Tribunals Ontario
Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario
Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE:
March 29, 2023
WR 183546
Assessed Person(s):
M.M.E. and S.B.
Applicant(s):
M.M.E. and S.B.
Respondent(s):
City of Richmond Hill
Property Location(s):
Address Withheld
Municipality(ies):
City of Richmond Hill
Roll Number(s):
Roll number Withheld
Appeal Number(s):
3329158
Taxation Year(s):
2017
Hearing Event No.:
778173
Legislative Authority:
Section 357.(8) of the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, c. 25
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Representative
M.M.E.
No one appeared
City of Richmond Hill
Annette Kimelman
HEARD:
March 20, 2023, by telephone conference call
ADJUDICATOR(S):
Margarita Okhovati, Member
DECISION
OVERVIEW
1M.M.E. and S.B. (“the Applicants”) filed an application to the City of Richmond Hill (“the City”) to have their 2017 property taxes cancelled, reduced or refunded because they were unable to pay, due either to sickness or extreme poverty, under s. 357.(8) of the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001 c. 25 (the “Act”). The City of Richmond Hill failed to make its decision on the application by the timeline legislated in the Act and subsequently, the Applicants appealed to the Assessment Review Board (“Board”).
2This appeal has a long history partly because of Covid but mostly because of the Applicants being non-responsive to the Board’s numerous emails regarding scheduling of the hearings and submitting the necessary documents for the purpose of the full hearing. The following are the sequence of events.
3On November 13, 2019, a pre-hearing was conducted where the member explained the Applicants about all the required documents for the full hearing.
4On July 3, 2020, the Board sent an email to the Applicants and the City requesting a mutually agreed date for the full hearing to take place sometime in October or November of 2020, by July 10, 2020. The Board or the City received no response from the Applicants. With this email, a list of all the necessary documents prepared by the member for the full hearing, was also included.
5On July 7, 2022, the Board sent an email again to the parties seeking the availability of the City and the Applicants for a pre-hearing conference in September 2022, and a full hearing in October or November of 2022. The Board or the City received no response from the Applicants.
6As a result of passage of time and lack of response on behalf of the Applicants, the Board proceeded to re-schedule a pre-hearing conference on January 30, 2023, at 9:30 a.m. that was attended by M.M.E. (“the Applicant”) and the City, to provide information regarding the application and the hearing to follow, and to confirm what documents are required to support the application in the full hearing.
7On the consent of the parties, it was determined that the full hearing teleconference call would be held on March 20, 2023, at 9:30 a.m.
8After the pre-hearing teleconference, the Board issued a Procedural Order (DM 183192) on February 7, 2023. This outlined the information that was discussed in the pre-hearing teleconference and confirmed the required documents the Applicants needed to serve the City and file with the Board to support the application. The Applicants were to serve and file the required documents by March 8, 2023, and the City to provide any material and response to the Applicants’ documentation by March 15, 2023. The Applicants failed to disclose the necessary documents.
9On March 10, 2023, the Board sent an email to the Applicants and reminded them to file the documents however, the Board received no response.
10The Applicants failed to file all the necessary documents with the Board and the City prior to the full hearing date even after the Board reminded the Applicants about the missing documents.
11It should be noted that with their initial application to the City, the Applicants submitted a few documents to the City in support of their application, which are firstly, not nearly enough to prove that the Applicants were unable to pay their property taxes of 2017 and secondly, according to the Applicant’s hand-written list of documents, the documents are dated 2015 and 2016, which are outside the 2017 taxation year.
12In the March 20, 2023 hearing, the Applicant was questioned as to why he failed to file the required documents after all the opportunity they were given to do so. He stated that for the past one month he wasn’t feeling well. He insisted that the Board had to rely on his oral testimony in the absence of the necessary documents.
13The Board sought the City’s position in determining this case. The City submitted that the Board had to dismiss this application for the Applicants never contacted the City or the Board and never disclosed the necessary documents. The City submitted further that this case cost a lot of money to the City, which is not fair to the City or the Public.
Result
14The appeal is dismissed for the following reasons.
ANALYSIS
15In this case, although the Applicant attended the full hearing however, he failed to serve the Board with the necessary documents to conduct a full hearing. The Board does not accept the Applicant’s reason that he was sick for the past month and was unable to prepare the documents. The Board finds that the Applicants had ample opportunity, since November 2019, to supply the Board with the required documents.
16The Procedural Order clearly indicated that the Applicants bear the burden of proof to show that they were unable to pay their 2017 property taxes. It further emphasized that failure to provide the required documentation set out in the Order may result to a dismissal of the appeal.
17Furthermore, as noted above, the Applicants did not comply with the Procedural Order. They never even contacted the Board or the City and did not file the documentation that would have been necessary to determine that they were unable to pay taxes in 2017 because of sickness or extreme poverty.
CONCLUSION
18There were no reasons before the Board to explain the Applicants’ negligence for not responding to the Board’s and the City’s emails, as well, for not complying with the Board’s Order regarding the disclosure of the documents the Board dismisses this appeal.
ORDER
19The Board orders that the appeal is dismissed.
"Margarita Okhovati"
MARGARITA OKHOVATI
MEMBER
Assessment Review Board
Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb