Tribunals Ontario
Assessment Review Board
ISSUE DATE: April 13, 2022
FILE NO.: DM 2022M05
Assessed Person(s): Evridiki (Nick) Kazas
Appellant(s): Evridiki (Nick) Kazas
Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 09
Respondent(s): City of Toronto
Property Location(s): 24 Greenview Avenue
Municipality(ies): City of Toronto
Roll Number(s): 1908-073-030-01700-0000
Taxation Year(s): 2017 and 2018
Hearing Event No.: 761776
Legislative Authority: Section 40.1 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Representative |
|---|---|
| Evridiki (Nick) Kazas | Self-represented |
| Municipal Property Assessment Corporation | Kailey Langille |
| City of Toronto | Submissions not 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, Evridiki (Nick) Kazas, brings this motion before the Assessment Review Board (the "Board") pursuant to s. 40.1 of the Assessment Act R.S.O. 1990, c.A.31 (the "Act") for an extension of time for bringing assessment appeals for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years relating to 24 Greenview Avenue in the City of Toronto (the "Subject Property"). The Moving Party argues that there are palpable errors in the assessment roll and that the Board should extend the time for bringing appeals.
2The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation ("MPAC") consents to the relief requested in relation to the 2017 taxation year. MPAC takes no position on the relief requested for the 2018 taxation year.
3The City of Toronto has not submitted material on this motion.
Result
4The Board finds that there are palpable errors in the assessment roll. The Board will exercise its discretion to extend time for bringing appeals for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.
BACKGROUND
5The Moving Party is the owner of the Subject Property.
6On June 6, 2016, MPAC issued a Property Assessment Notice to the Moving Party in relation to the Subject Property for the 2017 to 2020 taxation years (the "2016 Notice"). The 2016 Notice contained the following information:
a. The assessed value of the Subject Property (as of the January 1, 2016 valuation day) is $885,000; and
b. The Subject Property is classified in the Residential property class.
7On December 5, 2016, pursuant to section 32(1) of the Act, MPAC issued an Amended Property Assessment Notice ("2016 Amended Notice") to the Moving Party for the 2017 to 2020 taxation years. The 2016 Amended Notice included the following information:
a. The assessed value of the Subject Property (as of the January 1, 2016 valuation day) is $1,653,000; and
b. The Subject Property is classified in the Multi-Residential property class.
8MPAC provided evidence that it amended the assessed value and property class in the 2016 Amended Notice because it mistakenly believed the Subject Property was part of a proposed development along with neighbouring properties at 26 and 28 Greenview Avenue. In the 2016 Amended Notice, MPAC valued the Subject Property as development lands in the Multi-Residential property class.
9On October 26, 2017, MPAC conducted an exterior inspection of the Subject Property and confirmed there was a single-family detached home on the Subject Property. MPAC determined Subject Property should have remained in the Residential property class.
10On November 15, 2017, MPAC issued a Property Assessment Notice ("2017 Notice") to the Moving Party relating to the Subject Property for the 2018 to 2020 taxation years. The 2017 Notice included the following information:
a. The assessed value of the Subject Property (as of the January 1, 2016 valuation day) is $1,653,000;
b. The Subject Property is classified in the Residential property class.
11Therefore, in the 2017 Notice, MPAC correctly classified the Subject Property in the Residential property class, but did not adjust the assessed value. Therefore, for the 2018, 2019 and 2020 taxation years, MPAC assessed the Subject Property at the development land value of $1,653,000.
12On December 19, 2019, MPAC conducted a review and determined that the land at the Subject Property was incorrectly valued as development land.
13On November 17, 2020, MPAC issued a Property Assessment Notice ("2020 Notice") to the Moving Party for the 2021 taxation year. The 2020 Notice included the following information:
a. The assessed value of the Subject Property (as of the January 1, 2016 valuation day) is $896,000; and
b. The Subject Property is classified in the Residential property class.
14The Moving Party identified the errors in March 2021, and promptly contacted MPAC to see what could be done.
15The Moving Party was able to obtain relief in relation to the 2019 and 2020 taxation years by successfully applying to the City of Toronto for cancellation, reduction or refund of taxes pursuant to s. 325 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sched A.
16The City of Toronto could not provide relief reaching further back than two years. Further, the deadlines had expired for the Moving Party to bring appeals under the Act for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years. Accordingly, the Moving Party brought this motion before the Board seeking an extension of time to bring appeals for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.
ISSUES
17The 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.
18The Moving Party disputes the assessed value and the property classification. Therefore, s. 40.1(b) applies and there are two issues the Board must determine on this motion:
Are there palpable errors in the assessment roll for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years?
If the answer to Issue 1 is "yes", should the Board extend time for bringing appeals for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years?
ANALYSIS
Issue 1 - Are there palpable errors in the assessment roll for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years?
Applicable Law
19In 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.
20The 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. 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
21The Moving Party has not provided explicit submissions on this question. However, the Board infers from his material that the Moving Party submits that there are palpable errors in the roll.
22MPAC concedes there is a palpable error in relation to the 2017 taxation year, but makes no submissions in relation to the 2018 taxation year.
23Neither party has provided the Board with case law to assist in its determination of this issue.
Findings on Issue 1
24There are two alleged errors. The Board will address each in turn.
25First, in the 2017 taxation year, the Subject Property was erroneously classified on the assessment roll as being in the Multi-Residential property class when it should have been classified in the Residential property class (the "Property Classification Error"). The Board finds this is an error in relation to the classification of land, prescribed at s. 14(1)8 of the Act. The Board finds this is an error on the face of the roll that is plain, obvious and easy to understand. It is a factually incorrect property classification. The dwelling at the Subject Property is a single family detached residence and the classification error would be obvious to anyone inspecting the Subject Property. Indeed, as soon as MPAC inspected the Subject Property in 2017, it caught the mistake and corrected the property classification to Residential in the 2017 Notice. The Board therefore finds the Property Classification Error is a palpable error on the roll for the 2017 taxation year.
26Second, for both the 2017 and 2018 taxation years, the Subject Property was erroneously valued as if it were development lands, rather than a residential property (the "Valuation Error"). This is an error in the current value of the land in accordance with s. 14(1)5 of the Act. This is a factual error in the circumstances behind the roll, rather than an error on the face of the roll itself. This error represents a mischaracterization of the fundamental nature of the Subject Property - that it was development lands slated for multi-residential development rather than a residential property. The Board finds this error is plain and obvious and amounts to a palpable error in the roll for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.
27Accordingly, the Board finds there are palpable errors in the assessment roll for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.
Issue 2 - Should the Board extend time for bringing appeals for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years?
Applicable Law
28Section 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 palpable errors is ultimately discretionary.
29In 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 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
30The Moving Party has not provided explicit submissions on this issue. However, the Board infers from his material that the Moving Party submits that the Board should exercise its discretion and grant an extension of time for him to bring appeals.
31MPAC concedes to the relief requested for the 2017 taxation year, but makes no submissions in relation to the 2018 taxation year.
32Neither party has provided the Board with case law to assist in its determination of this issue.
Findings on Issue 2
33The 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, supra at paragraphs 30-31.
b. With respect to timing and any delay in seeking to correct the error, the Moving Party provided evidence that he reviewed his mother's property taxes in late February 2021 and discovered errors in the assessments of the Subject Property. The Board infers from this evidence that the Moving Party's mother pays the property taxes for the Subject Property although the Moving Party is the assessed owner. The Moving Party provided evidence that his mother is a senior citizen with a reading disability, and she did not notice higher taxes being withdrawn from her bank account during the relevant time. The Moving Party provided evidence that he promptly connected with MPAC on March 1, 2021 to make inquiries, and MPAC explained the Property Classification Error and Valuation Errors. MPAC provided evidence that it issued several Property Assessment Notices to the Moving Party over the years in question. These notices were addressed to the Moving Party directly and not his mother. The Moving Party provided no evidence in relation to his receipt of or understanding of these various Property Assessment Notices over the years. The Moving Party took no steps to initiate requests for reconsideration or otherwise appeal any of the Property Assessment Notices sent directly to him over the years. While the Moving Party's mother may be a senior citizen with a reading disability who did not notice higher taxes being withdrawn from her bank account, these facts do not explain why the Moving Party did not identify the error earlier given that he was issued various Property Assessment Notices during the relevant years. In these circumstances, the Board finds that timing and delay in bringing the appeals weighs against exercising its discretion extend time.
c. In terms of finality and fairness, neither MPAC nor the City of Toronto have made submissions on this point, nor have they provided evidence regarding prejudice. In contrast, the Moving Party has provided information that the property taxes for the Subject Property almost doubled due to MPAC's error. The Moving Party has provided further evidence that this situation has created financial hardship. In the circumstances, the Board finds that finality and fairness, including prejudice, weigh in favour of exercising discretion to extend time to bring an appeal.
34In all the circumstances of this case, fairness including prejudice to the Moving Party weighs in favour of exercising discretion, while timing and delay in bringing the appeals weighs against. While palpable errors that result in higher taxes are always prejudicial to taxpayers (see York Condominium at paragraph 22), the Board is satisfied that there is evidence of significant prejudice in the form of financial hardship. 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
35The Board finds that there are palpable errors in the assessment roll for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years and, weighing the appropriate factors, exercises its discretion to grant an extension of time to bring appeals pursuant to s. 40(b) of the Act.
ORDER
36The Board orders that the Moving Party's motion is granted. The Board extends the time for filing appeals for the Subject Property for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years; directs that MPAC be the appellant; and directs that appeals be created for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years for the Subject Property.
"Carly Stringer"
CARLY STRINGER MEMBER Assessment Review Board
Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb