Miller v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 07, 2021 CanLII 95085

Tribunals Ontario

Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: September 28, 2021

FILE NO.: RR 20-060

Assessed Person(s): Paul Norman Miller and Tracey Lynn Sherry Miller

Appellant(s): Tracey Lynn Miller and Paul Miller

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 07

Respondent(s): Township of Minden Hills

Property Location(s): 1076 Clansman Drive

Municipality(ies): Township of Minden Hills

Roll Number(s): 4616-020-000-19300-000

Appeal Number(s): 3375255, 3411658, 3411659 and 3411660

Taxation Year(s): 2018, 2019 and 2020

Legislative Authority: Rules 104-105 of the Assessment Review Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure

Parties

Representative

Paul Norman Miller and Tracey Lynn Sherry Miller

Self-represented

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation

Submissions not received

Township of Minden Hills

Submissions not received

REQUEST FOR: Reinstatement of appeal(s) 3375255, 3411658, 3411659 and 3411660

HEARD: In writing

ADJUDICATOR(S): Vincent Stabile, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1Paul Norman Miller and Tracey Lynn Sherry Miller, (the “Requesters”), seek a reinstatement of the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) Decision 2823418 dated September 4, 2020 (the “Decision”) ”) dismissing appeals 3375255, 3411658, 3411659 and 3411660 and request an order to reinstate those appeals pursuant to Rule 104 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rule 122(b) of the Board’s former Rules effective April 1, 2017 and amended May, 2019 now Rule 104(b) effective April 1, 2021(the “Rules”) ).

Background

Issues for the Review

2The Requesters submit that they did not receive notice of the hearing, 730014 evidently set for April 14, 2020. Their appeals were dismissed for non-attendance at the hearing. They submit they did not attend the hearing through no fault of their own. This ground for request to reinstate is provided in the Board’s Rules, Rule 122(b) of the Board’s former Rules effective April 1, 2017 and amended May, 2019 now Rule 104(b) effective April 1, 2021.

3At issue in this proceeding is:

1. Did the appellant(s) fail to attend the hearing event through no fault of their own?

Result

4For reasons set out below, the Request for Reinstatement is granted.

5Appeals 3375255, 3411658, 3411659 and 3411660 are hereby reinstated. New notices for hearing to issue.

ANALYSIS

Issue 1 – Did the appellant(s) fail to attend the hearing event through no fault of their own?

6The appeals at issue were in respect to a residential property in the Township of Minden Hills (“Township”) for the 2018, 2019 and 2020 taxation years. The appeals were under sections 32 and 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (“Act”). The property address is 1076 Clansman Drive.

Requesters’ Submission

7The Requesters submit that they did not receive notice of the hearing.

8They submit that upon making inquiries with the Board and speaking with the Case Coordinator, they first learned that the appeals had been dismissed for non-attendance.

9In her Affidavit, sworn October 2, 2020, Tracey Lynn Miller explains that the mailing address for the notices was to have been P.O. Box 363 and not her (their) home address 1204 Winhara Road, Gravenhurst, Ontario.

10The notice had been sent to 1204 Winhara Road about two weeks prior to the hearing, scheduled for April 14, 2020. No letter had been received as of the date of the Affidavit.

11Ms. Miller further states that while speaking with the Case Coordinator she also learned, for the first time, of a change in process due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The process was changed to email due to issues of mail delivery.

12They state that they would have attended since they had initiated the proceedings at the Board.

13No submissions have been received either from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) or the Township.

Findings on Issue 1

14The Requesters are self-represented.

15From the Affidavit filed in support of this request it is clear that the Requesters do not reside at the property being the subject of the appeals. Their primary residential municipal address is different than the property under appeal.

16The Board accepts the Requesters’ submission that they do not receive mail at their municipal address. Rather, they receive mail at the P.O. Box 363.

17Under the circumstances, the Board is satisfied that the Requesters did not receive notice of the hearing 730014 set for April 14, 2020. As result they failed to attend through no fault of their own.

18The Board finds that the Requesters have met the test under Rule 104(b) of the Rules.

19Although not specifically pleaded, the Board finds that natural justice and procedural fairness require that the appeals be reinstated pursuant to Rule 104(c) of the Rules.

20Therefore, the Board finds that appeals 3375255, 3411658, 3411659 and 3411660 should be reinstated.

CONCLUSION

21The Board finds that the Requesters have met the requirement of Rules 104(b) and (c) effective April 1, 2021.

ORDER

22The Board orders that appeals 3375255, 3411658, 3411659 and 3411660 be reinstated without conditions.