Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: May 3, 2016 FILE NO.: WR 139492 Assessed Person(s): A. M. C. Applicant(s): A. M. C. Respondent(s): City of Mississauga Property Location(s): Withheld Municipality(ies): City of Mississauga Roll Number(s): Withheld Appeal Number(s): 3136138 Taxation Year(s): 2015 Hearing Event No. 621034 Legislative Authority: Section 357.(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, as amended Heard: March 17, 2016 in Mississauga, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties A. M. C. City of Mississauga

Representative Self-represented Sean Doyle

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY MARGARITA OKHOVATI

ISSUE

1The issue before the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) is to determine whether A. M. C.’s (the “Applicant”) property taxes for the taxation year 2015 should be cancelled, reduced or refunded as a result of the Applicant’s inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty under s. 357.(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 (“Act”).

DECISION

2The Board finds that the Applicant does not qualify for relief under s. 357.(1)(d.1) of the Act due to an inability to pay part or all of her taxes due to sickness or extreme poverty.

3The Board therefore, dismisses this application for the cancellation, reduction or refund of taxes for the taxation year 2015 on the property located (address withheld) in the City of Mississauga (“City”).

REASONS FOR DECISION

Legislation

4Section 357. (1)(d.1) of the Act states that:

Upon application to the treasurer of a local municipality made in accordance with this section, the local municipality may cancel, reduce or refund all or part of the taxes levied on land in the year in respect of which the application is made if the Applicant is unable to pay taxes because of sickness or extreme poverty.

5The Act outlines a two part test. In order for the Applicant to qualify for relief under this section of the Act, the Board must first determine whether sickness or extreme poverty exists. If neither sickness nor extreme poverty exists, this application fails. If either is present, the Applicant must demonstrate an inability to pay all or part of his/her taxes as a result of either of those two elements.

Applicant’s Evidence – Sickness

6The Applicant is a 52 year old single woman who lives alone and owns a house in Mississauga.

7In Exhibit 1, there is a copy of a letter from Dr. Amitha Mundenchira, Postmaster Medical Clinic, dated March 7, 2012, which was submitted by the Applicant to the City. The letter states that the Applicant A. M. C. has chronic pain and discomfort, depression, PTSD, fibromyalgia, osteoarthritis, IBS and migraines. It also states that the Applicant became ill in 2003. She stopped working and applied for short term disability, which was approved. In 2004, she applied for Long Term Disability with Manufacturers Life Insurance Company (“Manulife”) but that application was denied. She then filed a lawsuit with Manulife and her employer. When the Applicant was questioned on this matter, she stated that she did not pursue the lawsuit.

8The Applicant testified that in 2005 she worked as an auditor for six months. She also worked in 2006 in Information Technology for five months however, since then she never made an attempt to secure another job because of her health issues. The Applicant testified further that she was incarcerated for five months until January 2015 with no further information.

Applicant’s Evidence – Extreme Poverty

Document Disclosure

9The Applicant submitted the following documents to the City which was collectively entered as Exhibit 1.

• A copy of Tax Adjustment Application Form under the Act, s. 357 and 358. She completed the form by stating her name, address and telephone number and leaving out the section which states “Details (any additional information that may be required to process this application).”
• A copy of Canada Revenue Agency’s statement regarding the disability benefits for taxation year 2015.
• A copy of electricity bill dated March 4, 2014, a gas invoice dated March 10, 2015 and Rogers’ invoice covering Internet, TV and home phone dated January 12, 2016.
• A completed copy of her Financial Statement Form.
• A copy of medical report dated March 7, 2012.

Sources of Income

10The Applicant provided the Board with a Notice of Assessment from Canada Revenue Agency for the taxation year 2015, showing a total income of $13,448.40 ($1,120 per month).

11The Applicant stated that her only source of income was from the Ontario Disability Support Program in the amount of $1,100 per month.

12The Applicant stated further that she used her lines of credit to supplement her expenses.

13Furthermore, in response to the question as to whether the Applicant considered to rent out a room or a part of her house to generate some income in order to enable her to pay her property taxes, she answered no.

14The Applicant filed a Financial Statement Form for the taxation year 2015 which is summarized below: (Exhibit 1).

Monthly Income Ontario Disability Support $ 1,100

Monthly Expenses Mortgage $ 1,100 Fuel (gas/oil) $ 100 Hydro/water $ 140 Telecommunication $ 227 (Land line, Cell phone, Cable TV, Internet) Insurance (house and car) $ 155 Medication $ 125 Food $ 300 Transportation $ 200 TOTAL $ 2,347

Other Financial Information

• RRSP - $35,000.
• The Applicant testified that she was in possession of the following:
  • 2 Credit Cards (no information or statement was submitted to the Board)
  • 2 Lines of Credit (no information or statement was submitted to the Board).

City’s Evidence

15Sean Doyle, the representative of the City, submitted the following information summary of the Applicant’s compassionate appeal on behalf of the City Revenue Division (Exhibit 2).

Monthly Financial Position (per attached application) Current Value Assessment of the property: $385,000 Purchase Price: $181,000 Outstanding Mortgage: $215,000 Total Income $ 1,100 Total Expenses $ 2,160 Income/ Loss before Taxes $ 1,060 Property Taxes $ 264.50 Net Monthly Income Loss - $ 1,324.50 Yearly Income $13,200

Property Tax Status as at March 9, 2016 Annual Taxes for 2015 $3,174.65 Annual Taxes for 2014 $2,993.09

Analysis

16The test under s. 357 of the Act refers to whether the Applicant is unable to pay his/her property taxes due to sickness or extreme poverty. The eligibility criteria for relief are premised on a two-part test. First an applicant must demonstrate either sickness or extreme poverty. Secondly, the Board must determine whether the Applicant’s sickness or extreme poverty adversely affected her ability to pay all or part of her property taxes for the 2015 taxation year.

Sickness

17Although the medical report submitted by the Applicant is dated March 7, 2012 and she stated that she did not find it necessary to update it, the Board accepts the Applicant’s testimony that her condition is chronic, persists up to the present and prevents her from working. Therefore, the Board is satisfied that on the balance of probabilities, the Applicant meets the eligibility criteria of “sickness” as set out in the Act.

Extreme Poverty

18The intent of the legislation is to provide relief for property owners who cannot pay their property taxes in full or in part due to sickness or extreme poverty in a given taxation year. Either of these two eligible criteria must exist in order for a property owner to fulfill the first part of the test. In E. D. v. The City of Toronto, the Applicant’s application for relief from paying all or part of his property tax was assessed based on the situation of extreme poverty. In that case, Member Sharma indicated that the situation of extreme poverty is a much higher threshold than living in a state of poverty. In other words, the Applicant should be in a state of a “dire need”. Furthermore, Member Sharma states:

In viewing an application under this section of the Act, the Board does not only look at the income and expenses of the Applicant but also looks at the full spectrum of the Applicant’s financial resources available and determine whether there was any opportunity that would allow him to mitigate his tax obligation.

19In this case the Board finds that the Applicant does not meet the condition of being in extreme poverty for the following reasons.

20The City representative questioned the Applicant as to how she was able to maintain her lifestyle considering her monthly income of $1,100 and her monthly expenses of $2,347, which would leave her with net income loss of $1,247 per month. In this respect the Applicant had several answers. First, she stated that sometimes she borrowed money from her friends. When the Applicant was asked whether she had any written proof for that statement, she responded no. When she was asked again by the City representative regarding her financial status, she stated that she lived on her lines of credit. The Applicant testified that she had a line of credit with P.C. Financial for $20,000 with a balance of $19,300 and a line of credit with ING for $10,000 with a balance of $9,800. The Applicant also stated that she held two credit cards. In response to the City representative’s question as to why she did not provide the Board with statements regarding either her two credit cards or two lines of credit, she responded that it did not cross her mind to bring those statements to the Board and later she stated that ING never provided her with paper statements. She was asked why she did not obtain the information on-line; she stated that it did not occur to her to do so. At this point, the City representative stated that he was in touch with the Applicant several times before the hearing and the last time was only one week prior to the hearing when he sent an email to the Applicant reminding her regarding the need for her to provide supporting evidence to the Board at her hearing.

21The Board notes that the Applicant is familiar with the hearing process and the requirements to supply supporting evidence and information having appeared before the Board twice previously; her first appeal was in 2011 taxation year for which she was refunded $2,517.23 and the second appeal was for 2012 taxation year for which she was refunded $1,055.00. (Exhibit 2)

22The Board has examined the financial information the Applicant has provided in the Financial Statement Form and observes the following.

23The Applicant holds a Registered Retirement Savings Plan (“RRSP”) in the amount of $35,000 which is an asset that can be leveraged to assist the Applicant to meet her tax obligations. She also has equity of $170,000 in her home.

24Moreover, the Applicant testified that she was in possession of two lines of credit and two credit cards. In the absence of documentary evidence, it is unclear to the Board the balances in those accounts.

25In the Board’s view, the Applicant’s monthly property tax payments of approximately $264.50 can be accomplished through better management and use of funds available to her. She does not meet the condition of extreme poverty.

Inability to Pay

26The Board is satisfied that the Applicant suffers “sickness”, but there is not enough evidence to show that she is unable to pay property taxes due to this sickness.

27The Board is not satisfied that the Applicant made any deliberate effort to obtain and provide the relevant documents to allow the Board to evaluate and assess her application.

28The Board is also not satisfied with the explanation stated by the Applicant for failing to provide the information because “it just did not cross my mind and it did not occur to me to bring those documents” in light of the fact that she has appeared before the Board on two previous occasions, as well as having been reminded several times by the City’s representative regarding the requirements of the Board. There is insufficient evidence for the Board to find that she has demonstrated an inability to pay property taxes. Therefore, according to the Act, the Applicant does not meet the second part of the test and has not demonstrated that her sickness causes an inability to meet her property tax obligations.

CONCLUSION

29Based on the above analysis and evidence, the Board finds that the Applicant A.M.C. meets the criteria of “sickness” but fails to qualify for relief under the Act because she was not able to demonstrate that her sickness caused an inability to pay part or all of her taxes.

30The Board therefore dismisses the application for the cancellation, reduction or refund of taxes for the taxation year 2015.