Decision and Order
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL PURSUANT TO S. 50 OF THE ASSESSMENT ACT
CONCERNING:
AND
Assessor Of Area #26 - Prince George
|
Appeal No.: |
|
|
|
|
|
Refer to as: |
Nordic Forest Ltd v. Area 26 (2010 PAABBC 20100727) |
|
|
|
|
Date of Decision: |
June 2, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
Properties: |
26-57-757-39293.100, Prince George Rural 26-57-757-39293.200, Grassland Road, Prince George Rural |
|
|
|
|
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.
[2] On April 30, 2010, Mr. Burbee on behalf of the Appellant, Nordic Forest Ltd, submitted a notice of appeal to the Board via the Board’s on-line e-filing system. He identified the roll numbers being appealed as 26-57-757-29393.200 and 26-57-757-39393.100. He did not complete the section of the on line appeal form for “Street” or “Property City” indicating both as “n/a”. He indicated that the Appellant is the owner of both properties.
[3] By letter dated May 7, 2010, the Registrar provided the opinion that the Board did not have jurisdiction to deal with the appeal on the grounds that the roll numbers indicted in the notice of appeal do not exist. The Registrar noted that there were no street addresses or other identifying descriptions of the property to allow the Board to determine if the Appellant intended to appeal other roll numbers.
[3] The Appellant’s application for reconsideration of the Registrar’s opinion advises that there were typographical errors made in entering the roll numbers into the on line appeal form. Mr. Burbee indicates the correct roll numbers are 26-57-757-39293.100 and 26-57-757-39293.200. He also provides a legal description for the properties. He explains that no street address was entered on the appeal form because the properties are rural vacant lots without a street address. He submits that BC Assessment was aware of his intent to appeal because he had discussed it with them. He provides copies of the Property Assessment Review Panel’s Decision Notices for the two folios. His evidence is that the properties identified in the Decision Notices are the only ones “eligible for appeal by Nordic Forest”.
[4] The Assessor takes no position in this application.
[5] Section 50(4) of the Assessment Act provides that a notice of appeal must “clearly identify the property in respect of which the appeal is made”. Section 50(5) of the Act provides that if a notice of appeal is deficient, the chair of the Board may allow a reasonable period of time in which the notice may be perfected.
[6] In the circumstances of this case, I am prepared to exercise my discretion to allow the Appellant to perfect the appeal by correcting the typographical errors made on the appeal form, thereby clearly identifying the properties in respect of which the appeal is made. I accept Mr. Burbee’s evidence that a typographical error and transposition of numbers occurred in filling in the on line appeal form. The roll numbers entered and the roll numbers actually appealed are very similar – one being out by only one digit and the other transposing two digits. I understand Mr. Burbee’s evidence that these are the only properties “eligible for appeal by Nordic Forest” to mean that they are the only properties owned by Nordic Forest. The appeal form identified the Appellant as the owner of the properties. The identification of the Appellant as owner effectively identifies the properties in the circumstances.
[7] I conclude there is no prejudice to the Assessor in exercising my discretion to allow the Appellant to perfect the appeal given that the Assessor takes no position in this application and does not dispute Mr. Burbee’s evidence that the Appellant’s intent to appeal was discussed. Further, the Board’s records indicate that when staff inquired of the Assessor’s office as to whether the appeal numbers indicated on the appeal form existed (not being able to find them in the data base provided), the Board was advised that the roll numbers indicated did not exist but that “26-757-39293.100 and 26-757-39293.200 do exist and are owned by Nordic Forest Ltd and were appealed to parp” [the Review Panel]. I conclude that the Assessor likely understood which folios the Appellant intended to appeal.
[8] In all of the circumstances, I exercise my discretion to allow the Appellant to perfect the notice of appeal by correcting the roll numbers appealed to reflect the two folios owned by the Appellant being 26-57-757-39293.100 and 26-57-757-39293.200.
ORDER
[9] The Board has jurisdiction to hear the Appellant’s appeal from the decision of the 2010 Property Assessment Review Panel with respect to the assessment of folios 26-57-757-39293.100 and 26-57-757-39293.200.