S.H.R. v. City of Mississauga, 2023 CanLII 54540

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

ISSUE DATE: June 12, 2023 FILE NO.: WR 184195

Assessed Person(s): S.H.R.; S.B.R. Applicant(s): S.H.R. Respondent(s): City of Mississauga Property Location(s): Address Withheld Municipality(ies): City of Mississauga Roll Number(s): Roll Number Withheld Appeal Number(s): 3516219 Taxation Year(s): 2022 Hearing Event No.: 779966 Legislative Authority: Section 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, c. 25

APPEARANCES:

Parties S.H.R. City of Mississauga

Representative No one appeared Sean Doyle Renee Zhao

HEARD: June 5, 2023, by video conference call

ADJUDICATOR(S): Margarita Okhovati, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1S.H.R. (“the Applicant”) filed an application to the City of Mississauga (“City”) to have his 2022 property taxes cancelled, reduced or refunded because he was unable to pay, due either to sickness or extreme poverty, under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001 c. 25 ( the “Act”).

2The City has passed a by-law delegating its authority to determine such applications to the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”).

3The Board scheduled a pre-hearing video conference call on June 5, 2023, at 11:00 a.m. to provide information regarding the application and the full hearing to follow, and to confirm what documents are required to support the application.

4On June 5, 2023, the pre-hearing commenced at the appointed time of 11:00 a.m. At the time, the only party present was the City. It is the Board’s normal practice to allow a ten-minute grace period for any participant in a hearing event in case there are technical difficulties in connection to the call, or to facilitate delays caused by unforeseen or exceptional circumstances that might affect a party’s ability to attend at the prescribed time. By 11:20 a.m. neither the Applicant nor the representative of the Applicant was present.

5The Board sought a submission from the City on the administration of this application given the Applicant’s absence. Before, expressing its view, the City representative contacted the Applicant to find out whether he had difficulty to call in. The Applicant stated to the City representative that he was unaware he had to dial the code number as well. After the City made sure that the Applicant had the right code number and that he understood completely what he had to do, the Applicant still did not call in after another 15 minutes. The City representative stated further that the Applicant had no language barrier and that he could understand and follow his instructions.

6It should be noted as well that in the Notice of Telephone Conference Call sent to the Applicant, it is stated clearly that to access the hearing, after hearing the conference greeting, enter the code number 6408555# to be connected to the other parties.

7Furthermore, the Applicant never contacted the Board or the city prior to the pre-hearing date to offer any explanation for not attending. The City submitted that the Board had to dismiss this application for non-attendance and non-contact by the Applicant to the City or the Board.

Issues for the Hearing

8The issue in this proceeding was whether the application should be dismissed for non-attendance of the Applicant and failing to contact either with the Board or the City.

Result

9The application is dismissed for the following reasons.

ANALYSIS

10Rule 104 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”) states:

Non-Attendance

If a party fails to appear at a hearing event, the Board may proceed with the hearing event, or take any other steps that it deems appropriate.

11Further, Rule 82 states:

Dates Fixed

After the day set in Rule 33 as the start of a proceeding the Board will not alter any timeline set out in the schedule of events, other than in exceptional circumstances.

12Rule 82 is clear in that any adjournment considered by the Board must have regard for any exceptional circumstances leading to the reason for that adjournment. In this case, the Applicant never asked for an adjournment. He did not attend the pre-hearing and the Board had no evidence or reason for that non-attendance.

13Furthermore, in the Notice of Hearing, the following is stated clearly.

“If you do not participate and are not represented at the start of the hearing (11:00 a.m.) the Board may proceed in your absence and may dismiss your appeal(s) and you will not be entitled to any further notice of hearing.”

CONCLUSION

14There were no reasons before the Board to explain the Applicant’s non-attendance. In the absence of any evidence of exceptional circumstances, the Board dismisses this application.

ORDER

15The Board orders that the application is dismissed.

"Margarita Okhovati"

MARGARITA OKHOVATI MEMBER Assessment Review Board Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb