Tribunals Ontario

Assessment Review Board

ISSUE DATE: April 05, 2024 FILE NO.: DM 2024M02

Assessed Person(s): 2235204 Ontario Limited Appellant(s): 2235204 Ontario Limited; Kamal Berrada Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 19 Respondent(s): City of Hamilton Property Location(s): 1522-1536 King St. East Municipality(ies): City of Hamilton Roll Number(s): 2518-040-304-00190-0000 Taxation Year(s): 2017- 2021 Hearing Event No.: 783291

Legislative Authority: Section 40.1(b) of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31

Parties	Representative
2235204 Ontario Limited; Kamal Berrada	Daniel Attard
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation	Submissions not received
City of Hamilton	Submissions not received

REQUEST FOR: An order extending the time for bringing appeals and directing the assessment corporation to be the appellant pursuant to s. 40.1(b) of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.A.31

HEARD: March 21, 2024 in writing

ADJUDICATOR(S): Christopher Voutsinas, Vice-Chair

MOTION DECISION

OVERVIEW

Background

12235204 Ontario Limited ("Property Owner") is asking the Assessment Review Board ("Board") for an extension of time to bring assessment appeals for the 2017 to 2021 taxation years for 1522-1536 King St. East in the City of Hamilton, Ontario ("Subject Property") pursuant to s. 40.1(b) of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.A.31 (the "Act").

2The Property Owner argues that there are palpable errors in the assessment roll and the Board should extend the time for bringing these appeals. The alleged error is that the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation ("MPAC") overstated the residential unit count in the Subject Property – specifically, that MPAC used a total of 25 residential units of which 18 units were cited as one-bedroom units, whereas the Property Owner asserts there are a total of 21 residential units of which only 14 units are one-bedroom units.

3Per the Palpable Error Application submitted to the Board on January 29, 2024, the Municipality is indicated as opposing the Application. As such, the matter was set to this written motion. Subsequent to which, the Board received two further Palpable Error Applications dated February 12, 2024 and March 21, 2024 (the date of this motion hearing) which indicate that all parties consent to the Application, but upon inquiry by the Board, the Applicant refused to withdraw the motion. MPAC and the Municipality did not respond to subsequent direction by the Board, nor did either party make submissions on the matter. As such, this written motion is unopposed.

Result

4For the reasons that follow, the Board grants the application request; extends the time for bringing appeals relating to the assessment of the Subject Property for the 2017 to 2021 taxation years; and directs MPAC to be the Appellant.

ISSUES

5The Act has a framework that permits the Board to extend statutory deadlines for bringing assessment appeals where it appears there are palpable errors in the assessment roll. The applicable statutory framework is set out in s. 40.1 of the Act:

Correction of errors

40.1 If it appears that there are palpable errors in the assessment roll,

(a) if no alteration of assessed values or classification of land is involved, the Board may correct the roll; and

(b) if alteration of assessed values or classification of land is involved, the Board may extend the time for bringing appeals and direct the assessment corporation to be the appellant.

6The error alleged by the Property Owner engages s. 40.1(b) of the Act, as it would involve alteration of assessed value. Therefore, there are two issues the Board must decide:

1. Does it appear that there are palpable errors in the assessment roll for the applicable taxation years?
2. If the answer to Issue 1 is "yes", should the Board extend time for bringing appeals for the applicable taxation years?

ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Does it appear that there are palpable errors in the assessment roll for the applicable taxation years?

Applicable Law

7The first step of the analysis requires that there appears to be an error in the assessment roll, and the error must be "palpable": see 388210 Ontario Limited v Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 15, 2023 CanLII 64028 (ON ARB) ("Centre Street") at paragraph 132.

8In determining whether there appears to be an error in the assessment roll, "an "error" is a "matter of fact, and like any other fact, can be proved based on circumstantial evidence": Centre Street at paragraph 132.

9"... the sole test is whether it is a factual error of conspicuous magnitude; plain, evident, obvious, and easy to understand": Centre Street at paragraph 132.

Findings on Issue 1

10The error alleged by the Property Owner is that MPAC mistakenly assessed the Subject Property using an overstated total residential unit count of 25 units (18 one- bedroom units) rather than 21 units (14 one-bedroom units) for the taxation years in question. The Property Owner provided uncontested evidence. The Board accepts this uncontested evidence.

11The Board finds this is a factual error of conspicuous magnitude that is plain, evident, obvious and easy to understand. The Board finds it is a palpable error.

Issue 2 – Should the Board extend time for bringing appeals for the applicable taxation years?

Applicable Law

12Section 40.1(b) of the Act provides that the Board "may" extend the time for bringing appeals where it appears that there are palpable errors in the assessment roll. Accordingly, the power to extend the time for bringing appeals to correct a palpable error is ultimately discretionary.

13In Centre Street, at paragraph 132, the Board confirmed that where one party claims prejudice if a palpable error is not corrected and the other parties do not claim prejudice, then the circumstances favour exercising discretion to correct the palpable error, "more so if all parties agree that the palpable error should be corrected."

Findings on Issue 2

14There is no evidence of prejudice to MPAC or the Municipality, nor any evidence of systemic prejudice to the administration of the municipal taxation system. MPAC, the Municipality, and the Property Owner agree that the property description should be corrected.

15The Board has considered the relevant factors and decides it will exercise its discretion to extend time for these appeals.

CONCLUSION

16The Board finds that there are palpable errors in the assessment roll for the 2017 to 2021 taxation years. Balancing the appropriate factors, the Board exercises its discretion to grant an extension of time to bring appeals.

ORDER

17The Board orders as follows:

a. The Board extends the time for bringing appeals of the assessments of the Subject Property for the 2017 to 2021 taxation years.

b. The Board directs that MPAC be the Appellant.

c. The appeals shall be filed within 30 days of this decision being issued.

d. The appeals may only address valuation issues resulting from the correction of the palpable errors addressed herein.