Court File and Parties
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 312/21
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
DIVISIONAL COURT
RE: KULEBA v. MUNICIPAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT CORPORATION
BEFORE: D.L. Corbett J.
COUNSEL: Paul Michael Kuleba, self-represented, not appearing Simon Sigler and David Cowling, for the MPAC
HEARD: August 3, 2021 by ZOOM videoconference
Endorsement
1This is a motion for an extension of time to move for leave to appeal, and a motion for leave to appeal (if an extension is granted) from a decision and a reconsideration decision of the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation assessing the value of Mr Kuleba’s house at $375,000.
Request for an Adjournment and for an in-person Hearing is Denied
2By case management direction on July 2, 2021, I directed that these motions be heard by a single judge of the Divisional Court, by ZOOM videoconference, on August 3, 2021.
3By email received July 29, 2021, Mr Kuleba wrote as follows:
I can confirm that the property located at 836 Finley Ave. has been sold as of July 26, 2021.
Prior to the closing, all parties were informed that there was a pending court matter involving MPAC and the Town of Ajax in regards to unsubstantiated statements of claim titled "TAX BILL" that were addressed to 836 Finley Ave.
Due to coercion and further contraventions of the law by members, officers and employees of the government of the Corporation of ONTARIO, PROVINCE OF; I was forced to pay a large amount of cash to the Town of Ajax in order to sell the property.
I require the motion scheduled for August 03, 2021 to be moved to "in Chambers" for a Special Chancery Hearing for remedy.
I do not consent to telephone or zoom for this matter.
Regards,
Paul
heir and beneficiary for KULEBA, PAUL MICHAEL
4At my direction, court staff advised the parties as follows on July 29, 2021:
By direction on July 2, 2021, Justice Corbett directed as follows:
- The motion for leave to appeal shall be heard on August 3, 2021, 10 am, by ZOOM videoconference, before a single judge of the Divisional Court.
The motion shall proceed by ZOOM on August 3, 2021, as scheduled, as directed by Justice Corbett. Any party seeking to adjourn the hearing on any basis may so request of the presiding judge during the ZOOM hearing on August 3, 2021. All parties are advised that if any party fails to attend at the ZOOM hearing as directed, the motion may proceed in that party's absence.
5Mr Kuleba did not attend the ZOOM hearing on August 3, 2021. At my direction, counsel for MPAC sent an email to Mr Kuleba at about 10:10 am, to advise that the hearing had convened and the court would proceed as scheduled. By 10:30 am, Mr Kuleba had not logged on to the hearing or responded to the email.
6The court’s process is directed by the court, not by the parties. In all the circumstances, I consider that Mr Kuleba has abandoned his motion and that it should be dismissed for that reason.
7In any event, Mr Kuleba’s motion would fail on the basis of Mr Kuleba’s motion materials. At the hearing before the Assessment Board, the sole issue was Mr Kuleba’s arguments that he is not liable for property tax because he is a natural person and because the claimed property taxes are unconstitutional. The Board rightly concluded that these arguments are without merit. On reconsideration, the Board again rightly concluded that there is no merit to these arguments. The proposed appeal in this court sought to re-argue these unmeritorious issues.
8In his appeal materials, Mr Kuleba challenged the Board’s findings that he fits within the category of “OPCA litigant” and “freeman on the land” as those terms are discussed in jurisprudence from Alberta. The Board’s findings of this kind were subsidiary to the Board’s main finding that Mr Kuleba’s appeal was an abuse of process, a finding within Ontario jurisprudence that the appeal was “vexatious”. This conclusion is unimpeachable, and it matters not, for the purposes of the proposed appeal, whether Mr Kuleba is an “OPCA litigant”, a “freeman on the land”, or whether he otherwise fits within the category of “vexatious litigant” under Ontario law.
Further Proceedings
9Mr Kuleba’s conduct described in the Board’s decision, his request for a “Chambers” appointment in “Chancery” for a “remedy”, leads the court to be concerned that Mr Kuleba may engage in further vexatious legal proceedings related to his obligation to pay taxes in respect to the subject property. Mr Kuleba may not commence or continue any proceedings in the Divisional Court in respect to his liability to pay property taxes without first obtaining permission from an administrative judge of the Divisional Court, which may be sought at a case management teleconference, on notice to all affected parties. Mr Kuleba may not commence or continue any such claims in the Superior Court of Justice (including the Small Claims Court) respecting his liability to pay property taxes without first obtaining permission from a Justice of the Ontario Superior Court. For the purposes of these directions, “property taxes” includes any interest, penalties or associated charges related to property taxes.
Costs
10I accept that MPAC has incurred actual legal costs to defend these motions in the range of $20,000 to $25,000 over the past two years. I am not satisfied that it would be reasonable for Mr Kuleba to be called upon to pay such a high amount for costs. I accept that the proposed appeal was so devoid of merit as to deserve an award of costs on a substantial indemnity basis. Taking all the circumstances into account, Mr Kuleba shall pay MPAC costs on a substantial indemnity scale fixed at $10,000, payable within thirty days.
11Counsel for MPAC shall prepare a draft order reflecting this decision and provide it to the court in WORD format within fourteen days; the court dispenses with approval as to form and content.
___________________________ D.L. Corbett J.
Released: August 5, 2021