Tribunals Ontario Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario Assessment Review Board Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: November 17, 2021 FILE NO.: RD 20-33
Assessed Person(s): A.S.M. and H.A. Appellant(s): H.A. Respondent(s): City of Mississauga Property Location(s): Withheld Municipality(ies): City of Mississauga Roll Number(s): Withheld Appeal Number(s): 3368555 Taxation Year(s): 2018 Hearing Event No.: 726686
Legislative Authority: Section 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25
APPEARANCES:
Parties Counsel+/Representative
H.A. and A.S.M. H.A.
City of Mississauga Submissions not requested
REQUEST FOR: A review of the Board’s Decision WR 163642 issued on April 1, 2020 HEARD: in writing ADJUDICATOR(S): Caroline King, Vice-Chair
DECISION
OVERVIEW
1H.A. (the “Requester”), requests a review of the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) Decision WR 163642 dated April 1, 2020 (the “Decision”). The Decision regarded H.A.’s application to the Board to have his 2018 property taxes reduced, cancelled or refunded on the grounds that he was unable to pay his property taxes because of sickness or extreme poverty. The Board found that H.A. did not prove an inability to pay his property taxes.
2While H.A. did not file a Request to Review Form, H.A. did correspond with the Board after the hearing concluded and indicated his strong disagreement with the Member’s conduct of the hearing and the Decision. H.A. indicated that he was successful with a 2011 application but not with this 2018 application. He asserted that the Member’s calculation of his income was incorrect. In an April 6, 2020 email to the Registrar, H.A. asserted that the “ Member was hostile from the beginning, and show[ed] a despicable intention to…not apply the law and regulations, because I belong to the minorities!!!” H.A. stated in an April 15, 2020 email to the Registrar that [the Decision] is “absolutely disgusting, I almost vomit”.
3Notwithstanding that a request to review was not submitted on the designated Request to Review Form, it is clear and unequivocal that H.A. disagreed with how the Member conducted the hearing, and the Decision. His April 24, 2020 email indicated that he had the intent to file a request to review but was concerned about the safety of submitting a request to review via the Board’s website. During these times of pandemic, which could have impacted a personal attendance at the Board’s office, and when an individual has raised personal concerns with the Board’s website, it is important that the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure effective April 1, 2021 (the Rules) be liberally interpreted as permitted by Rule 3. H.A.’s correspondence between April 2, 2020 at 9:33 a.m. and April 24, 2020 at 3:02 a.m. is treated as his request to review. H.A.’s concerns with the hearing process and disagreement with the findings of fact and the outcome are therefore submitted to this formal review process.
Issues for the Review
4At issue in this proceeding is:
Whether the Member made a significant error in law or fact, or in mixed fact and law such that the Board would have likely reached a different decision. a. Did the Member err in determining that H.A.’s 2018 income was $118,051? b. Did the Member apply the correct legal test? c. Did the Member make an error in fact or mixed fact and law when he determined that H.A. failed to prove it likely that there was an inability to pay the 2018 property taxes?
Did the Member violate the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness? a. Did the Member err in how he conducted the hearing and was there bias, or a reasonable apprehension