Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE:
December 03, 2021
WR 175294
Assessed Person(s):
Omers Realty Corporation, c/o Oxford Properties Group
Appellant(s):
Omers Realty Corporation, c/o Oxford Properties Group
Respondent(s):
City of Vaughan
Property Location(s):
101 Royal Group Crescent
Municipality(ies):
City of Vaughan
Roll Number(s):
1928-000-321-25053-0000
Appeal Number(s):
2924363 and 2889479
Taxation Year(s):
2010
Hearing Event No.:
754080
Legislative Authority:
Sections 357 (8) and 364 (14) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Omers Realty Corporation, c/o Oxford Properties Group
No one appeared
City of Vaughan
Jaroslaw Wowk and Aaron Zamler
HEARD:
November 22, 2021 by telephone conference call
ADJUDICATOR(S):
Jennifer Griffith, Member
DECISION
OVERVIEW
1Omers Realty Corporation, c/o Oxford Properties Group (“Appellant”) filed an appeal for its industrial property located at 101 Royal Group Crescent, in the City of Vaughan (the “City”) with the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) pursuant to s. 357 (8) and s. 364 (14).
2Section 357 (8) states:
Where no decision. – If council fails to make its decision by September 30 of the year following the year in respect of which the application is made, an applicant may appeal to the Assessment Review Board by October 21 of the year by filing a notice of appeal with the registrar of the board and the appeal shall be a new hiring.
3Section 364 (14) states:
Complaint. – A person who has made an application under this section may within 120 days after the municipality mails the determination of the amount of the rebate, complain to the Assessment Review Board in writing that the amount is too low.
Background
4On February 17, 2011 the Appellant filed a 2010 Vacancy Rebate Application (“Application”) with the City pursuant to s. 357 (1)(d) of the Municipal Act (“Act”) for the 2010 taxation year.
5Section 357 (1) (d) states:
Cancellation, reduction, refund of taxes. – Upon application of the treasurer of a local municipality made in accordance with this section, the local municipality may cancel, reduce or refund all or part of taxes levied on land in the year in respect of which the application is made if,
(d) during the year or during the preceding year after the returns of the assessment roll, a building on land,
I. was raised by fire, demolition or otherwise, or
II. was damaged by fire, demolition, or otherwise so as to render it substantially unusable for the purposes for which it was used immediately prior to the damage.
6On September 10, 2012 the City issued its Notice of Determination and refunded the Appellant $10,843.49 for vacancy rebate for the 2010 taxation year.
7On February 25, 2011 the Appellant filed a 2010 Application with the City pursuant to s. 364 (1) of the Municipal Act (“Act”).
8Section 364 (1) states:
Vacant unit rebate. – Except as prescribed, every local municipality shall have a program to provide tax rebates to owners of property that has vacant portions if that property is in any of the commercial classes or industrial classes, as defined in subsection 308 (1), or in the class prescribed under clause (12)(a.0.1). 2016, c. 37, Sched. 15, s. 12(1).
9On January 11, 2012 the City issued its notice of determination rejecting the application because the units failed to satisfy the eligibility requirements of s.1 of Ontario Regulation 325/01.
Result
10The appeals are dismissed for the 2010 taxation year, because no one appeared at today’s telephone conference hearing.
Issues
11No one appeared for the Appellant.
Submissions
12At the commencement of today’s hearing by telephone conference, the representatives for the City called into the hearing prior to the official start time of 9:30 a.m. However, no one called into the hearing for the Appellant.
13The Board waited for ten minutes to allow time for any difficulties that the Appellant might have been experiencing. Unfortunately, no one appeared. A request was made by the City for written reasons after an oral decision was rendered.
City’s Position
14Due to the fact that no one appeared at the hearing for the Appellant, the City takes the position that the appeals should be dismissed for non-attendance. The City states that these appeals were previously adjourned and that the City consented to the request for adjournment. Since the adjournment has been approved, there has been no communication with the Appellant or its Representative.
ANALYSIS
15In reviewing the submissions of the City, the Board dismiss the appeals for non-attendance for the following reasons:
I. The Board’s records confirm that the adjournment was granted on July 8, 2021 and the hearing date was changed from July 12, 2021 to today, November 22, 2021 at 9:30 a.m;
II. The Board’s records also showed that the Notice of hearing was sent on September 3, 2021; and
III. The Appellant filed no documentary evidence with the Board by the due date of September 8, 2020 stated in the Schedule of Events (“SOE”) with a Commencement date of January 22, 2020.
16Based on the above submission, the Board finds that the Appellant was accommodated by adjourning the July 12, 2021 hearing to November 22, 2021 and that notice of the hearing was sent well in advance of today’s hearing. The Board finds that the Appellant had more than ample time to contact the Board if there were exceptional circumstances that prevented the attendance at today’s hearing and failed to do so. Therefore, the Board dismisses the appeals.
CONCLUSION
17The appeals are dismissed for the 2010 taxation year.
ORDER
18The Board orders that the appeals for the 2010 taxation year be dismissed.
“Jennifer Griffith”
JENNIFER GRIFFITH
MEMBER
Assessment Review Board
Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb