Decision and Order
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL PURSUANT TO S. 50 OF THE ASSESSMENT ACT
CONCERNING:
AND
Assessor Of Area #11 - Richmond/Delta
|
Appeal No.: |
|
|
|
|
|
Refer to as: |
Terminal Forest Products Ltd v. Area 11 (2010 PAABBC 20100675) |
|
|
|
|
Date of Decision: |
June 2, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
Properties: |
11-38-320-R-800-007-025, City of Richmond 11-38-320-R-800-907-001, City of Richmond |
|
|
|
|
Heard: |
|
|
|
|
|
Board Panel: |
Simmi K. Sandhu, Panel Chair |
[1] This is an application for leave to appeal pursuant to section 50(1.1) of the Assessment Act.
[2] The Appellant is an occupier of the property that is the subject of this application and pursuant to the definition of “owner” in the Assessment Act 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 Terminal Forest Products Ltd. failed to file an appeal due to staff reductions that were in place last winter and they have now had the opportunity to review their foreshores.
[5] I am not satisfied there were circumstances beyond the owner’s control. Although there may have been staff reductions, this does not explain why someone at Terminal Forest Products Ltd. could not have filed an appeal by the deadline required. There would have been some staff or employees that could have filed the appeal and the fact that they did not is solely within the owner’s control.
[6] 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.