Katz v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Regional No. 9, 2012 ONSC 630

Availability of Judicial Review

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)).

2The 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]

Merits of the Application

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).

4The 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.

5After 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).

6The 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.

7In 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.

8The 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.

9As the Board’s decision is reasonable, the application for judicial review fails on the merits.

R.S.J. THEN

[10]

Endorsement and Costs

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.”