Tribunals Ontario
Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario
Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: March 29, 2022
Assessed Persons: Dan Wilfrid John Buttenham and Anne Marie Buttenham
Appellants: Dan Wilfrid John Buttenham and Anne Marie Buttenham
Respondent: Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 15
Respondent: City of Burlington
Property Location: 2084 Courtland Drive
Municipality: City of Burlington
Roll Number: 2402-050-514-02600-0000
Appeal Number: 3462194
Taxation Year: 2021
Hearing Event No.: 762570
Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31
APPEARANCES:
Parties Dan Wilfrid John Buttenham and Anne Marie Buttenham
Representative Self-represented
Parties Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
Representative Raj Rakhra
Parties City of Burlington
Representative No one appeared
HEARD: March 8, 2022 by telephone conference call
ADJUDICATOR: Jean-Paul Pilon, Member
DECISION
OVERVIEW
1Dan Wilfrid John Buttenham and Anne Marie Buttenham (the “Appellants”) are the owners of a property at 2084 Courtland Drive in Burlington (“the Subject Property”).
2The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) returned an assessment of the Subject Property of $755,000 for the 2021 taxation year and the Appellants appealed that assessment. The Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) then held a hearing on March 8, 2022 and provided oral reasons for its decision at the conclusion of that hearing.
3On March 18, 2022, the Appellants requested written reasons for that decision, and those reasons follow.
Description of the Subject Property
4The Subject Property is a single-storey residential single-family dwelling with a total building area of 1,766 square feet (“sq. ft.”) and a lot area of 0.16 acres. It was built in 1955 and has an effective built date of 1990.
Issues for the Hearing
5At issue in this proceeding was:
- A determination of the current value of the Subject Property; and
- Whether there should be an equitable reduction in the current value of the Subject Property.
Result
6It was determined at the conclusion of the hearing that the returned assessment of $755,000 should be confirmed as the current value of the Subject Property and that there should be no equitable reduction.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE
7This proceeding was a summary proceeding that was assigned a Schedule of Events pursuant to Rule 39(b) of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”). That Schedule of Events required the parties to file all documents and written submissions upon which they intended to rely at the hearing on or before February 7, 2022.
8Only MPAC filed its documents in accordance with the Schedule of Events. At the hearing, Mr. Buttenham said that he had misunderstood the process and acknowledged that he had not filed the single document upon which he intended to rely at the hearing.
9Rule 40 provides that “the Board will not alter any due date set out in the Schedule of Events other than in exceptional circumstances,” and no such circumstances existed in this instance. However, MPAC’s representative, Raj Rakhra, did not oppose Mr. Buttenham’s request to extend time to file his document because it had been provided to MPAC prior to the hearing and Mr. Rakhra had reviewed it.
10The Board accepted the Mr. Buttenham’s document for filing despite the missed deadline in the Schedule of Events and the absence of exceptional circumstances pursuant to Rule 40. On a practical level, the Board noted that the document was brief and could be reviewed during a short break. The Board also took into account that MPAC had the opportunity to review this document prior to the hearing in concluding that its acceptance would not result in prejudice to any party to the appeal.
11More significantly, this document contained no new