1939572 Ontario Inc. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 18, 2021 CanLII 69891

Tribunals Ontario Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario Assessment Review Board Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: July 28, 2021

FILE NO.: DM 2021M11

Assessed Person(s): 1939572 Ontario Inc.

Appellant(s): 1939572 Ontario Inc.

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 18

Respondent(s): City of Niagara Falls

Property Location(s): 4796-4800 Victoria Avenue

Municipality(ies): City of Niagara Falls

Roll Number(s): 2725-010-004-13800-0000

Taxation Year(s): 2020

Hearing Event No.: 745064

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

Parties	Representative
1939572 Ontario Inc.	Jonathan Bozanich
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation	Michael Radan and Nakita Ramjeawan
City of Niagara Falls	Submissions not received

REQUEST FOR: Late Appeal(s)

HEARD: June 14, 2021 in writing

ADJUDICATOR(S): Joanne Laws, Member

MOTION DECISION

OVERVIEW

1Jonathan Bozanich, Director of 1939572 Ontario Inc. (the “Moving Party”), is seeking permission from the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) to file a late appeal for the 2020 taxation year pursuant to Rule 26 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”). The property subject to this motion is 4796-4800 Victoria Avenue, Niagara Falls.

2The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) opposes the motion for a late appeal.

3The City of Niagara Falls did not respond to the motion.

Result

4For the reasons outlined below, the motion to file a late appeal for the 2020 taxation year is allowed.

The Evidence

5The Moving Party purchased the property in November 2015.

6Mr. Bozanich filed an affidavit sworn on March 3, 2021. His affidavit evidence is that MPAC issued a number of assessment notices for his property after the purchase date. The notices, copies of which were included with his affidavit, relevant to the 2020 taxation year are:

a. On October 18, 2016, for the 2017 to 2020 taxation years, MPAC issued a Property Assessment Notice (“PAN”) with an assessed value of $245,000. The PAN was sent to 3734 Cardinal Drive, Niagara Falls, which was Mr. Bozanich’s mailing address at that time.

b. On November 28, 2016, for the 2017 to 2020 taxation years, MPAC issued an Amended PAN with an assessed value of $245,000. The Amended PAN was sent to the prior owner Iqbal H. Nasser at 44 King Street West, 25th Floor, Toronto.

c. On November 15, 2019, for the 2020 taxation year, MPAC issued a PAN to the Moving Party at 3734 Cardinal Drive, Niagara Falls which was Mr. Bozanich’s mailing address at that time. The PAN included the following comment: “MPAC’s updated value of your property is $622,000.” The deadline to appeal this assessment was March 31, 2020.

7Mr. Bozanich’s affidavit evidence is that he did not receive the amended PAN, nor, and more importantly, the PAN issued by MPAC on November 15, 2019. His affidavit evidence is that he was not aware of the change in assessed value from $245,000 to $622,000 until he contacted MPAC on February 17, 2021.

8The Moving Party’s request to make a late appeal was received by this Board on March 9, 2021.

9MPAC filed the affidavit of Brittany Allen, a Senior Management Analyst for MPAC, affirmed on May 19, 2021. She affirmed that MPAC issued the October 18, 2016 and November 15, 2019 PANs and included copies of both PANs with her affidavit.

ISSUES

10Has the Moving Party satisfied the Board that it meets the requirements of Rule 26(b)?

ANALYSIS

Rule 26(b)

11Rule 26(b) of the Board’s Rules sets out the Board’s authority to accept a late appeal. It provides that:

26. The Board may accept an appeal received after the time set out in the Assessment Act only if the appellant satisfies the Board, by way of affidavit evidence, that:

(b) the appellant is a person entitled to receive a notice of assessment who did not receive 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.

Entitled to Receive Notice

12There is no dispute that the Moving Party is a person entitled to receive a notice of assessment. Therefore, the first test of Rule 26(b) has been met.

Did not Receive Notice

13Mr. Bozanich does not dispute the mailing address for the November 15, 2019 PAN. His affidavit evidence is that the Moving Party did not receive the PAN and that its first knowledge of the assessment that would be the subject of the appeal was February 17, 2021.

14Regarding the November 15, 2019 PAN, Ms. Allen’s affidavit evidence is that the “mailing address on the PAN indicates 3734 Cardinal Dr, Niagara Falls ON L2H 2W2.”

15MPAC submitted two separate responses arguing that the Moving Party has not met the second test set out in Rule 26(b) for a late appeal. The first was submitted by Michael Radan and the second was submitted by Nakita Ramjeawan.

16Both argued that the Moving Party would have no issues in receiving the November 15, 2019 PAN because MPAC used the same mailing address as the October 18, 2016 PAN which was received by the Moving Party. Based on this argument MPAC concluded that the Moving Party does not meet the second requirement of Rule 26(b).

17There is no evidence that the mailing address used by MPAC for the November 15, 2019 PAN was incorrect. The evidence is that the Moving Party did not receive the PAN. The Board disagrees with MPAC’s argument that sending a notice to a correct address would result in its receipt. Based on the evidence submitted, the Board finds that the Moving Party did not receive the November 15, 2019 PAN and, therefore, the second test of Rule 26(b) has been met.

Filed within 30 Days of Becoming Aware of the Assessment

18The Moving Party’s affidavit evidence is that Mr. Bozanich complied with the third test of Rule 26(b) because it made a request to file a late appeal within the 30 day requirement of Rule 26(b). Mr. Bozanich’s evidence is that he became aware of the $622,000 assessment on February 17, 2021. The Board received the Moving Party’s request to file an appeal on March 9, 2021.

19Mr. Radan argued that the Moving Party did not meet the third test, citing May 3, 2021 as the notice of motion date. The Board notes that May 3, 2021 is the date the Moving Party filed its motion material which met the required submission dates set out in the Board’s April 22, 2021 letter to the Parties.

20Based on the evidence submitted, the Board finds that the Moving Party filed its request for a late appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment or classification that would be the subject of the appeal and, therefore, has met the third test of Rule 26(b).

CONCLUSION

21The Moving Party has met all of the requirements of Rule 26(b) and its request to file a late appeal for the 2020 taxation year is granted.

ORDER

22The motion to file a late appeal for the 2020 taxation year is granted.