| updated: Aug 12/04 | MPAC
& property assessment: |
Problems encountered by property owners applying to proceed under the "pre-hearing stream":
Bruce Haines writes (April 26): "Stick to your guns":
As you may know from reading other documents posted to World 19, property owners appealing their assessments to the Assessment Review Board (ARB) have a right to request that their appeal or complaint proceed under the "prehearing stream." This is a valuable option given by Section 15.1 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the ARB. A summary of these Rules has previously been posted to the World 19 web site as well as a commentary on the process.
Recently I received a call from a clerk at the ARB telling me that she was going to place my appeal in the "regular" stream which meant that the hearing would take place without any of the benefits of the prehearing stream. She said that pre hearing was actually intended for multi residential appeals or commercial or industrial appeals. I told her flatly that there was no such limitation in Rule 15.1 and that under no circumstances would I consent to my appeal being transferred. She put me through to her "supervisor" and I insisted on the pre-hearing stream. The supervisor got the message and the matter is proceeding as requested. Bottom line? Don't let the ARB staff push you off your track!
Below is a letter from Bruce Haines to the Assessment Review Board
Here also is a link (PDF forrmat) to a letter to the ARB written by the Canadian Justice Review Board about ARB's arbitrary process. (May 25/04)
| email us to : - subscribe to our newsletter or to send us your
|
Letter from Bruce Haines to the Assessment
Review Board (May 14/04) BRUCE HAINES, Q.C. Barrister and Solicitor VIA TELECOPIER : 416 -314 - 3717 & REGULAR MAIL Iraklis Hostelidis Dear Sir:
Receipt is acknowledged of your letter dated April 30, 2004, which arrived yesterday by ordinary mail. With due respect, I find the content of your letter to be quite disturbing. Included with my Notice of Complaint - Annual Assessment, and forming part of it, was my written Request for Prehearing Stream pursuant to Rule15.1 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure, applicable to Assessment Review Proceedings, specially made under Section 25.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act. These Rules came into force on October 1, 2003. Rule 15.1 provides as follows:
My written request for the Prehearing stream set out a detailed list of the reasons in six separate paragraphs, (a) to (f) inclusive. Your April 30th letter contains the following statement:
With all due respect, there is nothing in Rule 15.1 which inserts a requirement of "complexity of issues". In your letter you have also made reference to Rule 73 to 86. Having read the comments which appear to these rules, I see nothing in these extensive comments suggesting the applicability of "complexity of issues." You have as well made reference to Rule 74 and Rule 75. I do not see anything in these rules that mentions "complexity of issues" or extends the requirement of Rule 15.1. As mentioned above, I stated my reasons in detail for the pre-hearing request In anticipation that it may be of interest to you, I am enclosing a copy of an "Acknowledgement letter - Complaint with correct fee," sent by the Assessment Review Board on May 7, 2004 to David M--- and Judith M--- who reside in a detached private dwelling house two blocks from my address. The letter contains the following paragraph: "You may request a pre-hearing of preliminary matters by sending a written request to the Board." As this was a form letter sent to Mr. and Mrs. M---, I assume that the same invitation is extended to every other Toronto resident bringing a complaint before the Board and I am hard pressed to understand why you would have seen fit to write me as you did on April 30, 2004. As you may well be aware, in carrying out its activities, MPAC makes no effort to explain its assessments to the property owners although the consequences of those assessments can have a serious adverse financial affect. It is instructive to note that the comments to Rules 73 to 86 contains the following statement: "Prehearing Procedural Orders may deal with such matters as productions, discoveries, inspections, mediation, settlement conferences , narrowing of issues, additional hearing events and Member continuity." I am sure you will agree that these are valuable tools through which the Assessment Review Board can exert its independent role in making sure that property owners and well MPAC have the means to ensure a fair hearing based on full information. I do not know from whom you derived your authority at the Assessment Review Board to write your April 30th letter. Unfortunately, your letter does not seem to be consistent with those broadly stated goals but seeks to insert a requirement of "complexity of issues" which forms no part of the mandate. Accordingly would you kindly provide me with name of the chairperson at the Assessment Review Board who exercises the duties of chief executive officer. Finally, I am forwarding a copy of your letter and this letter to the Canadian Justice Review Board. Yours very truly, BH:lb enclosures/attachments copy: The Canadian Justice Review Board BH:lh |