McDonald v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 28, 2021 CanLII 19612

Tribunals Ontario

Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: March 09, 2021

FILE NO.: ID 168892

Assessed Person(s): Raymond Joseph McDonald

Appellant(s): Raymond Joseph McDonald and Ray McDonald

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 28

Respondent(s): The Municipality of West Nipissing

Property Location(s): Kirkpatrick Con 4 N PT LOT 9

Municipality(ies): The Municipality of West Nipissing

Roll Number(s): 4852-110-001-11501-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3421952, 3421953, 3421970, 3421971 and 3421972

Taxation Year(s): 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020

Hearing Event No.: 740772

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

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Representative

Raymond Joseph McDonald

No one appeared

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation

Blair Adams

The Municipality of West Nipissing

No one appeared

HEARD: March 3, 2021 by telephone conference call

ADJUDICATOR(S): Jean-Paul Pilon, Member

INTERIM DECISION

OVERVIEW

1Raymond Joseph McDonald (the “Appellant”) is the owner of a property located at Kirkpatrick Con 4 N Pt Lot 9 in the Municipality of West Nipissing (the “Subject Property”).

2The Appellant appealed the current value assessment of the Subject Property for the 2017 taxation year, and a further appeal for the 2018 taxation year was deemed pursuant to section 40(26) of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A. 31 (the “Act”). Those two appeals were resolved by the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) in decision WR 155900 dated March 14, 2019 that was reported at McDonald v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 28, 2019 CanLII 20818 (ON ARB).

3As a result of the subsequent decision of the Divisional Court in Municipal Property Assessment Corporation v. Zarichansky, 2020 ONSC 1124, the Board cancelled WR 155900 in McDonald v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 28, 2020 CanLII 66090 (ON ARB) and ordered a re-hearing of the appeals.

4In the meantime, further appeals were deemed for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years, also pursuant to section 40(26) of the Act.

5The hearing of all of these appeals was to be held by telephone conference call (“TCC”) on March 3, 2021, 9:30 am, and notices of hearing were sent to the parties by email accordingly.

6The Appellant did not attend the TCC which concluded at 10:21 am on March 3, 2021. MPAC’s representative Blair Adams said the Appellant’s non-attendance was most likely because the notice of hearing had been sent to the Appellant by email, where previous correspondence had been sent to him by regular mail. The concern was that the Appellant had no notice of the TCC.

7As a result, the Board decided that the hearing should be rescheduled and that a notice of hearing for the next hearing should be sent to the Appellant by regular mail.

8In addition, the Appellant did not serve or file any documentation for this hearing as he had prior to the hearing that resulted in decision WR 155900. MPAC’s representative said that the Appellant had told him that he would rely on the same documentation as he had in the earlier hearing. However, the Appellant will need to serve and file any documentation upon which he intends to rely at least two weeks prior the next hearing to be scheduled. He cannot rely on the documentation from his previous hearing at this one.

9It is also noted that the Board’s docket for these appeals is in error because it was adjusted to reflect the decision in WR 155900, but not readjusted once that decision was cancelled. In addition, MPAC’s representative indicated that he would refer to a previous Board decision dated July 10, 2014 for the previous taxation cycle to explain the docket, which is also referred to at paragraph 24 of WR 155900. No record of that decision is in the Board’s file for these appeals. MPAC will therefore also be required to serve on the other parties and file with the Board a copy of that decision at least two weeks prior to the next hearing to be scheduled.

ORDER

10The Board orders that:

a. The hearing is to be rescheduled to a date, time and format to be indicated in new notices of hearing to be issued;

b. The Appellant shall serve MPAC and the Municipality, and file with the Board, a copy of any documentation upon which he intends to rely at the next hearing at least 14 days prior to the next hearing; and

c. MPAC shall serve the Appellant and the Municipality, and file with the Board, a copy the earlier decision of the Board referred to above dated July 10, 2014 relating to the Subject Property at least 14 days prior to the next hearing.

11I am not seized of this matter.