone, and the Requestor did not respond to the email.

9There is no violation of the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness here, nor is there bias. The Requestor was provided with ample notice of the hearing; the Requestor had supplied the Board with her email address for the purposes of communications; the Board provided an appropriate and timely response denying her request to convert into an in-person hearing at the email address provided; the Requestor did not provide notice to the Board that she would be unable to attend the hearing; the Board waited 30 minutes for her to appear at the hearing, and made reasonable efforts to communicate with the Requestor once the hearing commenced. Although the Requestor may not have been aware of the Board’s response dated February 21, 2020 because she did not check her email, that does not disclose a breach of the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness on the Board’s part. It is not the responsibility of the Board to ensure acknowledgment of its communications, particularly where the Board used an email address supplied by the Requestor. The Requestor had not otherwise asked for an adjournment or advised the Board she would not be able to attend the hearing.

10Accordingly, the Board is not satisfied there has been a denial of natural justice or procedural fairness in the Decision.

Issue 2 – Error of Law or Fact

Submissions

11The Requestor states that the Board made an error in law or fact such that it would likely have reached a different decision. The Requestor states that she did not in fact receive the February 21, 2020 email denying her request for an in-person hearing, and she was not aware the hearing would proceed.

Findings on Issue 2

12The Board is not satisfied the Decision discloses an error of law or fact such that the Board would likely have reached a different decision.

13Although the Requestor states that she did not in fact receive the Board’s February 21, 2020 email denying her request for an in-person hearing, the Requestor did receive a clear Notice of Hearing dated January 24, 2020, stating that the hearing would proceed via teleconference on February 25, 2020. The Board provided an appropriate and timely denial of the Requestor’s request for an in-person hearing and so advised the Requestor at an email address she provided to the Board for communications purposes. These are the facts the Board relied upon in determining that the Requestor did receive the Notice of Hearing. The Requestor has not satisfied the Board there is any error with these facts. Accordingly, the Decision does not disclose an error in law or fact.

CONCLUSION

14The Board is not satisfied that the Board violated the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness, nor is it satisfied that the Decision contains any significant error of law or fact such that it would likely have reached a different decision pursuant to Rule 102 (a) and (b).

ORDER

15The Board orders that this request for review is dismissed.