Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: January 20, 2022

FILE NO.: WR 175893

Assessed Person(s): Dobson Design Decisions Inc.

Appellant(s): Dobson Design Decisions Inc. and Timothy Dobson

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 09

Respondent(s): City of Toronto

Property Location(s): 3448 3450 Lake Shore Boulevard West

Municipality(ies): City of Toronto

Roll Number(s): 1919-053-580-05400-0000

Appeal Number(s): 3280574, 3296547, 3350364, 3400303 and 3440452

Taxation Year(s): 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021

Hearing Event No.: 755471

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

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representatives
Dobson Design Decisions Inc. and Timothy Dobson	No one appeared
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation	Adrianna Combdon
City of Toronto	No one appeared

HEARD: November 1, 2021 by telephone conference call

ADJUDICATOR(S): Jennifer Griffith, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1On January 11, 2022, the Board received a request for reinstatement and in order to continue with the reinstatement process, written reason was requested for my oral decision of dismissing the appeals for non-attendance by the Appellant, rendered at Settlement Conference Hearing 755471 on November 1, 2021.

2Dobson Design Decisions Inc. the (“Assessed Person”) is the owners of 3448 3450 Lake Shore Boulevard (the “Subject Property”) in the City of Toronto (the “City”). Timothy Dobson on behalf of Dobson Design Decisions Inc. (the “Appellant”) filed appeals for the returned assessment of $723,000 for the 2017 taxation year; and $687,000 for the 2018 through 2021 taxation years with the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”), pursuant to s. 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”).

Background

3On October 21, 2021 the Board issued an Amended Schedule of Events (“SOE”) pursuant to the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”). The SOE included the commencement date of June 15,2020 (original commencement date) and stating that parties are to comply by all dates in the SOE. The SOE provides a list of events (e.g. disclosure, motions, statement of issues, statement of responses, mandatory meeting, settlement conference etc.) that have to be completed by the appropriate party to the hearing, within the time period stated, and by the due date for completing each event.

4In accordance with the SOE, a Mandatory Meeting was held on August 19, 2021, which was attended by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) and the Appellant, and no one appeared for the City. The objective for the meeting was to try and negotiate a settlement of the appeals without having to go to a full hearing. Unfortunately, no settlement was reached, and MPAC and the Appellant requested and consented to the scheduling a Settlement Conference hearing with the Board to again, try to resolve the appeals without having to go to a full hearing.

5Based on the request for a Settlement Conference hearing, the Board scheduled a Settlement Conference Hearing 755471 for November 1, 2021 starting at 9:30 a.m. Notice of the scheduled hearing was issued by the Board on September 24, 2021 to all parties to the hearing (MPAC, the Appellant and the City).

Result

6The appeals are dismissed for the 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021 taxation years.

Issue

7Should the appeals be dismissed for the 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021 taxation years?

Submissions

8At the commencement of the Settlement Conference hearing held by telephone conference, the representatives for MPAC called into the hearing prior to the official start time of 9:30 a.m. However, no one called into the hearing for the Appellant and the City.

9The Board waited for approximately 20 minutes (generally waits for 10 minutes) to allow time for any difficulties that the Appellant might have been experiencing. During that period of time, I contacted the Case Coordinator to see whether the Appellant had contacted the Board to say why no one had called into the hearing. Unfortunately, the Appellant had not contacted the Board.

10During that same waiting period, at the request of the Board, MPAC tried contacting the Appellant by email and also followed up with a telephone call, in the event that the Appellant did not have access to his email. Unfortunately, MPAC was unsuccessful reaching the Appellant.

MPAC’s Position

11MPAC takes the position that the appeals should be dismissed, because the Appellant is deemed to have abandoned the appeals pursuant to Rule 24 for the following reasons:

I. The Appellant did not call into the Settlement Conference Hearing 755471 which was scheduled on November 1, 2021 starting at 9:30 a.m. which he consented to.

II. MPAC made many attempts to reach the Appellant through telephone calls (as recent as on the day of the Settlement Conference hearing) and by emails reminding him of the scheduled Settlement Conference hearing) and was unsuccessful. The Appellant made no attempt to contact MPAC in response to the emails and phone calls.

III. At the Mandatory Meeting August 19, 2021, MPAC requested an interior and provided three dates over a span of three weeks. They tentatively agreed to a tentative date of September 28, 2021 and two weeks prior, MPAC followed up with the Appellant and there was no response.

IV. MPAC requested productions on April 22, 2021 (time-stamped photographs and walk-through videos) because interior inspection was not permitted due to COVID-19. The productions were needed to assess the Appellant’s issue of Classification however, the request was not responded to by the Appellant.

ANALYSIS

12In reviewing the submissions of MPAC, the Board dismissed the appeals pursuant to Rule 24 and finds that the Appellant abandoned the appeals for the following reasons. Rule 24 states:

Dismissal of a Proceeding

24. The Board may dismiss a proceeding without holding a hearing, or after a hearing, if:

(a) the Board is satisfied that it is without jurisdiction to hear the appeal;

(b) the Board is of the opinion that the proceeding is frivolous or vexatious, is commenced in bad faith or only for the purpose of delay;

(c) the Board is of the opinion that the reasons set out in the appeal do not disclose any apparent statutory ground on which the Board can make a decision;

(d) the appellant has not responded to a request by the Board for further information within the time specified by the Board;

(e) the appellant has not complied with the statutory requirements or these Rules; or

(f) the appellant has abandoned the appeal.

13The Board’s records confirmed that the Appellant has not filed copies of any documentary evidence to be relied on (e.g. Statement of Issues, Statement of Response to MPAC and Settlement Conference Brief etc.) by the due date of September 20, 2021 stated in the SOE.

14The Appellant has not communicated with the Board to provide any exceptional circumstances as to why he was unable to attend the Settlement Conference hearing scheduled for November 1, 2021 at 9:30 a.m. Therefore, the Board finds that the Appellant was in default of the Board’s Rules.

15In considering MPAC’s submissions of requests for an inspection and subsequently productions (photographs and video) of the Subject Property to which the Appellant did not respond, the Board finds that MPAC had the option of filing a Motion for disclosure pursuant to Rule 66 with the Board and failed to do so. However, the Board also considered the fact that it would have been in the interest of the Appellant to provide factual evidence in support of its issue of Classification and also failed to do so. Therefore, the Board finds that the Appellant was not in compliance with MPAC’s requests.

16The Board’s records also showed that the Notice of the Settlement Conference Hearing 755471, scheduled for November 1, 2021 at 9:30 a.m. was sent to the Appellant on September 24, 2021 and no one appeared for the Appellant at the Settlement Conference hearing. The Board finds that the Appellant had more than ample time to contact the Board if he was unable to attend the hearing and to make alternate arrangements. Unfortunately, the Board was not contacted by the Appellant.

17Regarding MPAC’s many unsuccessful attempts to contact the Appellant by telephone calls and email to remind him of the Settlement Conference hearing, the Board finds that MPAC demonstrated the desire for the hearing process to proceed. Unfortunately, the phone calls and emails were not responded to by the Appellant.

CONCLUSION

1Based on the above submissions, the Board finds that the Appellant’s actions demonstrated abandonment of the appeals pursuant to Rule 24, by not complying with the Board’s Rules. Therefore, the Board dismissed the appeals for the 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021 taxation years.

ORDER

2The Board orders that the appeals for the 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021 taxation years be dismissed.