Georges Pharand v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 28 and Municipality of West Nippising, 2021 CanLII 56422

Tribunals Ontario

Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

June 24, 2021

FILE NO.:

DM 2021M09

Assessed Person(s):

Georges Pharand

Appellant(s):

Georges Pharand

Respondent(s):

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 28

Respondent(s):

Municipality of West Nippising

Property Location(s):

WC3-1 Caldwell PT Island C3 W

Municipality(ies):

Municipality of West Nippising

Roll Number(s):

4852-060-001-00500-0000

Taxation Year(s):

2020

Hearing Event No.:

743171

Legislative Authority:

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

Parties

Representative

Georges Pharand

Self-represented

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation

Justin Johnstone

Municipality of West Nippising

No one appeared

REQUEST FOR:

Late Appeal(s)

HEARD:

April 28, 2021 in writing

ADJUDICATOR(S):

Joanne Laws, Member

MOTION DECISION

OVERVIEW

1This is a motion to file a late appeal pursuant to Rule 26 of the Assessment Review Board’s (“Board”) Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”). The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) opposed the motion. The municipality of West Nippising did not respond to the motion.

Result

2The appellant Georges Pharand (the “Moving Party”) has satisfied the Board that Rule 26(a) has been satisfied.

3Accordingly, the Board orders that an appeal be created for the Subject Property for the 2020 taxation year in accordance with s. 40.(1) of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (“Act”) and that a deemed appeal for the 2021 taxation year be created in accordance with s. 40.(26) of the Act.

Background

4The Moving Party is the owner of a property known as WC3-1 Caldwell PT Island C3 W located in the municipality of West Nippising. He is seeking permission to file a late appeal for the 2020 taxation year pursuant to Rule 26 of the Rules.

5The Property Assessment Notice for the 2020 taxation year was issued on November 21, 2019 and the Moving Party filed a Request for Reconsideration (“RfR”) before the deadline of March 31, 2020.

6On June 30, 2020 MPAC issued its response to the Moving Party’s RfR with a deadline of September 28, 2020 (see s. 40(5).1 of the Act. Act.

7In an affidavit dated December 1, 2020 the Moving Party affirms he mailed an appeal on September 21, 2020. The Board’s records show that the appeal was received on October 14, 2020. Rule 32 deems a document sent by mail to be served on the Board “on the fifth day after the postmark date, not including holidays”.

8The Moving Party argues that the Board’s receipt of the appeal may have been affected by delays of otherwise normal activities including Canada Post processes due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

9The Moving Party states that he contacted both MPAC and this Board on October 6, 2020 to follow up on the appeal and was advised by this Board that the appeal was not received.

10On December 1, 2020 he filed this motion for a late appeal.

11MPAC takes no issue with the above dates except the September 21, 2020 mailing date. MPAC argues it has no proof that the appeal was mailed on that date, has no way of confirming or denying if the appeal was mailed on September 21, 2020 or if a delay occurred that hindered the appeal from arriving on time.

12MPAC asks that the motion to file a late appeal be denied.

ISSUES

13Rule 26 sets out the Board’s authority to accept a late appeal if the Moving Party satisfies the requirements of either Rule 26(a) or (b). Therefore, the issues are:

i. Rule 26(a): Has the Moving Party satisfied the Board that the appeal was sent within the time set out in the Act?

ii. Rule 26(b): If the answer to (a) is no, is the appellant a person entitled to receive a notice of assessment who did not receive a notice and filed the appeal with the Board within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment or classification that is the subject of the appeal?

ANALYSIS

Issue [13] (i)Has the Moving Party satisfied the Board that he meets the requirements of Rule 26(a)?

14MPAC issued its RfR decision on June 30, 2020. The Act requires the Moving Party to submit the appeal to the Board within 90 days of the issue date.

15The Moving Party affirmed he mailed the appeal to this Board on September 21, 2020. No other evidence was submitted by the Parties on this point.

16The Board accepts the Moving Party’s affidavit evidence that the appeal was mailed to this Board on September 21, 2020.

CONCLUSION

17The Moving Party satisfies the criteria for this Board to accept an appeal in accordance with s. 40(5) of the Act.

18Because the Moving Party has satisfied the requirements for filing an appeal with this Board, an analysis for a late appeal pursuant to Rule 26(b) is not required.

ORDER

19The Board orders that an appeal be created for the Subject Property for the 2020 taxation year in accordance with s. 40.(1) of the Act and that a deemed appeal for the 2021 taxation year be created in accordance with s. 40.(26) of the Act.