Zachary Schenk v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 15, 2026 CanLII 50090

Tribunals Ontario

Assessment Review Board

ISSUE DATE: May 20, 2026 FILE NO.: DM 190393

Assessed Person(s): Zachary Schenk Appellant(s): Zachary Schenk Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 15 Respondent(s): City of Mississauga

Property Location(s): 1039 Greaves Avenue Municipality(ies): City of Mississauga Roll Number(s): 2105-070-165-04102-0000 Appeal Number(s): 3530973 Taxation Year(s): 2025 Hearing Event No.: 791979

Legislative Authority: Sections 36 and 40 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31

Parties / Counsel/Representative

• Zachary Schenk: Self-represented
• City of Mississauga: Submissions not received
• Municipal Property Assessment Corporation: Kristina De Andrade

REQUEST FOR: Strike Materials Filed After Deadline HEARD: March 31, 2026 in writing ADJUDICATOR(S): Karen Dawson, Vice-Chair

MOTION DECISION

OVERVIEW

1The moving party, the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”), brought a motion requesting that the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) make an order (i) striking new documents filed by the Appellant on November 12, 2025; or (ii) in the alternative, restricting Zachary Schenk (the “Appellant”) from raising new evidence at any hearing event that is not set out in his original Statement of Issues (“SOI”) or Statement of Reply (“Reply”).

Result

2For the reasons below, the request to strike Exhibit J is granted. The request to strike the other new documents is denied.

3MPAC shall have 30 days from the date of this Motion Decision within which to file a written response to the new documents filed by the Appellant. The Appellant shall have no right of reply to MPAC’s written response and is ordered not to file any further documents with the Board without first seeking leave of the Board to do so.

ANALYSIS

4Rules 43(a) and (b) of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”) provide:

43. Statements of Issues and Responses must contain:

a. If the issue is current value: i. the current value requested and how it is calculated; ii. a full statement of every issue that the party intends to raise, including identification of comparable property(ies) to be referred to, if any; and iii. a list of all facts, legal grounds and documents that the party relies on in support of its position.

b. If the issue is the equity of the assessment pursuant to section 44(3)(b) of the Assessment Act: i. the assessment requested; ii. identification of the vicinity claimed by the party; iii. identification of similar lands in the vicinity to be relied on by the party; iv. how the party proposes to calculate the adjustment for equity; and v. a list of all facts, legal grounds and documents that the party relies on in support of its position.

5Rule 44 states:

Statements of Issues or Responses cannot be amended after the due dates for amending these documents set out in the Schedule of Events unless all parties consent, or the Board directs otherwise.

6The Appellant served his SOI and Reply in accordance with the Schedule of Events (“SOE”). MPAC served its Statement of Response (“SOR”) in accordance with the SOE.

7On November 12, 2025, the parties were to file their SOI, SOR and Reply with the Board, as well as all documents and any written submissions on which they intended to rely at the hearing.

8MPAC submitted its SOR, Valuation Report, and Equity Report that were previously submitted to all parties at the SOR deadline.

9The Appellant, however, did not file his previously served SOI or Reply. Instead, he served new documents that were titled “Statement of Issues” and “Statement of Reply” but included new evidence and analyses not contained in the SOI or Reply served previously in accordance with the SOE.

MPAC’s Position

10MPAC submits that the Board should strike the new documents because:

1. Introduction of new documents at this stage of the proceedings is a clear violation of the Board’s Rules;
2. Procedural fairness requires that all parties have an opportunity to know the case against them and respond to all issues and evidence that have been properly raised in a proceeding; and
3. The introduction of new documents at this stage of the proceeding causes significant prejudice to MPAC.

Appellant’s Position

11In opposing MPAC’s motion, the Appellant submits:

1. The Rules do not require the Appellant’s final hearing materials to have been served in identical form. The SOE requires that, where a hearing has been requested, the parties must file with the Board all documents and any written submissions on which they will rely at the hearing by the specified deadline. The Appellant complied with that deadline.
2. MPAC’s position conflates an “analysis of particulars” with a “new issue” and that the new documents represent the former, not the latter. The issues have remained the same throughout. What changed on November 12, 2025 was the quantification, narrowing, and organization of proof for those same issues, not the issues themselves.
3. The Board’s Rules must be applied liberally, proportionately, and with a view to resolving appeals within the assessment cycle. The Rules also provide that substantial compliance is sufficient, and that the Board determines the appropriate consequences for non-compliance. A rigid technical exclusion of a timely-filed hearing brief would be contrary to those principles.

Findings

12The direction in the SOE that “the parties must file with the Board all documents and any written submissions on which they will rely at the hearing,” when read in isolation, may suggest that additional documents beyond those already served in accordance with the SOE may be filed with the Board. The SOE, however, must be read in conjunction with the rest of the Board’s Rules, and in particular Rule 44, which requires a party to obtain the other parties’ consent or a Board direction in order to amend its SOI or SOR after the deadline for doing so. The Appellant obtained neither consent nor an order of the Board prior to filing the amended SOI and Reply.

13Clearly the Appellant should have either requested the Board’s permission to file the amended SOI and Reply or asked that the deadlines for filing its SOI and Reply be extended to accommodate its late filing of the new documents. Pursuant to Rule 7, the Board will determine the appropriate consequences of such non-compliance. As the matter of the Appellant’s non-compliance is before the Board in this Motion Hearing, the Board is prepared to consider the Appellant’s position as a request for late filing.

14In addressing such a request, the Board first observes that the parties are expected to comply with both the Board’s Rules and the requirements of the SOE to ensure efficient processing of the appeal. Thus the Board will not grant a request for late filing simply because a party has neglected to serve and file its documents on time.

15However, in this case, the Appellant appears to have been under a misapprehension that the Rules permitted the Appellant to file updated hearing materials. On this basis, the Board is prepared to grant the Appellant an extension of the SOE due dates for filing the updated materials. In other words, the Board will accept the updated documents filed by the Appellant, subject to terms and conditions described below.

16It is a well-established principle of natural justice and procedural fairness that a party is entitled to know the case it must meet and to have an opportunity to respond to new issues or particulars raised and new evidence provided by the Appellant. See Baker v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 CanLII 699 (SCC), [1999] 2 SCR 817, [1999] 2 RCS 817, [1999] SCJ No 39, [1999] ACS no 39, [1999] 2 SCR 817.

17Moreover, Rule 3 of the Board’s Rules directs that the Rules be liberally interpreted to ensure the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of every proceeding.

18In order to ensure MPAC’s natural justice rights are protected and to ensure the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of the proceeding, the Board finds that any prejudice that may result from admitting the new documents filed by the Appellant can be mitigated by providing MPAC with an opportunity to respond to the new documents with additional submissions or expert evidence.

19The Board therefore orders that MPAC may file a written response to the new documents within 30 days of the date of this Motion Decision. Should MPAC require more than 30 days, MPAC may apply to the Board for an extension. The Appellant shall not have a right of reply and is ordered not to file any further documents with the Board without first seeking leave of the Board to do so.

20The Board notes that in its written submissions filed in response to MPAC’s motion the Appellant withdrew the document identified as Exhibit J. Exhibit J is accordingly struck. The request to strike the other new documents filed by the Appellant is denied.

21Finally, MPAC alleged in its reply submissions that Exhibit D of the Appellant’s new documents is settlement privileged. Because the issue was first raised at the reply stage, the Board declines to consider it. If the parties cannot resolve the issue among themselves, they must file a new Expedited Board Direction Form requesting a written motion. Any such request must be accompanied by a summary of each party’s position on the issue.

ORDER

22The Board orders that:

1. The Registrar is directed to accept the Appellant’s new documents, excluding the document identified as Exhibit J.
2. MPAC may file a written response to the new documents (except Exhibit J) within 30 days of the date of this Motion Decision.
3. The Appellant is not permitted to file any further documents with the Board without first seeking leave of the Board to do so.