Tribunals Ontario
Assessment Review Board
ISSUE DATE: July 18, 2022 FILE NO.: DM 179994
Assessed Person(s): Harinder Singh; Kamal Preet Kaur Appellant(s): Harinder Singh; Kamal Preet Kaur Respondent(s): City of Brampton Property Location(s): 10387 McVean Drive Municipality(ies): City of Brampton Roll Number(s): 2110-120-002-02600-0000 Appeal Number(s): 3470259 Taxation Year(s): 2020 Hearing Event No.: 769268
Legislative Authority: Section 357(7) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25
Parties / Representative
- Harinder Singh; Kamal Preet Kaur / Self-represented
- City of Brampton / Yvonne Kwiecien
REQUEST FOR: Dismissal of Appeal(s) HEARD: June 28, 2022, in writing ADJUDICATOR(S): Christopher Voutsinas, Vice-Chair
MOTION DECISION
OVERVIEW
1Harinder Singh and Kamal Preet Kaur (the “Appellants”) are the owners of the property located at 10387 McVean Drive in the City of Brampton (the “Subject Property”). They filed an appeal with the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) relating to the Subject Property pursuant to s. 357(7) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25 (the “Act”) for the 2020 taxation year.
2The City of Brampton (the “City”) is a responding party to this appeal. The City has brought this motion to dismiss alleging that the Appellants failed to comply with the Schedule of Events (“SOE”) applicable to this proceeding.
3The Appellants oppose the City’s request to dismiss.
Result
4The Board grants the Appellants five business days to serve their Statement of Issues (“SOI”) on the City and file proof of service with the Board. Should the Appellants fail to do so, the appeal is dismissed.
Background
5In accordance with the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”), the Board sets a commencement date for each appeal and assigns a SOE which sets out: (i) the various steps parties must undertake during the life cycle of an appeal and, (ii) the associated due date for each step.
6On December 2, 2021, the Board sent the assigned SOE to the parties.
7The SOE has a commencement date of February 7, 2022, on which date the Appellants were required to serve on the City a description of the issues in dispute in the appeal, known as the Statement of Issues or SOI, and all supporting documentation.
8The Appellants did not serve a SOI on the City on or prior to the February 7, 2022 due date.
9On April 26, 2022, the City filed a Request to Dismiss an Appeal with the Board pursuant to the Board’s Rule 24(e) on the basis that the Appellants had not complied with the Rules and had not submitted a SOI.
10The Board set the City’s request to this motion. The City provided the Board with submissions and evidence supporting its request. The Appellants did not provide evidence or formal submissions on this motion but did send an email to the Board on May 9, 2022 requesting that the Board reject the City’s dismissal request “as we never got any email for documents to submit them.”
ISSUES
11The issues to be addressed on this motion are:
a. Did the Appellants comply with the SOE and specifically the requirement to serve a SOI on the City by February 7, 2022?
b. If not, does the Appellants’ non-compliance with the SOE warrant a dismissal of the Appeal?
ANALYSIS
Applicable Rules
12The following Rules are relevant:
Dismissal of a Proceeding
- 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.
Schedule of Events
- For all appeals filed for the 2021 taxation year and subsequent taxation years, the Schedule of Events for a proceeding is:
(a) set out in Schedule A for all appeals designated as a general proceeding;
(b) set out in Schedule B for all appeals designated as a summary proceeding; or
(c) as otherwise specified by the Board.
Extension of Schedule of Events Due Dates
- After the Commencement Day set out in Rule 39 as the start of a proceeding, the Board will not alter any due date set out in the Schedule of Events other than in exceptional 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.
Failure to Comply with Rules and Orders
- The Board will determine the appropriate consequences of non-compliance with these Rules.
13Schedules A and B referenced in Rule 39 above include the following statement:
The following Schedules of Events are part of the Rules of Practice and Procedure. Parties are required to adhere to the Schedule of Events applicable to their proceeding. Failure to do so, in addition to any failure to comply with any orders or directions of the Board, may result in a party being unable to rely on documents at a hearing or dismissal of a proceeding.
Issue 1 - Did the Appellants comply with the SOE and specifically the requirement to serve a SOI on the City by February 7, 2022?
The City’s Submissions
14The City submits that the Appellants were required to provide a SOI by February 7, 2022, and that the Appellants failed to do so.
15The City submits that the Appellants have not requested an extension of time to file a SOI.
The Appellants’ Submissions
16As noted above, the Appellants did not provide formal submissions or evidence on this motion. However, in an email to the Board dated May 9, 2022 the Appellants oppose dismissal and state “we never got any email for documents to submit them”.
17The Appellants state in the same email that they have requested a review of the taxation of the Subject Property for the period from demolition through to occupancy.
Findings on Issue 1
18The Board finds that the Appellants did not serve a SOI on the City by the February 7, 2022 due date and, accordingly, did not comply with the SOE, for the following reasons:
a. The evidence shows that the Board emailed the SOE to the parties on December 2, 2021.
b. The SOE provides a February 7, 2022 due date for the Appellants to serve a SOI.
c. The uncontradicted evidence is that the Appellants did not serve an SOI by that date and have not yet served a SOI.
d. The Appellants have not requested an extension of the SOI due date.
Issue 2 – Does the Appellants’ non-compliance with the SOE warrant a dismissal of the Appeal?
The City’s Submissions
19The City asserts that it has been prejudiced by the Appellants’ failure to file a SOI and will continue to suffer prejudice should the appeal be permitted to continue in breach of the Rules.
The Appellants’ Submissions
20While the Appellants have not provided formal submissions, they have asked the Board to reject the request to dismiss and proceed with the appeal.
Findings on Issue 2
21In determining an appropriate consequence for failure to comply with the Rules, the Board has routinely considered the circumstances surrounding non-compliance, as well as prejudice to the parties: Kitchener (City) v CP REIT Ontario Properties Ltd, 2020 CanLII 30640 (ON ARB) (‘CP REIT”) at paragraphs 30 to 35; SGS Lakefield Research Ltd. and Municipal Property Assessment Corp., Region 07, Re, 2020 CarswellOnt 10309 (“SGS Lakefield”) at paragraphs 25 to 26.
22In this instance, the Board considers the following circumstances:
a. The Appellants are non-represented parties.
b. The City provided evidence that Mr. Harinder Singh called to advise them that he did not receive the SOE from the Board. The Appellants stated in their May 9, 2022 email that they did not get an email request to submit documents.
c. It is clear from the Appellants’ email of May 9, 2022 that they want to proceed with the appeal.
23While the City has submitted evidence with regard to prejudice, the Board balances the evidence of prejudice to the City with the finality of dismissing the appeal particularly in the context of a non-represented Appellant in these particular circumstances.
24When it comes to prejudice, there would be prejudice to the Appellant if the Board were to dismiss its appeal. The Appellant would be prejudiced by being precluded from pursuing the Subject Appeal.
25Overall, there is prejudice to both sides.
26Rule 7 confirms that the Board will determine the appropriate consequence for non-compliance with the Rules.
27The Board has held that dismissal “is an extreme remedy and should only be granted in the clearest of cases”, and has also been clear that “the Board will strictly enforce the new Rules, and expects compliance”: Municipal Property Assessment Corp., Region No. 9 and 234900 Ontario Ltd., Re, 2018 CanLII 126632 (ON ARB), 2018 CanLII 248 (ON ARB), 2017 CanLII 74719 (ON ARB) at paragraphs 8 and 9.
28In the particular circumstances of this proceeding, including a non-represented Appellant and weighing prejudice as between the parties, the Board determines that the appropriate consequence of the Appellants’ non-compliance with the SOE is that the Appellants be given an opportunity to remedy their non-compliance with the SOE, failing which the appeal is dismissed.
ORDER
29The Board orders that the Appellants are provided five business days from the date of this decision to serve their SOI on the City and file proof of service with the Board via email to arb.registrar@ontario.ca. If proof of service is not filed with the Board by that date, the appeal is dismissed.
"Christopher Voutsinas"
CHRISTOPHER VOUTSINAS VICE-CHAIR Assessment Review Board Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb