Tribunals Ontario
Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario
Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: April 13, 2022
Assessed Person(s): Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Canada
Appellant(s): Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Canada
Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 15
Respondent(s): Town of Halton Hills
Property Location(s): 12250 Eighth Line, 22 Side Road, 22 Side Road, 13783-7 Highway and 13893-7 Highway
Municipality(ies): Town of Halton Hill
Roll Number(s): 2415-070-003-19900-0000, 2415-070-003-33600-0000, 2415-070-003-33700-0000, 2415-070-003-36500-0000 and 2415-070-003-36400-0000
Taxation Year(s): 2013-2021
Hearing Event No.: 760065
Legislative Authority: Section 40.1 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31
Parties
Counsel*/Representative
Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Canada
Alexander V. Manolii*
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
Brandy Pitz
Town of Halton Hills
No submissions received
REQUEST FOR: Extension of time to bring appeals
HEARD: February 23, 2022 in writing
ADJUDICATOR(S): Carly Stringer, Member
MOTION DECISION
OVERVIEW
1The Moving Party, Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Canada, brings this motion before the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) pursuant to s. 40.1(b) of the Assessment Act R.S.O. 1990, c.A.31 (the “Act”) for an extension of time for bringing assessment appeals for the 2013 to 2021 taxation years of the assessments of roll numbers listed in Attachment 1 hereto. The Moving Party argues that there are palpable errors in the assessment roll and the Board should extend the time for bringing appeals.
2The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) opposes the motion. MPAC says there are no palpable errors, and says that in any event, the Board should not exercise its discretion to extend time for the Moving Party to bring its appeals.
3The Town of Halton Hills has not submitted material on this motion.
Result
4For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that there are palpable errors in the assessment roll. The Board exercises its discretion to extend time for bringing appeals. The Board therefore grants the Moving Party’s motion.
BACKGROUND
5The Moving Party is the registered owner of a parcel of land identified by Property Identification Number (“PIN”) 25014-0081 in the Town of Halton Hills (the “Subject Property”). Despite being a single parcel of land, the Subject Property has been assessed as five separate parcels under five separate assessment roll numbers since at least as early as 1993, when the Moving Party assumed title to the land. MPAC sent the Moving Party separate Property Assessment Notices for all five assessment roll numbers for every taxation year that is at issue on this motion, 2013 to 2021.
6In 2020, the Moving Party submitted a Request for Reconsideration to MPAC in relation to one of the five roll numbers. MPAC analyzed the Moving Party’s Request for Reconsideration, and determined that title of the property identified by the five roll numbers had merged in law. MPAC communicated this information to the Moving Party, who brought this motion. The Moving Party only seeks relief in relation to the 2013 to 2021 taxation years.
ISSUES
7The Act has a framework that permits the Board to extend statutory deadlines for bringing assessment appeals. The applicable statutory framework is set out in subsection 40.1 of the Act:
40.1 Correction of errors. – If it appears that there are palpable errors in the assessment roll,
(a) if no alteration of assessed values or classification of land is involved, the Board may correct the roll; and
(b) if alteration of assessed values or classification of land is involved, the Board may extend the time for bringing the appeals and direct the assessment corporation to be the appellant.
8The error at issue in this motion is that the Subject Property was assessed as five separate parcels of land when it should have been consolidated into a single roll number with a single assessed value. Therefore, this motion involves alteration of the assessed value; s. 40(b) applies; and there are two issues the Board must determine:
Are there palpable errors in the assessment roll for the applicable taxation years?
If the answer to Issue 1 is “yes”, should the Board extend time for bringing appeals for the applicable taxation years?
ANALYSIS
Issue 1 - Are there palpable errors in the assessment roll for the applicable taxation years?
Applicable Law
9In determining whether a palpable error exists in the roll, the Board should first ask whether there is an error in the information reported on the assessment roll: Peel Condominium Corporation No. 408 v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 15, 2022 CanLII 3269 (ON ARB) (“Peel Condominium”) at paragraph 16. The classes of information to be included in the assessment roll are prescribed by s. 14(1) of the Act.
10The next step is to determine whether the error is palpable: Peel Condominium at paragraph 19. To be palpable, the error must be inadvertent and unintentional, as well as of conspicuous magnitude: plain, evident, and easy to understand: York Condominium Corporation No. 60 v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 09, 2019 CanLII 39632 (ON ARB) (“York Condominium”) at paragraphs 9 and 11. An error may be considered palpable when it is a factual error that is not subject to disagreement or differences of opinion, or subject to serious debate whether an error exists: see Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 09 v Chew, 2015 CanLII 78969 at paragraph 21. A palpable error is one “that mischaracterizes the fundamental nature or legal character of the property”: Hopper v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2016 CanLII 24421 (ON ARB) (“Hopper”) at paragraph 15. The Board may look at errors that are not on the face of the roll, including factual errors behind the roll and valuation errors: Janovjak v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 15, 2020 CanLII 24884 (ON ARB) (“Janovjak”) at paragraph 14.
Submissions
11The Moving Party submits that the five roll numbers can only be legally conveyed as a single parcel of land, and assigning five roll numbers to one parcel of land is plainly and obviously wrong. The Moving Party submits that when a single property is assigned five separate roll numbers, an incongruity exists between the assessment roll and the true legal description of the land, which constitutes a palpable error. The Moving Party submits this is supported by numerous decisions of the Board in situations analogous to this one.
12MPAC submits that there are no palpable errors in the assessment roll. MPAC submits that while the five parcels of land are owned by the Moving Party and are on the same PIN, determining whether adjacent parcels have merged in title requires a detailed property-specific legal and factual analysis. MPAC concedes that the Board has previously found that a palpable error in the assessment roll exists where MPAC has assigned multiple roll numbers to properties that could only be conveyed as one parcel of land. MPAC submits that these decisions ignore the fact that determining whether adjacent properties have merged in title requires a detailed, property-specific legal and factual analysis. MPAC submits that where, as in this case, the legal nature of a property requires a complicated factual and legal analysis, any errors cannot be plain, evidence, obvious, easy to understand, or palpable.
Findings on Issue 1
13The error at issue in this motion relates to the legal description of land, which information prescribed by s. 14(1)3 of the Act: “a description of each property sufficient to identify it.” The first part of the test is satisfied.
14There is no evidence that the error here, assigning five roll numbers to one legal parcel of land, was intentional. The error is a true unintentional error. Therefore, the only question that remains is whether the error at issue is palpable.
15The Board has held, in more than one case, that an “incongruity between the assessment roll and the legal description of land is a common basis for a finding that there is a palpable error”: Canadian Tire Corporation Limited v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 15, 2017 CanLII 3661 (ON ARB) (“Canadian Tire”) at paragraph 9; see also Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 05 v Scrymgeour, 2018 CanLII 102695 (ON ARB) (“Scrymgeour”) and Bleau v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 1 2019 CanLII 11625 (ON ARB) (“Bleau”) at paragraph 15, where the Board stated that “[a]ssigning two roll numbers to one parcel of land is plainly and obviously wrong.” The rationale for this is simple: “the assessment roll should reflect the legal description of land”: Scrymgeour, supra at paragraph 8.
16MPAC submits that the Board should deviate from this line of reasoning, arguing these decisions ignore the fact that determining whether properties have merged in title requires a detailed, property-specific legal and factual analysis.
17The Board does not accept MPAC’s submission that it should deviate from this line of reasoning. First, in Canadian Tire, supra and Scrymgeour, supra, MPAC agreed that assessing a single parcel of land under separate roll numbers is a palpable error on the face of the roll. It belies MPAC to now take a completely contrary position and suggest that the Board’s previous decisions ignored important information. Second, MPAC has not provided any persuasive case law supporting its view, while the preponderance of case law supports that the error at issue on this motion is a plain and obvious error in the legal description of land, which amounts to a palpable error. Third, the Board does not accept MPAC’s proposition that the error is not plain and obvious simply because there may be a legal and factual analysis required to determine whether parcels have merged in title. It is not unusual that the Board will be required to look at circumstances behind the roll to understand the error – in this instance, that five roll numbers were assigned to a single parcel of land. The obvious error is that the assessment roll does not match the legal description of the Subject Property.
18The evidence on this motion establishes that, at all material times, the Subject Property could only be conveyed as one parcel of land. It was only assigned one PIN. It was registered as one legal parcel pursuant to the Land Titles Act. There is no registered plan of subdivision. Yet, the Subject Property was assigned five roll numbers. This is a plain and obvious mischaracterization of the legal character of the property and is therefore a palpable error, as described in Canadian Tire, Bleau and Scrymgeour.
19The Board finds the errors in this instance related to information prescribed by s. 14(1) of the Act. The Board finds the errors were inadvertent, unintentional, plain, obvious and easy to understand. They are palpable errors.
Issue 2 - Should the Board extend time for bringing appeals for the applicable taxation years?
Applicable Law
20Section 40.1(b) of the Act provides that the Board “may” extend the time for bringing appeals where it appears that there are palpable errors in the assessment roll. Accordingly, the power to extend the time for bringing appeals to correct a palpable error is ultimately discretionary.
21In Peel Condominium Corporation No. 408 v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 15, 2022 CanLII 3269 (ON ARB) at paragraphs 27 to 47, the Board confirmed its approach to the exercise of its discretion under s. 40.1 of the Act. Namely, the Board must weigh the objective of correctness and integrity of the assessment roll, with the factors of timing, finality, and fairness, including prejudice to the parties.
Submissions
22The Moving Party submits that it is clearly prejudiced because it has been overpaying taxes for many years as a result of the palpable error. The Moving Party submits it is a registered charity and has a duty to donors and its charitable purposes to pursue this motion. The Moving Party submits there is no undue prejudice to MPAC, and the Town of Halton Hills has received significantly more tax money than it should have such that it will be inconvenienced but not prejudiced.
23MPAC submits that the Board should not exercise its discretion because this is not a clear case where it would be unreasonable, unfair and highly prejudicial to penalize the Moving Party for not meeting its statutory obligation to file an appeal in a timely way. MPAC submits that the Moving Party failed to take any steps to correct errors through the proper statutory remedies, despite having all of the information it needed to raise the issue of merger of title through timely Requests for Reconsideration or appeal. MPAC further submits that prejudice of paying taxes should not outweigh the owner’s failure to police its assessments and file a statutory appeal.
24In reply, the Moving Party states that it was not willfully blind to the palpable error, and as soon as it found out about the error, it acted reasonably and decisively to correct MPAC’s mistake. The Moving Party states that MPAC had all of the knowledge it needed to correct the palpable error, as evidenced by the fact that it eventually identified the error in 2020. The Moving Party also submits that since the Town of Halton Hills did not file a response on this motion and did not argue prejudice, there is no need to consider prejudice to the municipality.
Findings on Issue 2
25The Board takes the following considerations and factors into account:
a. There is a clear and palpable error on the assessment roll for the applicable taxation years. In Peel Condominium, the Board confirmed at paragraph 30 that “[w]hile one might argue that the integrity of the assessment roll should make the correction of errors an absolute requirement, this is not the case.” While correctness and integrity of the roll is at issue, which weighs in favour of the Board exercising its discretion to extend time, the Board must balance this with questions of timing, finality, and fairness: see Kensington Foundation v Municipal Property Assessment Corp, [2013] OJ No 5848, 2013 ONSC 7694, 236 ACWS (3d) 18, 20 MPLR (5th) 202, 79 OMBR 177, 2013 CarswellOnt 17768, 316 OAC 210 at paragraph 18; see also Peel Condominium at paragraphs 30-31.
b. With respect to timing and any delay in seeking to correct the error, it appears the error has existed in the roll since at least 1993. The Moving Party states that it learned of the error when MPAC provided it with notice during a Request for Reconsideration for the 2020 taxation year. The Moving Party has not explained why it did not identify the palpable error during the nearly 30 years that MPAC issued property assessments on five separate roll numbers for a single piece of property. There is no dispute from the Moving Party that it received five assessment notices for each taxation year in issue. The Moving Party undertook requests for reconsideration and appeals for some of its assessments in 1998, 1999 and 2014, but did not raise the issue of merger of title. While the Moving Party states that it relied on MPAC’s assurances following these requests for reconsideration/appeals that MPAC had reviewed the assessments and determined they were correct, the Board is not satisfied this is reasonable given that the Moving Party never raised merger in title with MPAC; that the Moving Party had all of the information it required to identify and address the merger in title issue; and that these requests for reconsideration/appeal only pertained to a handful of the assessments at issue over three taxation years, two of which were not within the 2013 to 2021 time period at issue on this motion. Ultimately, the Moving Party simply did not identify or otherwise seek to correct the error in question during its previous requests for review/appeals. The Board is not satisfied with the Moving Party’s explanation for its failure to discover and address the error in a timely way. In all of the circumstances, the Board finds that timing and delay weigh against exercising its discretion to extend time.
c. In terms of finality and fairness, including prejudice, neither MPAC nor the Town of Halton Hills have provided evidence regarding prejudice. In contrast, the Moving Party has provided evidence that it has overpaid in property taxes relating to the overassessment by roughly $80,000 during the nine taxation years in question. The Moving Party has also provided evidence that it is a charity. In these circumstances, the Board finds that finality and fairness, including prejudice, weighs in favour of exercising discretion to extend time to bring an appeal.
26In all the circumstances of this case, fairness including prejudice to the Moving Party weighs in favour of exercising discretion, while timing and delay weigh against. While palpable errors that result in higher taxes are always prejudicial to the taxpayers (see York Condominium at paragraph 22; Bleau at paragraph 19), the Board is satisfied there is evidence of significant financial prejudice to the Moving Party, which is a charitable organization. Given that there is no evidence of prejudice to any other party, and weighing all other factors, the Board exercises its discretion to grant an extension of time to bring appeals.
CONCLUSION
27The Board finds that there are palpable errors in the assessment roll for the 2013 to 2021 taxation years. Weighing the appropriate factors, the Board exercises its discretion to grant an extension of time to bring appeals.
ORDER
28The Board grants the motion. The Board extends the time for filing appeals for the Subject Property for the 2013 to 2021 taxation years; directs that MPAC be the appellant; and directs that appeals be created for the 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021 taxation years for the Subject Property.
"Carly Stringer"
CARLY STRINGER
MEMBER
Assessment Review Board
Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb
Attachment 1
Roll Number 2415-070-003-19900-0000 - 12250 Eighth Line, Halton Hills
Roll Number 2415-070-003-33600-0000 - 22 Side Road S/S Halton Hills
Roll Number 2415-070-003-33700-0000 - 22 Side Road S/S Halton Hills
Roll Number 2415-070-003-36500-0000 - 13783 7 Highway, Halton Hills
Roll Number 2415-070-003-36400-0000 - 13893 7 Highway, Halton Hills