Jennifer Boyczuk

At a Case Management Conference for an expropriation compensation claim, the Tribunal considered whether the non-lawyer executor of the claimant estate could represent the estate.

Applying Rule 15.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and related jurisprudence, the Tribunal held that an estate must be represented by a lawyer.

The Tribunal ordered the executor to retain legal counsel within 30 days, failing which the respondent could move to dismiss the proceeding.

The Tribunal also denied party status to a former lawyer claiming a mortgage interest for unpaid fees.

The applicants applied to the City of Toronto to have their 2020 property taxes cancelled, reduced, or refunded on the basis of inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The Assessment Review Board found that the applicants had sufficient household income and bank balances to meet their financial obligations, including the payment of the 2020 property taxes.

As the applicants were able to pay their taxes, the application was dismissed.

The applicant applied to cancel her 2019 property taxes of $680.86, claiming an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed the applicant's financial situation, noting a monthly income deficit but significant available credit and a Tax-Free Savings Account.

The Board found that the applicant had not exhausted all available financial resources to mitigate her property tax obligation, having used her credit to pay legal fees instead.

The application was dismissed as the applicant was deemed able to pay the taxes.

The City of Toronto requested a review of a Board decision granting property tax relief to the respondent due to extreme poverty under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

The City argued the Board erred by not including $800 in monthly family support as income and by finding the respondent was in extreme poverty despite having equity in her home.

The Board dismissed the request, finding no significant error of fact or law.

The funds were intended for the respondent's children and transferred to a trust, and the respondent's equity was reasonably considered inaccessible due to an ongoing family law dispute.

The applicants applied to the City of Toronto to have their 2018 property taxes cancelled, reduced, or refunded due to sickness or extreme poverty under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

The Assessment Review Board found that despite the applicants' modest income and significant medical challenges, they had sufficient funds in their bank account after paying the 2018 taxes to demonstrate an ability to pay.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought a refund of her 2018 property taxes under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, claiming an inability to pay due to sickness.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed the applicant's financial resources and expenses.

The Board found that the applicant had incurred significant discretionary expenses, including meals outside the home, music lessons, and travel expenses for an adult child, which exceeded the total amount of property taxes owed.

The Board concluded that the applicant could reasonably have paid her property taxes had she prioritized them over discretionary spending.

The application was dismissed.

The City of Toronto requested a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that allowed a corporation, Bela Acres Holding Inc., to apply for property tax relief under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act due to 'sickness or extreme poverty'.

The Associate Chair granted the review, finding that the previous decision made significant errors of law in its statutory interpretation.

The Board held that a corporation cannot practically experience 'extreme poverty' or 'sickness', and that the legislative intent of the provision was to provide relief to individuals, not corporations.

The application for tax relief was dismissed.

The applicant appealed to the Assessment Review Board to have her 2017 property taxes cancelled due to extreme poverty under section 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act.

The Board found that the applicant's monthly expenses for basic necessities exceeded her household income, which consisted primarily of social assistance and child tax benefits.

The Board concluded the applicant was in a condition of extreme poverty and cancelled the 2017 property taxes in the amount of $3,463.73.

The applicant requested a review of a previous Assessment Review Board decision that denied his application for property tax relief based on sickness or extreme poverty.

The applicant argued the Board erred in finding he had the ability to pay his 2015 property taxes and had alternative revenue sources, and that the Board misstated the legal test.

He also sought to introduce new evidence regarding discretionary expenses.

The Board dismissed the request for review, finding no significant errors of law or fact that would have changed the result, and concluding that the new evidence would not have altered the finding that the applicant had sufficient equity in his home to pay the taxes.

The moving party municipality brought a motion to dismiss the respondent corporation's application for municipal tax relief.

The corporation had applied for relief under a provision allowing relief for an applicant unable to pay taxes because of sickness or extreme poverty.

The municipality argued that only human persons could experience sickness or extreme poverty, and therefore corporations were ineligible.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the statutory definition of 'person' includes corporations, and while a corporation cannot be sick, it is capable of experiencing extreme poverty.

The Board concluded there was no legislative intent to exclude corporate applicants from seeking such relief.

The Applicant applied for a refund of his 2015 property taxes under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, citing sickness and extreme poverty.

While the Board accepted that the Applicant suffered from sickness, it found he was not in a situation of extreme poverty.

The Board determined that the Applicant had the ability to pay his property taxes, noting he had already paid them in full without penalty, received financial support from his son, had a positive bank balance, and had substantial unaccessed equity in his home.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant applied for a reduction, refund, or cancellation of his 2016 property taxes under section 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, citing extreme poverty and sickness.

The applicant experienced significant financial hardship in 2016, including job loss, a plumbing leak, and high debt levels, resulting in his monthly expenses far exceeding his income.

The Assessment Review Board found that the applicant was in a condition of extreme poverty and was unable to pay his property taxes for the 2016 taxation year.

The Board directed the City of Toronto to refund the partially paid taxes and cancel the remaining balance.

The applicant applied to the City of Toronto for a cancellation, reduction, or refund of her 2016 property taxes under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, citing sickness and extreme poverty.

While the Assessment Review Board accepted that the applicant met the sickness portion of the test due to her disability, it found she was not living in extreme poverty and had the financial ability to pay her taxes.

The Board noted significant discretionary spending, including casino withdrawals, and dismissed the application.

The applicant applied for a cancellation, reduction, or refund of property taxes for the 2016 taxation year under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, citing an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The applicant had been involved in a serious motor vehicle accident and was unable to work.

While the Board accepted that the applicant suffered from sickness, it found that this sickness did not result in an inability to pay his taxes.

The Board determined that the applicant's financial situation, which included significant equity in two properties, did not meet the threshold for extreme poverty.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought a cancellation, reduction, or refund of his 2016 property taxes under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, on the basis of sickness and extreme poverty.

The Assessment Review Board accepted the evidence of sickness but found the applicant was not living in extreme poverty.

The Board noted the applicant's discretionary spending on vacations, golf, and toll roads, as well as his substantial home equity, which demonstrated an ability to pay the property taxes.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a 90-year-old condominium owner, applied for a refund of her 2016 property taxes under section 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, citing extreme poverty.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had sufficient net monthly income and equity in her property to pay her property taxes, and that her lifestyle and expenses did not demonstrate extreme poverty.

The applicant applied for a refund of her 2016 property taxes on the basis of sickness and extreme poverty under section 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

While the Assessment Review Board accepted that the applicant suffered from sickness, it found that she did not meet the test for extreme poverty.

The evidence showed that the applicant and her daughter had sufficient assets, including equity in the property and cash savings, to pay the property taxes.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant applied for a refund of his 2016 property taxes under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, citing sickness and extreme poverty.

While the Board accepted that the applicant was sick, it found he was not in extreme poverty.

The applicant had a net worth of over $500,000, significant savings, and substantial discretionary expenses, and had already paid his 2016 property taxes in full without incurring debt.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a temporary seasonal employee, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

He claimed his manager refused to sign a Ministry of the Environment form required for a drinking water operator certificate because of a previous workplace injury.

The Tribunal found that the manager refused to sign the form because the applicant had not accumulated the required hours of operating experience and the form contained inaccurate information.

The Tribunal concluded there was no evidence that the applicant's injury was a factor in the manager's decision and dismissed the application.