Tribunals Ontario

Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: September 28, 2021

FILE NO.: RR 21-002

Assessed Person(s): Soneil Kipling Inc.

Appellant(s): Soneil Kipling Inc.

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 09

Respondent(s): City of Toronto

Property Location(s): 2687 Kipling Avenue

Municipality(ies): City of Toronto

Roll Number(s): 1919-043-210-09800-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3110163 and 3148017

Taxation Year(s): 2015 and 2016

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

Parties	Representative
Soneil Kipling Inc.	Sam Shah
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation	Submissions not received
City of Toronto	Submissions not received

REQUEST FOR: Reinstatement of appeal(s) 3110163 and 3148017

HEARD: In writing

ADJUDICATOR(S): Vincent Stabile, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1Soneil Kipling Inc., (the “Requester”), seeks a review of the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) Decision 2829892 dated December 11, 2020 (the “Decision”) dismissing appeals 3110163 and 3148017 for non-attendance at a Settlement Conference. The Requester requests an order to reinstate those appeals so that an accepted Offer to Settle from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) may be formalized.

Background

Issues for the Review

2The Requester submits that it did not receive notice of the hearing, 735766, a Settlement Conference set for November 02, 2020. The appeals were dismissed for non-attendance at the hearing. The Requester submits that it did not attend the hearing through no fault of its own. This ground for request to reinstate is provided in Rule 122(b) of the Board’s former Rules of Practice and Procedure effective April 1, 2017 and amended May, 2019 now Rule 104(b) effective April 1, 2021 (“Rules”).

Result

3For reasons set out below, the Request for Reinstatement is granted.

4Appeals 3110163 and 3148017 are hereby reinstated. Executed Minutes of Settlement (“MOS”) are to be filed with the Board within 97 days from the release of this decision pursuant to Rule 61 of the Rules.

5Failure to file the MOS as stipulated, the appeals shall be considered dismissed by the Board pursuant to Rule 64 of the Rules.

ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Did Soneil fail to attend the hearing event through no fault of its own?

6The appeals at issue were in respect to a non-residential property in the City of Toronto (“Toronto”) for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years. The appeals were under section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31. The property address is 2687 Kipling Avenue.

Requester’s Submission

7An Affidavit by Sam Shah, sworn February 25, 2021, was filed in support of this request.

8Mr. Shah states that he was the Property Manager for Soneil Kipling Inc. (“Soneil”) and also had authority to deal with assessment appeals for Soneil.

9Mr. Shah submits that due to COVID-19 restrictions the office was closed, and he was working from home at the relevant time.

10Further, Mr. Shah states that he did not have access to the office business system. As a result, he failed to attend the Settlement Conference set for November 02, 2020.

11The record is clear that Mr. Shah was discussing settlement with MPAC. In evidence, there is a letter dated October 23, 2020, from MPAC to Soneil / Mr. Shah in response to the Statement of Issues (“SOI”) filed by or on behalf of Soneil.

12The letter from MPAC sets out a written Offer to Settle at $7,795,000 as at January 1, 2012, the valuation date.

13Mr. Shah accepted the Offer to Settle of $7,795,000 on behalf of Soneil, both in his Affidavit as well as in the Expedited Board Direction Form (“EBDF”) filed with the Board on December 23, 2020.

14The Requester requests an order from the Board reinstating the appeals to enable Soneil to formalize the accepted Offer to Settle.

15Submissions were requested from MPAC and Toronto in respect to this request. Both responded stating they take no position.

Findings on Issue 1

16The Board accepts the Requester’s submission that it did not receive the notice and did not attend at the Settlement Conference through no fault of its own.

17The Board finds that the Requester was engaged in settlement discussions with MPAC and therefore intended to pursue the appeals.

18The Board further finds that the Requester has accepted a written Offer to Settle from MPAC.

19The Board finds that the Requester has met the test under Rule 104(b) of the Rules.

20Although 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 to facilitate MOS to be filed with the Board within 97 days from the release of this decision pursuant to Rule 61 of the Rules.

21Failure to file the MOS within the time stipulated above, the appeals shall be considered dismissed by the Board pursuant to Rule 64.

22Therefore, the Board finds that appeals 3110163 and 3148017 should be reinstated.

CONCLUSION

23The Board finds that Requester has met the requirement of Rule 104 (b) and (c) effective April 1, 2021.

ORDER

24The Board orders that appeals 3110163 and 3148017 be reinstated with the specific conditions set out in paragraphs 20 and 21 above.