Tribunals Ontario

Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: November 07, 2022

FILE NO.: DM 179794A

AMENDED MOTION DECISION ISSUED: December 19, 2022

Assessed Person(s): Riverside South Development Corporation

Appellant(s): City of Ottawa

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 03

Respondent(s): Riverside South Development Corporation

Property Location(s): Spratt Road

Municipality(ies): City of Ottawa

Roll Number(s): 0614-600-020-12400-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3494655 and 3494656 (formerly 3415558 and 3439638)

Taxation Year(s): 2020 and 2021

Hearing Event No.: 768664

Legislative Authority: Rule 24 of the Assessment Review Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure

Parties	Counsel*/Representative
Riverside South Development Corporation	Paula Kalogritsas
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation	Mohammad El-Dali
City of Ottawa	Jennifer Pereira* and Angela Severson*

REQUEST FOR: Dismissal of Appeals

HEARD: June 20, 2022 in writing

ADJUDICATOR(S): Dirk VanderBent, Vice-Chair

AMENDED MOTION DECISION

AMENDED MOTION DECISION

In accordance with Rule 99 of the Assessment Review Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, effective April 1 2021, related to the correction of minor errors and in accordance with Rule 21.1 of the Statutory Powers and Procedure Act regarding the correction of errors, this Amended Motion Decision is issued to correct error(s) in the Motion Decision by removing reference to the 2022 taxation year which was not subject to the minutes of settlement. The amendments have been underlined for ease of reference. There are no other changes in this Amended Motion Decision

OVERVIEW

1The property owner, Riverside South Development Corporation (the “Owner”) has brought a motion to dismiss the appeals by the City of Ottawa (the “City”) because it alleges that the City failed to obtain the required municipal council ratification of the filing of the appeals and, alternatively, that the Board not accept Minutes of Settlement entered into by the City and the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”). For the reasons that follow, the motion is dismissed.

Background and Chronology

2The City has filed an appeal with the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) pursuant to s. 40 of the Assessment Act, S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”) for the 2020 taxation year (the “original appeal”), respecting the property located at Spratt Road in the City of Ottawa, (assessment Roll No. 0614-600-020-12400-0000) (the “Subject Property”). The ground of the City’s appeal is that the assessment made by MPAC of the current value of the Subject Property is too low. The assessed person, i.e. the property owner, is Riverside South Development Corporation.

3The valuation day for the general reassessment of current value for the 2020 taxation year is January 1, 2016. Section 19.2(5) of the Act also authorizes the Minister of Finance to prescribe a valuation day that is different from the valuation day set out in s. 19.2(1). Pursuant to s. 48.6 of O. Reg. 282/98, the Minister of Finance has set January 1, 2016 as the valuation day for the 2021 taxation year. Therefore, there is a deemed appeal, pursuant to s. 40(26) of the Act, for the 2021 taxation year.

4Pursuant to s. 40(9) of the Act, when someone files an appeal respecting the assessment of another person’s property, that person must deliver or mail a copy of the notice of appeal to the property owner, by the last day for filing an appeal as set out in s. 40 of the Act. In this case, it is not disputed that, on March 23, 2020, the City mailed its Notice of Appeal to the Owner in accordance with the requirements of this section. The Owner does not assert that it did not receive this mailed document.

5In accordance with the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”), the Board set a Commencement Date for this appeal proceeding of March 15, 2021, designating that this appeal would be heard by general proceeding. Under the associated Schedule of Events for this appeal proceeding, the City, as the Appellant, was required to serve its Statement of Issues on the responding parties (in this case, MPAC and the Owner) by August 9, 2021. It is not disputed that, on July 31, 2021, the City mailed its Statement of Issues to the Owner via Express Post. The Owner does not assert that it did not receive this document.

6The Schedule of Events also required the responding parties, MPAC and the Owner, to serve their Responses by January 31, 2022. It is not disputed that the Owner did not do so.

7As is explained in greater detail below, the Owner had retained a legal representative named Ryan Paralegal Professional Corporation (“RYAN Paralegal”) to act on its behalf. As the Owner did not forward the Notice of Appeal or the Statement of Issues to RYAN Paralegal, RYAN Paralegal was not aware of the appeal proceeding. The City and MPAC maintain that they were unaware that RYAN Paralegal had been retained to act as the Owner’s legal representative.

8Rule 60 provides:

Deemed No Opposition to Settlement

60. A party that does not serve a Statement of Response on or before the day set out in the Schedule of Events is deemed not to oppose any future settlement in that proceeding.

9The City and MPAC then proceeded to negotiate a resolution of the appeal. MPAC prepared draft Minutes of Settlement, which it sent to the City’s legal representative by email on April 8, 2022. Even though the Owner did not file a Statement of Response, the City’s legal representative arranged for a copy of the draft Minutes of Settlement to be mailed to the Owner.

10On April 21, 2022, Brian Merkel, on behalf of RYAN Paralegal, emailed the City’s legal representative to advise that RYAN Paralegal was the Owner’s legal representative. Further emails ensued regarding this matter. However, on the same day, via email to the Board copied to all other parties, the City’s legal representative filed the Minutes of Settlement for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years which had been signed by the City and MPAC.

11The Board issued decisions on May 6, 2022 in accordance with the Minutes of Settlement. The Owner then submitted a request to proceed with its Motion, which the Board granted. As the decisions had already been issued, the Board cancelled them, pending the disposition of this Motion.

The Owner’s Motion

12The Owner has brought a motion requesting:

1. An order of the Board, pursuant to Rule 24 dismissing the City’s appeal proceeding, for want of jurisdiction, because:

a) the City’s staff failed to retroactively ratify, within a reasonable time, the appeal filed on behalf the City; or

b) the City’s staff failed to report to the relevant Standing Committee, a condition on delegated power to file assessment appeals codified in City of Ottawa By-law No. 2209-29.

2. In the alternative, an order of the Board dismissing the Minutes of Settlement and amending the Schedule of Events to allow the Owner to file a Statement of Response and participate fully in the appeal proceeding.

13Regarding Request 1(b), the Owner’s reference to the applicable By-law number is incorrect, which is discussed in greater detail below. Regarding Request 2, in order to be successful on its alternative request, the Owner must establish that there are exceptional circumstances for extending the due date in the Schedule of Events, in accordance with Rule 40 of the Board’s Rules.

RESULT

14The Motion is denied. The Board’s Registrar is directed to issue decisions in accordance with the terms set out in the Minutes of Settlement for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years.

ISSUES

15The issues to be addressed in this Motion Decision are:

1. Should the Board dismiss the City’s appeal proceeding on the ground that the City’s staff failed to retroactively ratify, within a reasonable time, the original appeal filed on behalf of the City?

2. Has the Owner established that there are exceptional circumstances which would warrant extending the due date in the Schedule of Events to allow the Owner to file a Statement of Response?

16While the Board has considered all the parties’ submissions in detail, for purposes of this Motion Decision, the Board provides a synopsis of only the most probative submissions. As MPAC’s submissions effectively mirrored the City’s submissions, their submissions are summarized together.

ANALYSIS and Findings

Issue 1: Should the Board dismiss the City’s appeal proceeding on the ground that the City’s staff failed to retroactively ratify, within a reasonable time, the original appeal filed on behalf the City?

Submissions

Owner’s Submissions

17The Owner cites a decision of the Ontario Divisional Court in East York (Borough) v Ontario (Assessment Review Board), [1995] OJ No 321, 79 OAC 311, 26 MPLR (2d) 36, 53 ACWS (3d) 430, 31 OMBR 426, which considered a previous iteration of the current Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, (the “Municipal Act, 2001”) noting that the Divisional Court found that the power to file assessment appeals could be done prior to a by-law being passed; however, the assessment appeal must be ratified by City Council within a reasonable time. The Owner then provides submissions regarding the factors to be considered when determining whether the ratification has occurred within a reasonable amount of time. The Owner submits that the onus falls on the City to establish that ratification has occurred within a reasonable amount of time, and the Owner maintains that the City has failed to provide any documentation showing that the City’s appeal has been ratified.

City and MPAC Submissions

18The City states that the case law raised by the Owner respecting the ratification of appeals relates to a more limited delegation power provided in a former version of the current Municipal Act, 2001, (i.e. the Municipal Act, 1990) which is no longer in force. The City observes that s. 23.1 of the current Municipal Act, (amended in 2006), provides a broad general delegation power that allows the municipality to delegate its powers “under any Act” to staff designated in a Delegation of Authority By-law, in which the municipality may specify any conditions it considers appropriate. The City further confirms that the applicable by-law is its Delegating of Authority By-law 2019-280 that was enacted in 2019. The City explains that, pursuant to this By-law, the City Council properly delegated authority to the City’s finance department to file assessment appeals with the Board, imposing the condition that this department report back to the Finance and Economic Development Committee. The City relies on evidence it filed in this Motion, which confirms that, in this case, the report back occurred on October 6, 2020.

Findings on Issue 1

19Rule 24 states:

Dismissal of a Proceeding

24. The Board may dismiss a proceeding without holding a hearing, or after a hearing, if:

(a) the Board is satisfied that it is without jurisdiction to hear the appeal;

(b) the Board is of the opinion that the proceeding is frivolous or vexatious, is commenced in bad faith or only for the purpose of delay;

(c) the Board is of the opinion that the reasons set out in the appeal do not disclose any apparent statutory ground on which the Board can make a decision;

(d) the appellant has not responded to a request by the Board for further information within the time specified by the Board;

(e) the appellant has not complied with the statutory requirements or these Rules; or

(f) the appellant has abandoned the appeal.

20Section 23.1 of the Municipal Act, 2001 states:

DELEGATION OF POWERS AND DUTIES

General power to delegate

23.1 (1) Without limiting sections 9, 10 and 11, those sections authorize a municipality to delegate its powers and duties under this or any other Act to a person or body subject to the restrictions set out in this Part.

Scope of power

(2) The following rules apply to a by-law delegating any of the municipality’s powers or duties:

1. A delegation may be revoked at any time without notice unless the delegation by-law specifically limits the municipality’s power to revoke the delegation.

2. A delegation shall not limit the right to revoke the delegation beyond the term of the council which made the delegation.

3. A delegation may provide that only the delegate can exercise the delegated power or that both the municipality and the delegate can exercise the power.

4. A delegation or deemed delegation under paragraph 6 of a duty results in the duty being a joint duty of the municipality and the delegate.

5. A delegation may be made subject to such conditions and limits as the council of a municipality considers appropriate.

6. Where a power is delegated, the power is deemed to be delegated subject to any limits on the power and to any procedural requirements, including conditions, approvals and appeals which apply to the power and any duties related to the power are deemed to be delegated with the power.

Same

(3) The conditions and limits referred to in paragraph 5 of subsection (2) may include such matters as the following:

1. A requirement that the delegate act by by-law, resolution or otherwise, despite subsection 5 (3).

2. Procedures that the delegate is required to follow.

3. The accountability of the delegate and the transparency of the delegate’s actions and decisions.

21The Board observes that the Owner did not file a reply to the City’s submissions. The Board has reviewed the City’s submissions and finds that they accurately reflect the legislative regime governing the delegation of authority to file assessment appeals on the City’s behalf, this regime being governed by s. 23.1 of the Municipal Act 2001 and By-Law 2019-280. Therefore, the Board does not accept the Owner’s submission that the City was required to ratify the filing of the 2020 appeal. Furthermore, the evidence confirms that the condition imposed by By-Law 2019-280 to authorize the filing of the City’s 2020 appeal has also been satisfied. Accordingly, the Board does not accept the Owner’s submission that the Board should dismiss the City’s appeals on the basis that the City did not ratify the filing of the 2020 appeal within a reasonable time.

Issue 2: Has the Owner established that there are exceptional circumstances which would warrant extending the due date in the Schedule of Events to allow the Owner to file a Statement of Response?

Test to be applied

22Rule 40 states:

Extension of Schedule of Events Due Dates

40. After the Commencement Day set out in Rule 39 as the start of a proceeding, the Board will not alter any due date set out in the Schedule of Events other than in exceptional circumstances.

Submissions

Owner’s Submissions

23The Owner submits that, although the City’s Affidavit of Service of the Notice of Appeal was allegedly served in March 2020, the City’s Affidavit of Service was not sworn/affirmed until late June 2020 and relates to several properties. Therefore, the Owner questions the accuracy of the Affidavit of Service.

24The Owner emphasizes that the City’s Notice of Appeal was sent via mail at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, and like many businesses, the Owner had no staff in its office for several months and after that, only had employees in the office one day a week. The Owner further states that “On top of the significant, borderline absurd, amount of mail received by [the Owner] from MPAC and [the City], it is not surprising that [the Owner] did not notice the Appeal immediately in the midst of a pandemic.”

25The Owner points out that, since 2012, RYAN Paralegal has acted as the Owner’s legal representative in numerous assessment appeals, including appeals of the Subject Property. Therefore, the Owner submits that MPAC and City were aware of this fact, or ought to have been aware, stating that: “For a reason yet to be explained, [the City] and MPAC opted to exclude [the Owner] from the appeals and attempt to deal with [the Owner] directly.” The Owner further submits that “Given the lack of response from [the Owner] when faced with a significant increase in value, MPAC and [the City] ought to have reached out to [the Owner] to ensure there was no prejudice and that the correct value is placed on the roll.”

26The Owner emphasizes that the City proceeded to request that the Board process the Minutes of Settlement even after RYAN Paralegal became aware of the appeals. The Owner submits that the City is relying on the Board’s Rules to thwart the rules of natural justice and such conduct must not be permitted. The Owner further submits that there is no prejudice to the City, nor MPAC, if the Owner is permitted to serve a Statement of Response and participate in ensuring the correct value is placed on the Assessment Roll, noting that, there will be significant prejudice to the Owner if it is not permitted to do so.

27The Owner cites a decision of the Ontario Divisional Court in Municipal Property Assessment Corporation v Zarichansky, 2020 ONSC 1124 (“Zarichansky”), submitting this decision confirms that the Board has an obligation to ensure the correct value is place on the Assessment Roll. In this regard, the Owner refers to paragraphs 38 to 43 of this decision. The Owner further maintains that its interpretation of the finding in Zarichansky has recently been confirmed in a Review decision of the Board in Pathak v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 15, 2022 CanLII 9920, (ON ARB) where the Reviewing Member stated, at paragraph 38, that Zarichansky “underlined the Board’s obligation to determine correct current value pursuant to section 44(3) of the Act.” The Owner submits that the Board has an obligation to determine the correct current value, and cannot meet this obligation if it does not have the Owner’s submissions and evidence respecting the current value.

28The Owner further submits that even if procedural rules have not been strictly followed, this Board has put its obligation to ensure the correct value is shown on the assessment roll, above the strict application of the Rules, citing a decision of the Board in Levitt v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 09, 2022 CanLII 28257 (ON ARB) (“Levitt”). However, the Owner does not cite a specific paragraph in this decision.

City and MPAC Submissions

29Uncontradicted affidavit evidence adduced in this Motion Hearing confirms that, in addition to the Notice of its Appeal, the City served its Statement of Issues on the Owner by mailing them to the Owner by the due date in the Schedule of Events. The City also mailed a Notice of Higher Assessment at the same time. Accordingly, the City submits that the Owner had actual notice of the appeal proceeding. MPAC served its Statement of Response on the City but, as discussed below, the evidence is not entirely clear whether MPAC served the Owner.

30The City submits that the Owner either chose willingly, or through its own negligence, not to respond to the City’s representatives or actively participate in the appeal proceeding, noting that the Owner admits that it incorrectly believed that RYAN Paralegal had been copied on the City’s appeal materials.

31The City states that it obtained the mailing address for service on the Property Owner from the assessment roll and that its legal representative was not aware of any representative for the Property Owner. The City further states that it had no knowledge of any private retainers between the Property Owner and RYAN Paralegal to participate in the 2020 and 2021 appeals.

32The City emphasizes that its disclosure of information and service of documents were appropriately directed to the Owner as required by the Act and the Rules. In this regard the City refers to s. 53(1)(c) of the Act which states:

Disclosure of information

53 (1) A person employed by the assessment corporation, a municipality or a school board is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $2,000, or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both if, …

(c) the person wilfully discloses the information or permits it to be disclosed to any person who is not entitled in the course of their duties to acquire or have access to the information.

33The City emphasizes that, pursuant to this section, the City cannot disclose information to anyone other than the Owner, unless it receives an authorization to do so from the Owner. The City further observes that RYAN Paralegal only provided such authorization (more specifically, confirmation of its retainer to act as the Owner’s legal representative) on May 19, 2022 after the appeal proceeding had been concluded.

34MPAC maintains that it mailed a copy of its Statement of Response to the Owner by the applicable due date in the Schedule of Events. However, the Board notes that the affidavit evidence on which MPAC relies in support of this submission only refers to an email that MPAC sent to the City, attaching its Statement of Response. This email does not refer to the Owner. However, the Board also observes that the Owner did not file a reply in this Motion Hearing disputing MPAC's statement that it mailed a copy of its Statement of Response to the Owner.

35Both the City and MPAC submit that they had no knowledge that RYAN Paralegal had been retained until May 19, 2022. They submit that there is no legal obligation requiring MPAC or the City to serve appeal documents on third parties, asserting that the onus is on the Owner to make arrangements for receipt and forwarding of its mail to any representative the Owner elects to retain. In this regard, the City submits that the Owner is a sophisticated entity with multiple employees with knowledge and experience in assessment and taxation of property. The City also emphasizes that the Owner has not provided any evidence of its internal mail management procedures.

36The City and MPAC submit that the Property Owner was given notice of this appeal in accordance with the Rules and a fair opportunity to advance its case. The City argues that the Property Owner cannot decide retroactively that it would like to participate in the appeal process when it is unhappy with the outcome.

37Regarding the issue of prejudice, the City argues that the Owner should not be allowed the benefit of re-litigating an appeal where the Owner chose not to participate in the original process. The City maintains that it would be prejudiced if it is forced to expend limited resources to re-litigate an appeal that has been properly disposed of by the Board.

Findings on Issue 2

38The Owner’s submissions raise three questions:

a) Is the Board required to place its obligation to ensure that the correct value is shown on the assessment roll, above a strict application of the Rules?

b) Were the City and MPAC required to serve RYAN Paralegal in the circumstances of this case?

c) Does the impact of the COVID-19 related office closure constitute an exceptional circumstance that would warrant extending the Schedule of Events due date to allow the Owner to file a Statement of Response?

The Board will address each question in turn.

Is the Board required to place its obligation to ensure the correct value is shown on the assessment roll, above a strict application of the Rules?

39The Board begins by observing that the Act does not provide the Board with the authority to initiate its own determination of current value. The Act provides that MPAC has the sole jurisdiction to assess the current value of a property. The Board can only exercise jurisdiction to address correct current value in an appeal proceeding instituted pursuant to s. 40 of the Act. As noted by the Ontario Divisional Court in Municipal Property Assessment Corporation v. Claireville Holdings Limited, 2022 ONSC 3293, the Board must consider the context in which disputes come before the Board (see paragraph 22). In a s. 40 appeal where a hearing is held, the Board’s function is to resolve a dispute among the statutory parties respecting current value. Therefore, the statements made in Zarichansky and Levitt must be read in this context.

40Section 40 appeal proceedings are governed by the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S. 22 (“SPPA”). The Board notes that s. 25.1 of the SPPA provides that the Board may make rules governing the practice and procedure before it. Rule 60 states:

Deemed No Opposition to Settlement

60. A party that does not serve a Statement of Response on or before the day set out in the Schedule of Events is deemed not to oppose any future settlement in that proceeding.

41In support of its submissions the City has cited Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 09 v Toronto (City), 2020 CanLII 103262 (ON ARB) (“Toronto (City)”) where the Board stated at paragraph 38:

While the Board acknowledges the importance of the principle that a party has a right to be heard, this does not give a party the right to decide when it will participate in a proceeding. The Owner has been given a fair opportunity to advance its case by providing its SOR, with full knowledge of the consequences specified in the Board’s Rules for failing to comply with the Board’s process.

42MPAC also cites 10198447 Canada Inc. v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region No. 3, 2022 CanLII 3379 (ON ARB) (“10198447 Canada Inc.”) a Review decision of the Board where the Board similarly found that the application of Rule 60 does not result in a breach of procedural fairness where a party, who receives notice of an appeal proceeding, fails to file a Statement of Response by the applicable due date set out in the Schedule of Events.

43The Board also observes that, in Amazon.com v. The City of Brampton, 2022 ONSC 297, the Ontario Divisional Court addresses the issue of compliance with the Board’s Rules. At paragraph 70, the Court stated:

The Board’s current Rules demonstrate that the Board expects timelines to be complied with. For example, Rule 40 states that after the Commencement Date is set, “the Board will not alter any due date set out in the Schedule of Events other than in exceptional circumstances.” Rule 48 states that documents may only be admitted “if properly served and filed with the Board in accordance with the Rules, unless the Board determines there are exceptional circumstances.” Rule 49 states that no new issues may be raised unless there are exceptional circumstances.

44Based on the above analysis, the Board does not accept that the requirement to determine correct current value following a hearing indicates that the Board can or should decline to apply its Rules that address the consequences of a party’s failure to participate in a proceeding as required by the Rules.

Were the City and MPAC required to serve RYAN Paralegal in the circumstances of this case?

45It is not disputed that, prior to April 21, 2022, neither MPAC nor the City received any notice from the Owner that RYAN Paralegal was acting as the Owner’s legal representative. The Owner has submitted that, because RYAN Paralegal has acted as its legal representative in past appeal proceedings respecting the Subject Property, this indicates that MPAC and the City ought to have known that RYAN Paralegal was acting as legal representative in this appeal proceeding. The Board does not accept this submission. As observed in 10198447 Canada Inc., appeal proceedings are adversarial in nature, and, in this context, a party is not expected to assist another party in managing its case (see paragraph 63). Furthermore, the Board notes that the Rules do not require that a party must ascertain whether another party has retained a representative. If the Owner had retained a representative for the purpose of this appeal, the Owner ought to have forwarded the appeal documents to its chosen representative.

Does the impact of the COVID-19 related office closure constitute an exceptional circumstance that would warrant extending the Schedule of Events due date to allow the Owner to file a Statement of Response?

46The Board first observes that the Owner does not dispute that both the Notice of Appeal and the City’s Statement of Issues were mailed to the Owner at the correct address, nor does the Owner indicate that these mailings were not received.

47Regarding any disruption in office management caused by the COVID-19 emergency measures, the Board notes that, although the City’s appeal for the 2020 taxation year was mailed to the Owner on March 23, 2020, the Board subsequently assigned March 15, 2021 as the Commencement Date for this appeal proceeding of, a full year after the COVID-19 disruptions which occurred in 2020. Furthermore, the Board notes that the City’s Statement of Issues was mailed to the Owner on July 31, 2021, so this document could not have been potentially overlooked due to any office management disruption which occurred in 2020.

48Consequently, the Board does not accept that any office management disruptions which may have occurred early in 2020, could lead to a conclusion that the Owner would have been unaware of the City’s appeal proceeding. For this reason, the Board does not accept that this constitutes an exceptional circumstance within the meaning of Rule 40. As the Owner has not alleged that any other exceptional circumstances exist, the Board finds that there are no exceptional circumstances to warrant altering the due date for filing a Statement of Response in this appeal proceeding.

CONCLUSION

49In summary, the Owner has not established any ground to dismiss the appeal, and the Board has found that there are no exceptional circumstances to warrant altering the due date for filing a Statement of Response in this appeal proceeding. Consequently, the Owner’s motion is dismissed.

50Rule 60 provides that, where a responding party does not file a Statement of Response, that party is deemed not to oppose any future settlement in the appeal proceeding. MPAC and the City have entered into Minutes of Settlement settling all issues raised in this appeal proceeding. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 63, the Board may proceed to issue a decision in this appeal proceeding in accordance with these Minutes of Settlement.

51In closing, while this is an unfortunate turn of events for the Owner, parties to all Board appeals must recognize that the Board must process tens of thousands of appeals within a four-year assessment cycle. To ensure that all appeals are efficiently heard on a timely basis, strict adherence to the Board’s Rules is required.

ORDER

52The Board orders that:

1. The Owner’s motion is dismissed.

2. The Board’s Registrar is directed to accept the Minutes of Settlement filed by the City and to issue decisions in accordance with the provisions of these Minutes of Settlement for the 2020 and 2021 taxation years.

"Dirk VanderBent"

DIRK VANDERBENT

VICE-CHAIR

Assessment Review Board

Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb