Decision and Order
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL PURSUANT TO S. 50 OF THE ASSESSMENT ACT
CONCERNING:
The Friendship Food Company Ltd
AND
Assessor Of Area #09 - Vancouver Sea To Sky Region
|
Appeal No.: |
|
|
|
|
|
Refer to as: |
The Friendship Food Company Ltd v. Area 09 (2010 PAABBC 20101421) |
|
|
|
|
Date of Decision: |
July 6, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
Property: |
City of Vancouver |
|
|
|
|
Heard: |
|
|
|
|
|
Board Panel: |
Cheryl Vickers, Panel Chair |
[1] This is an application for reconsideration of the Registrar’s opinion that the Board does not have jurisdiction in this appeal because the assessment that is the subject of this appeal was not the subject of a decision by the Property Assessment Review Panel.
[2] The Appellant’s agent filed a letter of complaint to the Review Panel identifying the property as follows:
Assessment Roll Number: 09-39-200-026-590-126-97-0000
Civic Address: LM101 – 757 W. Hastings Street
Municipality: Vancouver
[3] While the civic address correctly identified the property intended to be appealed, the assessment roll number did not. The Assessment roll number relates to property with the civic address 757 Hastings Street (without the LM101). The correct assessment roll number corresponding to the identified civic address is 09-39-200-026-590-126-97-6619. The Review Panel conducted a hearing with respect to roll number 09-39-200-026-590-126-97-0000 and issued a decision confirming the roll.
[4] The Appellant submits that there was an error in setting out the roll number in the letter of complaint to the Review Panel but that the property was clearly identified by its civic address. The Appellant submits that the Assessor should have noticed that the civic address and roll number did not conform and make inquiries to clarify which property was the subject of the complaint. The Appellant submits the Board should now correct the error and oversight and accept jurisdiction in this appeal.
[5] The Assessor submits that the Appellant would have received a Notice of Hearing for the identified roll number but did not attend the Review Panel hearing. The Assessor submits there was sufficient time, correspondence and opportunity to perfect the appeal before the Review Panel and that the Board does not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal respecting an assessment roll number that was not before the Review Panel. The Assessor submits BC Assessment (BCA) has to assume the roll number is correct, especially when the appeal is from a professional agent.
[6] In turn, the Appellant submits it was a transposition error and that it has been his experience that BCA staff will contact an agent to discuss any concerns with an appeal in advance of the Review Panel hearing. He submits it is most agents’ standard practice to not attend the Review Panel.
[7] Section 33(3)(a) of the Assessment Act requires that the notice of complaint to the Review Panel must “clearly identify the property in respect of which the complaint is made”. The notice of complaint in this case identified two properties in the “Re” line of the letter but then requested an independent review “for the above referenced property”, in the singular, and referred to “this property”, also in the singular. The letter clearly intended to file a complaint respecting one property, but mistakenly identified two properties. The notice of complaint, therefore, does not clearly identify which property is the subject of the complaint.
[8] Section 35(1)(b) requires the Assessor to deliver a notice of hearing to the complainant’s address for delivery. The Assessor did so for the identified roll number. As the roll number set out was a real roll number corresponding to a property, as opposed to a non-existent roll number that did not correspond to a property, it was reasonable for the Assessor to assume the roll number identified the property that was the subject of the complaint, and no need to refer to the civic address to identify the property. Having received a notice of hearing, the Appellant’s agent ought to have been aware of the mistake and could have brought it to the attention of the Assessor and the Review Panel.
[9] The Board has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a decision of the Review Panel or the omission or refusal of the Review Panel to adjudicate a complaint under section 33(1). There was no decision of the Review Panel with respect to the property now appealed to the Board. As the notice of complaint did not clearly identify the property now sought to be appealed as the subject of the complaint, there was no refusal or omission of the Review Panel to adjudicate the complaint.
[10] I find the Board does not have jurisdiction in this appeal.
ORDER
[11] The Board does not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal.