Tribunals Ontario

Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

July 24, 2023

FILE NO.:

DM 184598

Assessed Person(s):

3SC Inc.

Appellant(s):

3SC Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Respondent(s):

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 13

Respondent(s):

Town of Ajax

Property Location(s):

95 Green Court

Municipality(ies):

Town of Ajax

Roll Number(s):

1805-040-006-14738-0000

Appeal Number(s):

3227658, 3300527, 3356008, 3402873, 3443417, 3488194 and 3512513

Taxation Year(s):

2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023

Hearing Event No.:

779878

Legislative Authority:

Section 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31

Parties

Counsel*/Representative

3SC Inc.; 3SC Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Phillip L. Sanford*

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation

Stephanie Yates

Town of Ajax

Submissions not received

REQUEST FOR:

An order altering the Schedule of Events

HEARD:

June 9, 2023 in writing

ADJUDICATOR(S):

Carly Stringer, Member

MOTION DECISION

OVERVIEW

13SC Pharmaceuticals Inc. (the “Appellant”) has brought this motion before the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) asking the Board to alter the Schedule of Events (“SOE”) in this proceeding. The underlying appeals relate to a small warehouse owned by the Appellant, located at 95 Green Court in the Town of Ajax.

2The SOE in this proceeding required the Appellant to provide its expert report by July 15, 2022. This deadline was not met. The Appellant is asking for an extension that would allow it to file a report at this time, and an extension to the hearing month.

3The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) is responding to the appeals. MPAC opposes the Appellant’s motion and asks that it be denied.

4The Town of Ajax did not provide a response to this motion.

Result

5For the reasons that follow, the Board denies the motion.

ANALYSIS

Applicable Law

6Rule 40 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”) provides that once the SOE has begun, “the Board will not alter any due date set out in the Schedule of Events other than in exceptional circumstances.” The underlying purpose of Rule 40 is to ensure the timely resolution of appeals, within the amount of time specified in the SOE: see General Motors of Canada Company v St. Catharines (City), 2021 CanLII 794 (ON ARB) at paragraph 29.

7Given the wording of Rule 40, the Appellant must first convince the Board there are exceptional circumstances that could warrant altering the timeline set out in the SOE. The Board has previously opined on what constitutes “exceptional circumstances.” Namely, “exceptional means, among other things, something that does not occur regularly, something unusual, or something atypical:” Mississauga (City) v Michalakos, 2018 CanLII 126632 (ON ARB) (“Michalakos”) at paragraph 10.

8If the Board determines there are exceptional circumstances, it must then consider whether the circumstances, including the balance of prejudice between the parties, favour granting an amendment to the SOE. If there are no exceptional circumstances, however, the analysis ends as “prejudice is only considered if exceptional circumstances exist”: see 2144944 Ontario Limited v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, Region 19, 2019 CanLII 47973 (ON ARB) at paragraph 24.

Issue 1 – Do exceptional circumstances exist?

Evidence and Submissions of the Parties

9The Appellant provided some background to assist the Board. Namely, the Appellant had retained a representative to assist it with the appeals, and this representative had advised the Appellant to withdraw the appeals. The Appellant disagreed with this advice, and over many months contacted lawyers and consultants without finding anyone who was prepared to represent it.

10The Appellant says that it entirely failed to understand what is expected and required of an appellant taxpayer. The Appellant submits that its profound failure to understand the requirements of the SOE and procedures of the Board, as well as the consequences for any failure to comply with the prescribed deadlines, meets the threshold of “exceptional” circumstances. Put simply, the Appellant submits that its degree of non-comprehension of the Board’s requirements is something that does not occur regularly, it is something unusual and it is absolutely atypical.

11MPAC provided evidence of many communications with the Appellant’s former legal representative at and following the deadline for the expert report, from July to December 2022. MPAC also provided evidence that the Appellant’s representative did not advise MPAC they were no longer acting for the Appellant until December 7, 2022. MPAC submits that the Appellant has not established exceptional circumstances, and that no extensions should be granted.

Findings on Issue 1

12The Board finds that the Appellant has not established exceptional circumstances.

13Specifically, the Appellant’s expert report was due on July 15, 2022. Although the Appellant states that it disagreed with its representative and was seeking a new one, the Appellant provided no detail with respect to timing of these events. In contrast, MPAC’s evidence is clear that the Appellant had legal representation at the time the expert report was due and for many months thereafter. The Appellant’s representative did not advise MPAC that it was not acting for the Appellant until December 7, 2022, many months after the expert report deadline had passed. The Appellant has not provided a satisfactory explanation for this. In these circumstances, the Board is not satisfied there are exceptional circumstances.

14Based on the evidence before it, the Board finds that that there are no exceptional circumstances warranting an extension to the SOE.

CONCLUSION

15The Board finds that the Appellant has not established exceptional circumstances warranting an extension to the SOE in this case.

ORDER

16The Board orders that this motion is denied.