Tribunals Ontario
Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario
Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: October 08, 2021
FILE NO.: RD 21-024
Assessed Person(s): Ed Seguin & Sons Trucking & Paving Ltd.
Appellant(s): Ed Seguin & Sons Trucking & Paving Ltd.
Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 28
Respondent(s): The Municipality of West Nipissing
Property Location(s): 106 Bay Street
Municipality(ies): The Municipality of West Nipissing
Roll Number(s): 4852-010-005-00920-0000
Appeal Number(s): 3068937, 3093206, 3160212, 3384777 and 3410785
Taxation Year(s): 2014, 2015, 2016, 2019 and 2020
Legislative Authority: Rules 101-103 of the Assessment Review Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure
| Parties | Representative |
|---|---|
| Ed Seguin & Sons Trucking & Paving Ltd. | Gerald A. Rouleau |
| Municipal Property Assessment Corporation | Submissions not received |
| The Municipality of West Nipissing | Submissions not received |
REQUEST FOR: A review of the Board’s Decision WR 169142 issued on March 25, 2021
HEARD: In writing
ADJUDICATOR(S): Vincent Stabile, Member
DECISION
OVERVIEW
1Ed Seguin & Sons Trucking & Paving Ltd., (the “Requester”), requests a review of the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) Decision WR 169142 by Vice-Chair King issued March 25, 2021 (the “Decision”).
Background
Issues for the Review
2The Requester submits that the Board “violated the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness, including allegations of bias”. This ground for review is provided in Rule 121(a) of the Board’s former Rules of Practice and Procedure effective April 1, 2017 and amended May, 2019 now Rule 102 (a) effective April 1, 2021 (“Rules”).
3It is noted that the phrase “including allegation of bias” is not found in either of the Rules. However, the phrase is found in the ‘Request for Review of a Board Decision or Order form (“request form”) provided by the Board to be completed and submitted by the Requester.
4At issue in this request is:
- Did the Board violate the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness, including allegations of bias?
Result
5For reasons set out below, the Request for Review is denied.
ANALYSIS
Issue 1 – Did the Board violate the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness, including allegations of bias?
6The request form is the initial document filed for submitting a request for review. The form appears to have been completed and filed by the representative, Gerald A. Rouleau (“Mr. Rouleau”).
7Part 5 of the form sets out the Order requested and the reasons for the request. Part 7 contains a specific checklist of documents required, fees to be paid and directions as to service of the form and documents.
8Of critical importance of documents required is a “sworn affidavit stating the facts relied upon in support of your request”. (emphasis added)
9No affidavit has been filed, either by the Requester or the representative.
10On consent of the parties at the Settlement Conference, the hearing was set as a Video Conference hearing on March 1, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. The results of the Settlement Conference and directions relating to the hearing were set out in the Case Management Report and Order, DM 167096, issued on November 23, 2020 (the “CMRO”).
11The witness list and schedule for the hearing indicates that Mr. Rouleau intended to cross-examine Micheal Denley, the witness for the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”), for 30 minutes. Further, that Claude Seguin was expected to give evidence for the Appellant (Requester).
12Neither Mr. Seguin nor Mr. Rouleau attended the hearing. MPAC’s advocate and witness attended and were ready to proceed.
13At the hearing Vice-Chair King conferred with MPAC’s representatives that the link to join the video conference was working properly and confirmed the Appellant’s representative’s email. After waiting a reasonable period of 20 minutes, the appeals were dismissed.
14The decision arises from a request for written reasons for dismissing the appeals at the hearing. The decision (WR 169142) is the subject of this request for review.
15In her clear and cogent reasons, Vice-Chair King sets out in detail the various notices sent to the Requester and representative relative to the hearing and found that “the Appellant had a reasonable opportunity to participate in the hearing”.
[1