Assessment Review Board
Issue Date: May 18, 2022 File No.: WR 178297
Assessed Person(s): Vallati Paving (Ontario) Ltd.; Rocco Nicholas Disipio; Anna Teresa Jasiak Appellant(s): Rocco Disipio; Anna Jasiak Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 03 Respondent(s): City of Ottawa
Property Location(s): 47 Thornbury Crescent Municipality(ies): City of Ottawa Roll Number(s): 0614-120-640-17492-0000 Appeal Number(s): 3464215, 3486664 Taxation Year(s): 2021 and 2022
Hearing Event No.: 764267
Legislative Authority: Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Representative |
|---|---|
| Vallati Paving (Ontario) Ltd.; Rocco Nicholas Disipio; Anna Teresa Jasiak | No one appeared |
| Municipal Property Assessment Corporation | Amanda Gordon |
| City of Ottawa | No one appeared |
HEARD: April 28, 2022 by telephone conference call
ADJUDICATOR(S): Dan Weagant, Member
DECISION
OVERVIEW
1Rocco Disipio and Anna Jasiak (the “Appellants”) believed the assessment returned by MPAC for the 2021 taxation year on the subject property at 47 Thornbury Crescent was too high. As a result, they filed an appeal. In accordance with s. 40 (26) of the Assessment Act (the ”Act”) the 2021 appeal was deemed to apply to the 2022 taxation year as well.
2The subject property is a freehold townhouse dwelling with two storeys, on a lot of 0.08 acres in size. It is an end unit townhouse with 1,710 square feet of living area.
3The appellants purchased the subject property in 2020. Upon closing and when reviewing the assessment notice issued by MPAC, they were not satisfied that the returned assessment of $455,000 was correct.
4In response to the Request for Reconsideration process required under s. 40.(3) of the Act, the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) made an offer to the Appellants for settlement purposes of $426,000. This same value was advanced by MPAC at this hearing as the current value of the subject property.
PRELIMINARY MATTERS
5This proceeding was scheduled to start at 9:30 am on the date prescribed in the notice of hearing documents sent to the Parties by the Board.
6By 9:50 am, MPAC’s representative was the only party present on the telephone conference call. Between the appointed time for the hearing and 9:50 am, I contacted the case management department of the Board to determine if any communication had been received by the Board from the Appellant. At the same time, MPAC’s representative left the telephone conference call to attempt to contact the Appellants to see if there were technical reasons for their absence.
7Neither effort clarified why the Appellants were not present. MPAC was not able to contact the Appellants and I received no information from the Board about the Appellants’ absence. At that point I determined that the Appellants were absent and proceeded accordingly.
MPAC’s Submission
8MPAC submitted that there were two possible paths the Board could take to adjudicating this matter. The first path was dismissal. In its submission, MPAC indicated that during the Request for Reconsideration process stipulated in s. 40.(3) of the Act MPAC and the Appellant entered into discussions to settle on an assessment that would eliminate the requirement for a full hearing of the dispute. This process culminated in an offer to settle tendered by MPAC, in the amount of $426,000; a reduction from the value returned of $455,000.
9MPAC submitted that this reduced amount constituted a recommendation to the Board as the correct current value of the subject property. MPAC further submitted that its intention at the hearing was to argue this reduced value and given this position, it viewed an outright dismissal at hearing to be unfair to the Appellants, noting that a dismissal would result in the assessment of the subject property remaining at $455,000. MPAC urged the Board not to dismiss the appeal, but instead to accept the reduced value as the assessment of the subject property for the years under appeal. This was the second path suggested to the Board by MPAC.
10To adjudicate this matter, I must consider the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”) related to non-attendance of the Appellants. Having done so, I must then make a decision on the subject appeal.
The Board’s Rules
11There are three Rules that are applicable to these circumstances:
Interpretation of Rules and Powers of the Board
- These Rules shall be liberally interpreted to ensure the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of every proceeding.
Proportionality
- These Rules shall be applied in a manner proportionate to the importance and complexity of the issues in a proceeding and with a view to resolving appeals within the assessment cycle.
Dismissal of a Proceeding
- f) The Board may dismiss a proceeding without holding a hearing, or after a hearing, if….the appellant has abandoned the appeal.
How do the Board’s Rules apply in this case?
12The Board has issued several decisions that apply Rule 24.f). Those cases are consistent in that those panels of the Board dismissed the appeals because the Appellant had abandoned them. In this case, there is no evidence that the appeal was abandoned, and none of the previous decisions assist in what circumstances constitute abandonment. Moreover, none of those decisions addressed the present circumstance where MPAC recommended that the assessment should be reduced to a lower assessment. I find the application of Rule 24.f) to be unclear in this case.
13Rule 3 allows me to make a broad interpretation of the Rules where doing so would arrive at a result that is ‘just, most expeditious and least expensive.’
14Rule 4 directs that I shall apply the Rules in a way that is proportionate to the issues at hand, in the context of disposing of appeals within the assessment cycle.
15Therefore, in this case I must decide if dismissing the appeal would be more just, expeditious and least expensive than adopting MPAC’s recommendation. I also must decide if the result of the hearing is proportionate to the issues at hand.
16Based on the circumstances before me, I find that the best result is to adopt the recommendation put forward by MPAC. Dismissing the appeal or adopting MPAC’s recommendation is an equivalent outcome when applying Rule 4. Either result would be proportionate to the issues in the context of disposing of the appeals.
17Either dismissing the appeal or adopting MPAC’s recommendation would also fulfill my obligations in applying Rule 3. However, Rule 3 includes the consideration of a “just” result. I heard from MPAC that dismissing the appeal would be unfair to the Appellant. That means a dismissal would be unjust for the Appellant.
18For that reason I accept MPAC’s recommendation to reduce the current value of the subject property to $426,000. I note that this recommendation was a sincere effort on MPAC’s part to honour its commitment to the process and to reflect the work completed by the Parties prior to the hearing.
RESULT
19The Board finds that the current value of the subject property is $426,000.
ORDER
20The Board orders that the assessment of the property at 47 Thornbury Crescent is reduced from $455,000 to $426,000 in the Residential property class.