1033291 Ontario Inc. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 19, 2022 CanLII 3263

Tribunals Ontario

Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: January 20, 2022

FILE NO.: DM 2022M03

Assessed Person: 1033291 Ontario Inc.

Appellant: 1033291 Ontario Inc.

Respondent: Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 19

Respondent: City of Hamilton

Property Location: 559 James Street North

Municipality: City of Hamilton

Roll Number: 2518-020-111-01210-0000

Taxation Year: 2021

Hearing Event No.: 761865

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

Parties	Representative
1033291 Ontario Inc.	Edward Robert Fisher
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation	Jorden Gaiser
City of Hamilton	No one appeared

REQUEST FOR: Late Appeal

HEARD: January 17, 2022 in writing

ADJUDICATOR: Jean-Paul Pilon, Member

MOTION DECISION

OVERVIEW

1Edward Robert Fisher is the President of 1033291 Ontario Inc. (the “Moving Party”) which, in turn, owns a property at 559 James Street North in Hamilton.

2Mr. Fisher brought this motion on behalf of the Moving Party requesting that the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) accept the Moving Party’s appeal for the 2021 taxation year 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

3For the reasons that follow, this motion is granted.

Factual Background

4The deadline to file an appeal in this instance was March 31, 2021 as set out in section 40(6) of the Act.

5The single affidavit before the Board in this motion was Mr. Fisher’s affidavit sworn on July 9, 2021.

6Mr. Fisher’s affidavit included three statements:

a. that he did not receive a notice of assessment sent by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) in November 2020;

b. that he only became aware of the change in classification set out in the notice of assessment when he received a tax bill from the City of Hamilton, which did not participate in this motion; and,

c. that he contacted MPAC as soon as he discovered the change in classification, and that it provided him with a copy of the notice of assessment in question on June 14, 2021.

ANALYSIS

7This motion was filed pursuant to Rule 26(b). In essence, Rule 26(b) provides that the Board may accept a late appeal if: “(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).”

8All three requirements need to be met for an appellant (more accurately, a potential appellant) to succeed in such a motion.

Issue 1 – Was the Moving Party a person entitled to receive a notice of assessment for the 2021 taxation year?

9The Moving Party owns the Subject Property and Mr. Fisher owns the Moving Party. Both were entitled to receive a notice of assessment for the Subject Property.

Finding on Issue 1

10The Board finds that the Moving Party met the first requirement of Rule 26(b).

Issue 2 – Did the Moving Party receive a notice of assessment?

11Mr. Fisher stated in his affidavit that he did not receive the notice of assessment.

Finding on Issue 2

12The Board finds that the Moving Party met the second requirement of Rule 26(b).

Issue 3 – Did the Moving Party file the appeal with the Board within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment?

13Mr. Fisher stated in his affidavit that “as soon as” he became aware of the contents of the notice of assessment, he contacted MPAC and received a copy of the notice on June 14, 2021. He filed his appeal with the Board on July 9, 2021, the same day his affidavit was sworn.

14Mr. Fisher’s affidavit was not precise as to the date he became aware of the assessment through receipt of the tax bill. However, MPAC, which did not oppose the motion, read the affidavit to mean that Mr. Fisher became aware of the assessment on June 14, 2021. The Board finds that this must have been because Mr. Fisher said that he contacted MPAC as soon as he received the tax bill and was forwarded the notice of assessment the same day.

15Mr. Fisher could have been clearer on the point in his affidavit, particularly when it recited Rule 26(b) verbatim. However, in these circumstances, the Board accepts that Mr. Fisher became aware of the assessment on June 14, 2021 and filed an appeal on July 9, 2021 less than 30 days later. He therefore met the requirement of the third part of Rule 26(b).

Finding on Issue 3

16The Board finds that the Moving Party met the third requirement of Rule 26(b).

CONCLUSION

17The Board finds that the Moving Party has met all three requirements of Rule 26(b) for the 2021 taxation year.

ORDER

18The Board orders that this motion is granted. The Board therefore accepts the Moving Party’s late appeal for the 2021 taxation year.