A Prince Edward Island property-tax assessment appeal failed because the notice arrived three days after the statutory deadline, even though the homeowners said they had mailed it earlier. In Holden and Fullerton v. Minister of Finance, 2026 PEIRAC 27, the Island Regulatory and Appeals Commission also said the minister’s appeal instructions should explain the option of personal delivery.
The commission dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction after a March 10, 2026 hearing and issued its written reasons and order on May 29. It did not decide whether the disputed property assessment was too high.
The dispute turned on delivery, not the assessed value
Jordan Holden and Kathryn Fullerton had asked the minister to review their 2025 assessment, arguing that the taxable value exceeded what they paid for the home and continued to rise. A July 15, 2025 letter confirmed a market-value assessment of $581,800. That figure was the minister’s assessment, not a new valuation imposed by IRAC.
The letter told them to complete the prescribed appeal form and send it by registered mail to the minister and commission, to be received within 21 days of the letter’s mailing date. Both recipients received the notice by ordinary mail on August 8.
The homeowners said they had taken the notice to the post office on August 1 and selected ordinary mail after being told registered mail would not arrive faster. They argued that a few days’ delivery delay was negligible and questioned whether the minister had actually mailed the decision on July 15. The envelope in the minister’s record bore an August 5 postmark.
The minister presented evidence about its mailing practices: letters were sent out on their stated date, and a letter not dispatched that day would be redated. IRAC accepted that the decision had been mailed on July 15. The 21-day period therefore expired on August 5, three days before receipt of the appeal.
Ordinary mail did not attract deemed service
The commission applied sections 22 and 23 of the Real Property Assessment Act. The appeal period runs from mailing of the minister’s decision, while an appeal is instituted by serving notice on the required recipients. Relying on its earlier decisions, IRAC explained that merely mailing an appeal is not service: the notice must actually be received.
The Act provides deemed service for documents sent by registered mail, but that rule could not assist these appellants because they used ordinary mail. IRAC said it had no authority to overlook the mandatory deadline or suspend the statute’s application.
Lateness was sufficient to dispose of the appeal. The commission expressly declined to make a separate finding on whether the chosen method of service was valid, so the ruling should not be read as deciding that additional issue.
Personal-delivery option should be made clear
The homeowners pointed out that the Act permits personal delivery and said they would have used it had the minister’s letter mentioned that option. IRAC agreed the letter should bring personal delivery to people’s attention, describing it as a potentially efficient and less costly alternative to registered mail.
That criticism did not save the late appeal. The commission nevertheless stressed that its ruling concerned only the 2025 assessment: it did not prevent a separate appeal of the 2026 assessment after the statutory referral process was completed.
The formal order dismissed the appeal without determining the assessment’s merits. No later reported outcome was identified in the limited official-source check for this report; the reasons themselves contain notices about commission review and court appeal routes.
