1693876 Ontario Inc. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 03, 2023 CanLII 418

Assessment Review Board / Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: January 06, 2023

FILE NO.: WR 182792

Assessed Persons: 1693876 Ontario Inc., Gregory Capello

Appellants: 1693876 Ontario Inc., Gregory Capello

Respondent: Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 03

Respondent: City of Ottawa

Property Locations: 283, 283-285, 289 and 287 Kirchoffer Avenue

Municipality: City of Ottawa

Roll Numbers: 0614-084-302-15100-0000, 0614-084-302-15200-0000 and 0614-084-302-15205-0000

Appeal Numbers: 3485162, 3479357, 3485163, 3482858, 3486543, 3482860, 3486385, 3482859 and 3486488

Taxation Years: 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022

Hearing Event No.: 778000

Legislative Authority: Sections 33 and 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
1693876 Ontario Inc. and Gregory Capello	No one appeared
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation	Liane Arcand
City of Ottawa	No one appeared

HEARD: December 14, 2022 by telephone conference call

ADJUDICATOR: Jean-Paul Pilon, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

11693876 Ontario Inc. and Gregory Capello (collectively referred to as the “Appellants”) own properties located at 283, 285, 287 and 289 Kirchoffer Avenue in the City of Ottawa (the “Subject Properties”).

2Before the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) were appeals relating to the Subject Properties for the 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022 taxation years.

3These appeals were scheduled to be heard on December 14, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. at a peremptory telephone conference hearing (the “Teleconference”). Representatives of the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) attended the Teleconference but the Appellants did not, nor did the City of Ottawa which did not participate in the proceedings at any stage of the appeals. At 1:47 p.m. on December 14, 2022, the appeals were dismissed as abandoned at the Teleconference.

4On December 28, 2022, the Board received a request from the Appellants for written reasons for its oral decision to dismiss the appeals. These are those reasons.

ANALYSIS

Procedural History

5Those appeals relating to 283-285 Kirchoffer Avenue were to be heard by the Board on July 14, 2022. However, the Appellants submitted a written request to adjourn the hearing on July 13, 2022 by way of an Expedited Board Directions Form (“EBDF”) which was denied.

6Nevertheless, the Appellants’ further adjournment request at the hearing to which MPAC did not consent was granted. In the resulting decision that issued on July 19, 2022, Capello v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 03, 2022 CanLII 66873, the Board provided its reasons for granting the Appellants’ adjournment request. The return date was to be November 2, 2022 at 1:30 p.m.

7In the meantime, a consent request was submitted to the Board by MPAC to combine the appeals previously considered for 283-285 Kirchoffer Avenue with those for 287 and 289 Kirchoffer Avenue. That request was granted on October 13, 2022 with reasons given in the EBDF that included the request. The hearing of all of these appeals was rescheduled to November 15, 2022 at 1:30 p.m.

8The Board’s records indicate that at that hearing, MPAC requested another adjournment because of late service of documentation which MPAC needed time to review. The Board granted that further adjournment request and rescheduled the hearing to December 14, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. on a peremptory basis. A Notice of Hearing by Telephone Conference Call Peremptory (the “NOH”) was sent by email to the Appellants on November 16, 2022 at 10:16 a.m.

9The hearing proceeded at 1:32 p.m. on December 14, 2022 with only representatives of MPAC present. The Board waited until 1:47 p.m. that day at which time the appeals were dismissed as abandoned at MPAC’s request and in the absence of the Appellants.

10There were two steps to conclusion at the hearing that the appeals should be dismissed: first, the decision to proceed with the hearing in the Appellants’ absence, and second, the Board’s determination that the Appellants had abandoned the appeals which led to their dismissal.

Issue 1: Proceeding with the hearing in the Appellants’ absence

11As noted above, the Appellants were sent the NOH, did not attend the Teleconference and did not contact the Board or MPAC prior to the hearing to explain their absence.

12The NOH sent to the Appellants said that “if you do not participate and are not represented at the start of the hearing (01:30 pm) the Board may proceed in your absence and may dismiss your appeal(s) and you will not be entitled to any further notice of the proceedings.”

13The authority for that statement is set out in section 7(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22 which provides that “where notice of an oral hearing has been given to a party to a proceeding in accordance with this Act and the party does not attend at the hearing, the tribunal may proceed in the absence of the party and the party is not entitled to any further notice in the proceeding.”

Finding on Issue 1

14There was no reason before the Board to adjourn the hearing which had been noted as peremptory with no adjournment request or communication from the Appellants. As a result, the Board proceeded with the hearing in the Appellants’ absence.

Issue 2: Dismissing the Appeals

15The appeals were filed by the Appellants, but with MPAC bearing the burden of proof pursuant to section 40(17) of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, it would have been open to MPAC to argue that the hearing should proceed in the Appellants’ absence.

16Instead, MPAC's representatives at the hearing requested that the appeals be dismissed on the ground that they had been abandoned. The basis for this request was Rule 24(f) of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure which provides that “the Board may dismiss a proceeding without holding a hearing, or after a hearing, if…the appellant has abandoned the appeal.”

17As noted above, there was no explanation for the Appellants’ absence from the hearing that had been marked peremptory, essentially meaning that absent an emergency or other urgent event the hearing would proceed. The NOH had been issued for the hearing and the Appellants had made a previous adjournment request demonstrating sufficient knowledge of the process to make a further request prior to the hearing.

Finding on Issue 2

18The Board concurred with MPAC that it was reasonable to conclude that the appeals had been abandoned by the Appellants.

CONCLUSION

19In summary, the Appellants did not attend the hearing despite having been sent a NOH. The hearing proceeded in the Appellants’ absence and it was reasonable in the circumstances to assume that the Appellants’ appeals had been abandoned. It was on this basis that they were dismissed.

ORDER

20The Board ordered these appeals dismissed.

"Jean-Paul Pilon"

JEAN-PAUL PILON

MEMBER

Assessment Review Board

Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb