Madera Building & Renovations Inc. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 06, 2021 CanLII 122303

Tribunals Ontario

Assessment Review Board

ISSUE DATE: November 24, 2021 FILE NO.: DM 2021M14

Assessed Person: Madera Building & Renovations Inc. Appellant: Madera Building & Renovations Inc. Respondent: Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 06 Respondent: City of Quinte West

Property Location: 116 Division Street Municipality: City of Quinte West Roll Number: 1204-020-040-53400-0000 Taxation Year: 2021 Hearing Event No.: 755771

Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31

Parties	Representative
Madera Building & Renovations Inc.	Karen McAdam
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation	Shelby Roper
City of Quinte West	Submissions not received

REQUEST FOR: Late Appeal HEARD: November 24, 2021 in writing ADJUDICATOR(S): Jean-Paul Pilon, Member

MOTION DECISION

OVERVIEW

1Madera Building & Renovations Inc. (the "Moving Party") became the owner of a property at 116 Division Street in Trenton (the "Subject Property") on March 4, 2021.

2Karen McAdam is the director of Moving Party and brought this motion requesting that the Assessment Review Board (the "Board") accept the Moving Party's appeal for the 2021 taxation year after the time set out in the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31. This motion was filed pursuant to Rule 26(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure (the "Rules").

Result

3For the reasons that follow, this motion is granted.

Factual Background

4The Moving Party relied on Ms. McAdam's affidavit affirmed on September 17, 2021. In that affidavit, Ms. McAdam stated that she requested a tax bill from the City of Quinte West (the "Municipality") after the Moving Party purchased the Subject Property in April, 2021, on July 2, 2021 and on July 30, 2021. It was not until that last date that the tax bill was actually received by Ms. McAdam, according to her affidavit.

5Ms. McAdam stated that she then approached the Board on August 6, 2021 to request an extension of time to file an appeal. In reply, the Board sent her a form on August 11, 2021 to request an extension to file a request for reconsideration ("RfR") which Ms. McAdam completed and submitted the same day.

6On September 2, 2021, the Board replied indicating that it did not have the authority to grant the request as submitted, which is not an issue in this motion. Instead, Ms. McAdam was directed to file a motion to request that the Board accept a late appeal pursuant to Rule 26(b). This motion was filed on September 20, 2021.

7Copies of Ms. McAdam's email correspondence with the Municipality and the Board were attached as exhibits to her affidavit. The most important of these was Ms. McAdam's email to the Municipality dated August 6, 2021 in which she wrote that she "was not aware of the due date to request a reassessment..." and that she "only received (her) first Tax (sic) bill via email on July 30, 2021."

8The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation ("MPAC") did not oppose the Moving Party's request for relief in this motion. MPAC relied on the affidavit of its employee Charmaine Siddle affirmed on October 28, 2021 which correctly noted that the deadline for the Moving Party to file an appeal was March 31, 2021.

9Ms. Siddle's affidavit also stated that MPAC sent the notice of assessment to the previous owner and that "MPAC does not have any record of mailing the (notice of assessment) to the Moving Party." In its accompanying submission in the motion, MPAC also wrote that "the Moving Party became aware of the assessment issues with the subject property on July 30, 2021 when the (Municipality) emailed the Moving Party a copy of their tax bill at the Moving Party's request."

ANALYSIS

10This motion was filed pursuant to Rule 26(b). In essence, Rule 26(b) provides that the Board may accept a late appeal if "(1) the appellant is a person entitled to receive notice of assessment (2) who did not receive notice, and (3) filed the appeal with the Board within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment (numbering added)." These three requirements are addressed individually below.

Issue 1 – Was the Appellant a person entitled to receive a notice of assessment?

11It was not contested that the Moving Party was the owner of the Subject Property and that Ms. McAdam was the director of the Moving Party. They were both entitled to receive the notice of assessment.

Finding on Issue 1

12The Board finds that the Moving Party met the first requirement of Rule 26(b).

Issue 2 – Did the Moving Party receive a notice of assessment?

13Ms. McAdam did not state in her affidavit that she did not receive notice of the assessment. She did say, however, that she made multiple attempts to obtain a tax bill from the Municipality. In addition, MPAC acknowledged that the notice of assessment was never sent to Ms. McAdam or the Moving Party.

14Ms. McAdam clearly knew the requirements of Rule 26(b) because she quoted the Rule in her affidavit, and it would have been simpler had she included a statement in her affidavit that neither she nor the Moving Party received the notice of assessment. On the other hand, it was undisputed that the notice of assessment was not sent to Ms. McAdam or to the Moving Party. Moreover, the Board can find as a fact based on the material before it that there would have been no reason for Ms. McAdam to have made her requests of the Municipality and to have delayed filing an appeal had she received a copy of the notice of assessment.

15As a result, the Board can find that the Moving Party did not receive the notice of assessment.

Finding on Issue 2

16The Board finds that the Moving Party met the second requirement of Rule 26(b).

Issue 3 – Did the Moving Party file the appeal with the Board within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment?

17It was determined above that the tax bill was not received until July 30, 2021 at which time Ms. McAdam became aware of the assessment. Ms. McAdam contacted the Board on August 6, 2021, was asked to complete an incorrect form which she submitted on August 11, 2021 and did not file this motion until September 20, 2021 more than 30 days later.

18Ms. McAdam did, however, contact the Board about contesting the appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment and submitted the incorrect form within that time. Although the form Ms. McAdam filed to extend time to file an RfR was not included in the motion material, it can be reasonably assumed that it would have expressed disagreement with the assessment of which she had recently became aware.

19In 2356746 Ontario Inc. v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 13, 2019 CanLII 114731 (ON ARB) at para. 28, the Board found that a request to extend time to file an RfR was "sufficient to indicate an intention to appeal, even if it was on the incorrect form." In that decision, the Board followed 2604696 Ontario Inc. v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 09, 2019 CanLII 109526 (ON ARB) quoting para. 24 which read:

The Board finds there to be a sufficient nexus between the statement that the Moving Party wants a reconsideration of the assessment in the RfR and the head of appeal in the Act that the assessment is incorrect for the RfR to be considered an "appeal" pursuant to Rule 26(b) in these circumstances. Such an interpretation of Rule 26(b) would be consistent with Rule 4 (now Rule 3), which provides that the Rules are to be interpreted liberally and is the fair result in the circumstances.

20As a result, the Board finds that the Moving Party "filed the appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment" even if that filing was on an incorrect form. To find otherwise in these circumstances would be procedurally unfair.

Finding on Issue 3

21The Board finds that the Moving Party met the third requirement of Rule 26(b).

CONCLUSION

22The Board finds that the Moving Party has met all three requirements of Rule 26(b) and that the Board may accept its late appeal for the 2021 taxation year.

ORDER

23The Board orders that the Moving Party's appeal for the 2021 taxation year is accepted pursuant to Rule 26(b).