Nader Akhbari v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 16, 2022 CanLII 23461

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

ISSUE DATE: March 22, 2022

FILE NO.: DM 2022M08

Assessed Person: Nader Akhbari

Appellant: Nader Akhbari

Respondent: Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 16

Respondent: City of Barrie

Property Location: Tiffin Street

Municipality: City of Barrie

Roll Number: 4342-040-017-30400-0000

Taxation Years: 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020

Hearing Event No.: 762968

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

Parties	Representative
Nader Akhbari	Self-represented
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation	Charmaine Siddle
City of Barrie	Submissions not received

REQUEST FOR: Late Appeals

HEARD: March 21, 2022 in writing

ADJUDICATOR: Jean-Paul Pilon, Member

MOTION DECISION

OVERVIEW

1Nader Akhbari (the “Moving Party”) filed a motion requesting that the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) accept late appeals for the 2017 to 2020 taxation years for a property known as Tiffin Street Con 14 Pt Lot 5 in the City of Barrie, after the time set out in the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”). This motion was filed pursuant to Rule 26(b) of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”).

Result

2The Moving Party has not satisfied the requirements of Rule 26(b). His motion is therefore denied.

Material Filed

Moving Party

3In support of the motion, the Moving Party filed his affidavit affirmed on August 16, 2021. In that affidavit, the Moving Party wrote only the following: that “the land is located mostly in conservation area (sic)”, that “the property taxes must be adjusted for only one third of the land”, and that the Moving Party “was not aware of it until the planners found in 2020 (late)(sic).”

4The Moving Party filed additional documentation in support of the motion. This included an undated Expedited Board Directions Form requesting that taxes be reduced for the 2017 to 2020 taxation years “as there is approximately (5.2 acres) of total non-useable wetland”, a Special Tax Class Form requesting eligibility for the Conservation Land Tax Incentive Program, sketches, photographs, a Municipal Act application/appeal apportionment form, and email correspondence with the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) and the City of Barrie which did not participate in this motion.

5None of this material filed by the Moving Party was relevant to this motion brought pursuant to Rule 26(b).

MPAC

6MPAC relied on the affidavit of its employee Darren Manuel sworn on March 4, 2022. Mr. Manuel wrote that the land in question is vacant industrial land. He added that a Property Assessment Notice (“PAN”) for the 2017 to 2020 taxation years was sent to the Moving Party and another person with the same surname on October 16, 2016 at an address in North York, Ontario, the same address that was provided to the Board.

7Mr. Manuel’s affidavit indicated that the Moving Party filed an appeal for the 2019 taxation year on May 5, 2020, but that this appeal was rejected by the Board because the Moving Party had not first filed a Request for Reconsideration (“RfR”). While the Board did give that reason for rejecting the 2019 appeal, it could not have been correct because an RfR would not have been a precondition to filing an appeal for property in the industrial property class pursuant to section 40(3) of the Act. I am now told that the actual reason that appeal was rejected was because the appeal was filed late, on May 5, 2020, when it would have been due on March 31, 2019 pursuant to section 40(6) of the Act.

8In its written argument in this motion, MPAC wrote that the Moving Party was informed on May 31, 2021 that his 2019 appeal had been administratively closed on March 22, 2021. The Moving Party filed this motion in August, 2021.

The Board’s Records

9The Board’s records indicate that it acknowledged receipt of the Moving Party’s request for a late appeal on August 11, 2021 in a letter dated August 16, 2021 which quoted Rule 26(b). It also told the Moving Party that he needed to file an affidavit to support his motion.

10In further correspondence dated February 3, 2022 after receiving the Moving Party’s affidavit, the Board set this motion and required the Moving Party to serve and file his motion material, inclusive of any evidence, on or before February 17, 2022. It gave MPAC until March 4, 2022 to serve and file its motion material, and allowed the Moving Party to reply on or before March 9, 2022. No reply was filed by the Moving Party.

ANALYSIS

11This motion was filed pursuant to Rule 26(b). In essence, Rule 26(b) provides that the Board may accept a late appeal if: “the appellant satisfied the Board, by way of affidavit evidence that … (1) the appellant is a person entitled to receive notice of the assessment (2) who did not receive notice, and (3) filed the appeal with the Board within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment (numbering added).”

12The use of the word “and” between the second and third requirements above means that all three requirements need to be met for an appellant to succeed in such a motion. This was confirmed in Cherry Beach Sailing Clubs v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 09, 2018 CanLII 107727 (ON ARB) at para. 8 where the Board determined that relief could only be granted in such a motion if all three requirements are met.

13Although the Moving Party filed an affidavit, it contained none of the information required by Rule 26(b). Specifically, the Board was provided with no information from the Moving Party as to whether he is a person entitled to receive a notice of assessment who did not receive notice and whether the appeal was filed within 30 days of his becoming aware of the notice. As noted earlier, these are the mandatory requirements of Rule 26(b) for the Board to accept a late appeal.

14The Board’s correspondence dated August 16, 2021 quoted Rule 26(b) verbatim and was clear as to what information the affidavit had to include, yet the Moving Party’s affidavit of the same date contained none of that information. Moreover, no further affidavit evidence was submitted in support of the motion prior to the Moving Party’s filing deadline of February 17, 2022 or the reply deadline of March 9, 2022.

15As a result, this motion cannot succeed and is therefore denied.

CONCLUSION

16The Board finds that the Moving Party has failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Rule 26(b). As a result, the Board is not satisfied that it can accept any late appeal from the Moving Party for any of the 2017 to 2020 taxation years.

ORDER

17The Board orders that this motion is denied.