Decision and Order
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL PURSUANT TO S. 50 OF THE ASSESSMENT ACT
CONCERNING:
Pacific Custom Log Sorting Ltd.
AND
AssessorS Of AreaS #10, 14 & 15
|
Appeal Nos.: |
||
|
|
||
|
Refer to as: |
Pacific Custom Log Sorting Ltd. v. Area 10 et al. (2010 PAABBC 20101337) |
|
|
|
||
|
Date of Decision: |
July 5, 2010 |
|
|
|
||
|
Properties: |
10-43-224-978000-000, City of Port Coquitlam 10-43-305-38222-000, City of Coquitlam 10-43-305-38223-000, City of Coquitlam 10-43-305-38227-000, City of Coquitlam 10-43-305-38233-025, City of Coquitlam 10-43-305-38234-000, City of Coquitlam 10-43-305-40001-106, 1-1950 Brigantine Drive, City of Coquitlam 10-43-305-40029-000, City of Coquitlam 10-43-305-40031-000, City of Coquitlam 14-36-326-9907-00079-6, City of Surrey 15-42-319-1395.000, District of Pitt Meadows 15-42-319-1396.000, District of Pitt Meadows |
|
|
|
||
|
Heard: |
||
|
|
||
|
Board Panel: |
Simmi K. Sandhu, Panel Chair |
|
[1] These are applications for leave to appeal pursuant to section 50(1.1) of the Assessment Act.
[2] The Appellant is an occupier of the properties that is the subject of these applications and, pursuant to the definition of “owner” in the Assessment Act, is considered an owner. They did not file a complaint to the Property Assessment Review Panel as required by section 33(2) of the Act. Section 50(4.3) of the Act provides that the Board may grant leave to appeal if it is satisfied that the owner’s failure to file a notice of complaint within the time required by section 33(2) was “due to circumstances beyond the owner’s control”. The onus is on the owner to provide evidence in support of reasons why leave should be granted.
[3] The ordinary meaning of the words “circumstances beyond the owner’s control” mean circumstances or events that were not created by a lack of diligence or efficiency on the part of the owner, circumstances that could not reasonably have been foreseen by the owner, or circumstances that with reasonable efforts on behalf of the owner could not have been avoided. To turn it around, if there is something the owner could have done to avoid the circumstance, the circumstance was within the owner’s control rather than beyond their control. Such an interpretation accords with the scheme of the Assessment Act to provide an annual system of assessments with time limits for the filing of appeals so that the roll may be adjudicated and finalized in a timely way.
[4] The evidence and reasons provided in support of the application are that Pacific Custom Log Sorting Ltd. (“PCLS”) failed to file complaints to the Review Panel because they were having a dialogue as part of a committee of forest companies (the River Industrial Group or “RIG”) with the Vancouver Port regarding value increases. The RIG was unable to meet with the Port in 2009. The meeting took place in early 2010 at which time RIG was informed the values were set by BC Assessment and PCLS was under the understanding that its “appeal was a joint appeal” until April 2010 when RIG notified its members that individual appeals to the Board would be required by April 30. As a result, PCLS filed these appeals before the Board. PCLS says that it has been making an attempt to “appeal” the rate increases since mid-2009.
[5] I am not satisfied there were circumstances beyond the owner’s control. PCLS is attempting to “appeal” zonal rate increases that it has to pay to the Port as part of its lease obligations. However, the increases are based on assessments set by BC Assessment of the properties. If PCLS was not aware of the basis for the rates they were paying, this is a circumstance within its control, namely a lack of diligence or efficiency on its part to understand the role the assessments played in its private contractual relationship with the Port. In terms of reliance upon the conduct or advice of RIG, this is a choice that PCLS made to be part of this larger group and act in accordance with this group. PCLS could have taken steps in the circumstances to obtain proper advice or become better aware of its rights and obligations, as well as, of the appeal process. There is no question that it received the Notice of Assessments for these properties. The Notices clearly set out the appeal deadlines and process that must be followed to appeal the assessments. However, that process was not followed and the deadline to file to the Board was not met. As stated by the Board in Interior Health Authority v. Assessor of Area #19, 2009 PAABBC20091380, “lack of awareness or familiarity with the law does not create a circumstance beyond a person’s control.”
[6] Therefore, I am not satisfied that there were not steps the owners could have taken to avoid missing the deadline for filing a complaint to the Review Panel. Consequently, I am not satisfied there were circumstances beyond the owners’ control and decline to exercise the Board’s discretion to grant leave to appeal.
ORDER
[7] Leave to appeal is denied.