Tribunals Ontario
Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario
Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: August 16, 2024
Assessed Person(s): J.M.; F.M.
Applicant(s): J.M.; F.M.
Respondent(s): City of Mississauga
Property Location(s): Address Withheld
Municipality(ies): City of Mississauga
Roll Number(s): Roll number Withheld
Appeal Number(s): 3527436
Taxation Year(s): 2023
Hearing Event No.: 784176
Legislative Authority: Section 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, c.25, as amended
APPEARANCES:
Parties J.M.; F.M.
Representative No one appeared
Parties City of Mississauga
Representative Sean Doyle
HEARD: August 12, 2024, by telephone conference call
ADJUDICATOR(S): Margarita Okhovati, Member
DECISION
OVERVIEW
1J.M. and F.M. (“the Applicants”) filed an application to the City of Mississauga (the “City”) to have their 2023 property taxes cancelled, reduced or refunded because they were 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 telephone conference call on August 12, 2024, at 3:00 p.m. to provide information regarding the application and the full hearing to follow, and to confirm what documents are required to support the application.
4In the Notice of Hearing, it was indicated in bold letters that “if you do not participate and are not represented at the start of the hearing (3:00 p.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 the proceedings.”
5As stated above, the hearing was scheduled for 3:00 p.m. By 3:20 p.m. neither the Applicants nor their representative was present.
6The City submitted that the Applicants never responded to several telephone calls made to them. City submitted as well, that the City’s experience shows that in their previous appeals, the Applicants never complied with the Board’s rules. The Board had to adjourn their hearings several times in the past for lack of documents and other reasons.
7The City representative stated that the Applicants never contacted the City since they filed the initial application.
8Furthermore, the Board confirmed that the Applicants never communicated with the Board prior to the pre-hearing conference therefore, the Board scheduled the pre-hearing date without their confirmation.
9The Board sought a submission from the City on the administration of this application, given the Applicant’s absence. The City submitted that the Board had to dismiss this application for non-attendance and communication.
Issues for the Hearing
10The issue in this proceeding was whether the application should be dismissed for non-attendance of the Applicant or his representative, or if the proceeding should be adjourned.
CONCLUSION
11There were no reasons before the Board to explain the Applicants’ non-attendance and therefore, the Board dismisses this application.
ORDER
12The Board orders that the application is dismissed.
"Margarita Okhovati"
MARGARITA OKHOVATI MEMBER Assessment Review Board Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb