Decision and Order
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL PURSUANT TO S. 50 OF THE ASSESSMENT ACT
CONCERNING:
Ajaib SANDHU
AND
Assessor Of Area #15 - Fraser Valley Office
|
Appeal No.: |
|
|
|
|
|
Refer to as: |
Sidhu et al. v. Area 15 (2010 PAABBC 20100614) |
|
|
|
|
Date of Decision: |
May 31, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
Property: |
City of Abbotsford |
|
|
|
|
Heard: |
|
|
|
|
|
Board Panel: |
Cheryl Vickers, Panel Chair |
[1] This is an application for leave to appeal pursuant to section 50(1.1) of the Assessment Act.
[2] The Appellants are the owners of the property that is the subject of this application. 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 owners’ 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 the owner Chamkaur Sidhu was out of the country when the Notice of Assessment was received. The owner Ajaib Sandhu resides at the property and received the assessment. Ajaib Sandhu suffers from a brain injury and did not mention or forgot to mention to Mr. Sidhu that the assessment had substantially increased from the previous year. Mr. Sidhu submits that if he had known about the increase he would most definitely have appealed in time.
[5] I am not satisfied there were circumstances beyond the owners’ control. Although Mr. Sidhu was out of the country when the Notice of Assessment arrived, I have no evidence that he had not returned to the country in advance of the appeal deadline or that he was not in communication with Ajaib Sandhu in advance of his return. Even if Mr. Sidhu was still away from the country at the appeal deadline, in this age of global communication, I am not satisfied that he could not have made inquiries as to whether the Notice of Assessment had arrived and as to its content. Although Mr. Sandhu neglected to mention that the assessment had increased, Mr. Sidhu could, never the less, have made inquiries. As the evidence is Mr. Sandhu lives alone, he is obviously not completely incapable despite a brain injury, and even if he was, a caregiver or another individual could have been instructed to ensure Mr. Sidhu was advised in a timely manner of the Notice of Assessment.
[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.