Rosegate Developments Inc. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 15, 2021 CanLII 37107

Tribunals Ontario

Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: April 26, 2021

FILE NO.: DM 2021M07

Assessed Person(s): Rosegate Developments Inc.

Appellant(s): Rosegate Developments Inc.

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 15

Respondent(s): City of Mississauga

Property Location(s): Aventura Court

Municipality(ies): City of Mississauga

Roll Number(s): 2105-040-117-07720-0000

Taxation Year(s): 2020

Hearing Event No.: 743064

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

Parties	Counsel/Representative*
Rosegate Developments Inc.	Sandeep Girdhar
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation	Marissa Cheddi
City of Mississauga	Robert Ryan*

REQUEST FOR: Late Appeal

HEARD: April 6, 2021 in writing

ADJUDICATOR(S): Joanne Laws, Member

MOTION DECISION

OVERVIEW

1The Moving Party, Rosegate Developments Inc. has brought this motion to file a late appeal for the 2020 taxation year pursuant to Rule 26(b) of the Assessment Review Board’s (the “Board”) Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules). The motion is in relation to Roll Number 2105-050-117-07720 (the Subject Property”), located on Aventura Court in the City of Mississauga (the “City”). Both the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) and the City oppose the motion for a late appeal.

Result

2For the reasons outlined below, the Motion is denied.

Background

3The Moving Party submitted the statutory declaration of Sandeep Girdhar, Director of Rosegate Developments (2007) Inc. dated December 10, 2020. Mr. Girdhar declared he is entitled to receive a notice of assessment and that he did not receive MPAC’s Amended Notice of Property Assessment (the “notice”) amending the Subject Property’s classification, effective January 1, 2020, from “Commercial Taxable: Farmland Awaiting Development Phase 1” to “Commercial Taxable; Vacant Land”. Mr. Girdhar submitted a copy of the notice which is dated March 2, 2020. He further declared that he was made aware of the notice only after calling MPAC’s office on November 10^th, 2020. In a subsequent letter dated February 17, 2021 Mr. Girdhar corrected the contact date to October 22, 2020.

4Mr. Girdhar also referenced that because he received the notice late, he had missed the deadline to make a request for reconsideration.

5Both MPAC and the City made written responses to this motion.

6The two issues on this motion are:

1. Whether a request for reconsideration is a prerequisite to an appeal for the Subject Property.

2. If a request for reconsideration is not a prerequisite, has the Moving Party satisfied the Board it should accept a late appeal pursuant to Rule 26(b).

ANALYSIS

Issue 1 – Is a Request for Reconsideration a Prerequisite to an Appeal?

7In a letter dated February 17, 2021 The Moving Party stated the Subject Property “has been farmed and designated as Farm tax class for many years now”. This statement was not provided in affidavit form as required by Rule 26 nor did the City or MPAC address this issue in its reply statements.

8A request for reconsideration is a prerequisite to filing certain appeals with this Board including properties in the farm property class. Section 19(5) provides the requirements for a property to quality as farm lands in the farm property class. However, s. 45(1) of Ontario Regulation 282/98 provides that s.19(5) of the Assessment Act R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act’) does not apply to “land included in a plan for subdivision registered under the Land Titles Act or the Registry Act”. Lands assessed as Commercial Taxable: Farmland Awaiting Development Phase 1 fall within this definition.

9Accordingly, a request for reconsideration is not a prerequisite to filing an appeal with this Board.

Issue 2 - Has the Moving Party satisfied the Board that it meets the requirements of Rule 26(b)?

10Rule 26(b) sets out the Board’s authority to accept a late appeal. It provides that the Board may accept an appeal received after the time set in the Act only if the appellant satisfies the Board by way of affidavit evidence that:

1. that the moving party is a person entitled to receive a notice of assessment

2. that the moving party did not receive the notice of assessment and

3. that the moving party filed the appeal with the Board within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment or classification that is the subject of the appeal.

Entitled to Notice

11The first requirement is not in dispute.

Did not receive Notice

12Both MPAC and the City note that the notice was sent to the Moving Party’s correct mailing address. However, neither Party explicitly disputed that the Moving Party did not receive the notice. Accordingly, the second requirement is not in dispute.

Timely Motion

13MPAC submits it issued the notice on March 2, 2020 and the Moving Party submits it did not become aware of that notice until October 22, 2020.

14The notice was addressed to Rosegate Developments (2007) Inc. at 2263 Rosegate Drive, Mississauga, Ontario, L5M 5A6. MPAC and the City argue that this is the correct mailing address for the owner of the Subject Property. The Moving Party did not comment or respond to this point in its Statutory Declaration or other communications to this Board.

15Both MPAC and the City argue that the motion cannot succeed because the period between becoming aware of the notice and filing a motion with the Board is 49 days (March 2, 2020 to December 10, 2020) which exceed the 30 days as set out in Rule 26(b).

16In reply to MPAC and the City’s argument the Moving Party filed no affidavit evidence but acknowledged it had not met the 30-day time limit.

17The wording of Rule 26(b) provides that all three tests must be met; the Moving Party was entitled to receive the notice of assessment, did not receive the notice and filed a motion for a late appeal within 30 days of “becoming aware of the assessment or classification”. The third test has not been met.

CONCLUSION

18The Moving Party has not met all three requirements of Rule 26(b) to file a late appeal for the 2020 taxation year.

ORDER

19The motion to file a late appeal is denied.