CITATION: Katz v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Regional No. 9, 2012 ONSC 630
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 292/10
DATE: 20120125
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
THEN R.S.J., MATLOW AND SWINTON JJ.
BETWEEN:
LYNNE CHERYL KATZ
Applicant
– and –
THE MUNICIPAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT CORPORATION REGION NO. 9 AND ASSESSMENT REVIEW BOARD
Respondents
David J. Kirwin, for the Applicant
Donald G. Mitchell, for the Respondent, Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
Megan Peck, for the Assessment Review Board
HEARD at Toronto: January 25, 2012
SWINTON J. (orally)
[1] Judicial review is a discretionary remedy and may be refused where the applicant has a right of appeal. The Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A. 31, s. 43.1(1) provides a right to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) only on a question of law and only with leave of the Divisional Court. An appeal must be filed within thirty days of the mailing of the Board’s decision (s. 43.1(2)).
[2] The applicant did not pursue a motion for leave to appeal in a timely fashion. No explanation has been provided as to why she failed to pursue the proper appeal procedure and why she should now be allowed to proceed by judicial review. Therefore, we would exercise our discretion to dismiss this application.
[3] In any event, there is no merit to this application. The Board found that the applicant twice failed to comply with Rule 88 of its rules concerning the content of a Statement of Issues, and therefore it dismissed her appeal as permitted by s. 8.2(1)(c) of the Act. Subsection 8.2(3) requires the Board to notify an appellant and give him or her an opportunity to respond to a request for further information before dismissing an appeal pursuant to s. 8.2(1)(c).
[4] The applicant was put on notice by another panel of the Board in May, 2008 that her Statement of Issues was not in compliance with the Board’s rules and that she should provide the necessary information or risk having her appeal dismissed.
[5] After the hearing in January, 2010, the Board set out the text of s.8.2 of the Act in its reasons and made reference to the specific notification in 2008 that non-compliance with an order for an amended Statement of Issues would result in dismissal of the appeals (see pages 7 and 10 of the Reasons).
[6] The Board found non-compliance in January, 2010 but it refused to dismiss the applicant’s appeals, giving her a deadline to provide the necessary information. She did not comply with the Board’s order.
[7] In these circumstances, we are satisfied the applicant had proper notice under s. 8.2(3). The Board acted within its authority in deciding to dismiss her appeals, given her ongoing failure to cure the default, and its decision was reasonable in the circumstances.
[8] The Board also refused to order further disclosure to the applicant and clearly set out its reasons for that decision. We see no denial of natural justice resulting from that ruling in the factual circumstances of this case.
[9] As the Board’s decision is reasonable, the application for judicial review fails on the merits.
R.S.J. THEN
[10] I have endorsed the Application Record, “ The application is dismissed for oral reasons delivered by Swinton J. Counsel agree that costs to the respondent Municipal Property Assessment Corporation in the amount of $500.00 is fair and reasonable in the circumstances and it is so ordered. The Board does not such seek costs and none are ordered.”
THEN R.S.J.
MATLOW J.
SWINTON J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: January 25, 2012
Date of Release: February 8, 2012
CITATION: Katz v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Regional No. 9, 2012 ONSC 630
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 292/10
DATE: 20120125
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
THEN R.S.J., MATLOW AND SWINTON JJ.
BETWEEN:
LYNNE CHERYL KATZ
Applicant
– and –
THE MUNICIPAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT CORPORATION REGION NO. 9 AND ASSESSMENT REVIEW BOARD
Respondents
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SWINTON J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: January 25, 2012
Date of Release: February 8, 2012