G. E. B. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2016 CanLII 29989

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: May 16, 2016

FILE NO.: WR 139742

Assessed Person(s): G. E. B.

Appellant(s): G. E. B.

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 18

Respondent(s): Township of West Lincoln

Property Location(s): Withheld

Municipality(ies): Township of West Lincoln

Roll Number(s): Withheld

Appeal Number(s): 3059626, 3059627 and 3115027

Taxation Year(s): 2013, 2014, and 2015

Hearing Event No.: 623860

Legislative Authority: Section 357.(7) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25

Heard: April 7, 2016, in Beamsville, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
G. B.	Self-represented
Township of West Lincoln	Donna DeFilippis

DECISION DELIVERED BY M. SHARMA

INTRODUCTION

1The Appellant (“G.B.”) filed an application with the Regional Municipality of Niagara (“Municipality”) seeking a cancellation, refund or reduction of property taxes for the taxation years 2013, 2014 and 2015.

2G.B. stated that he advised the Municipality that he is unable to meet his tax obligations because of his illness due to an accident.

3G.B. is seeking a reduction, cancellation or refund of taxes under s. 357.(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25 (“Municipal Act, 2001”) because of his inability to pay the taxes due to sickness.

4The applications by G.B. to the Municipality for relief with respect to the taxation years 2013 and 2014 were heard by Council on November 11, 2014. Council denied the application and G.B. in accordance with s. 357.(7) of the Municipal Act, 2001, appealed Council’s decision to the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”).

ISSUE

5The issue before the Board is to determine whether the Appellant’s property taxes for the taxation years 2013, 2014 and 2015 should be cancelled, reduced or refunded because of the Appellant’s inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty.

DECISION

6The Board finds that based on the evidence before it, the Appellant has failed to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Board that there exists an inability to meet his property tax obligations for 2013, 2014 and 2015 as set out in s. 357.(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

7Accordingly, the Board dismisses the application for the cancellation, reduction or refund of taxes for the taxation years 2013, 2014 and 2015 on the property located at (address withheld).

BACKGROUND

8The Municipal Act, 2001, s. 357.(1)(d.1) states that:

357.(1) 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 taxes levied on land in the year in respect of which the application is made if,

(d.1) the applicant is unable to pay taxes because of sickness or extreme poverty;

9In order to satisfy the conditions set out above, a two-part test is applied. The first part of the test is for the Board to determine if sickness or extreme poverty exists. If neither condition is met, then the application fails. The second part of the test is that if either condition is present, the Appellant must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Board, an inability to pay some or all of the taxes.

10At the start of the hearing the Board advised G.B. that each of the three taxation years must be treated as separate appeals. However G.B. advised the Board that he would be presenting evidence that applies to all three years under appeal i.e. 2013, 2014 and 2015 since nothing has changed over this period.

APPELLANT’S EVIDENCE

11G.B. informed the Board that he has been receiving disability assistance because he is unable to work due to sickness caused by an accident. The Board requested G.B. to provide medical information to support his claim. He presented a medical report dated 1995 which he stated supported his applications for relief in previous years.

12G.B. further informed the Board that he had other medical issues and was recently diagnosed as having some form of cancer. G.B’s only evidence relating to the diagnosis was a pamphlet/brochure that discusses cancer in a general sense and meant for educational purposes and was not a specific diagnosis pertaining to him. G.B. presented no professional medical opinion to the Board to substantiate his claim of having been diagnosed with any form of cancer.

13The Board advised G. B. that the medical reports he presented are 18 years old and that they are not adequate for assessing his current medical condition. The Board also expressed concern about the absence of professional medical evaluation to support his claim of a cancer diagnosis. The Board advised G.B. that the information he has provided would not suffice as being reasonable or acceptable to support his application for 2013, 2014 and 2015. In response G.B. indicated that the reason he has no up-to-date medical information is because no doctor wants to take him on as a patient.

14G.B. stated that his only asset was the property he owns in the Township of West Lincoln (“Township”). The Board inquired from G.B. whether he owned any other assets - physical or financial - to which G.B’s response was in the negative.

15Evidence presented showed that the assessed value of the subject property was $136,000 in 2013 and 2014 and $99,000 in 2015.

16G.B. provided the Board with a document showing that he receives monthly disability assistance in the amount of $1,110.

17G.B. presented oral evidence to outline his monthly expenses as follows:

i. Mortgage: $ 420

ii. Mortgage Ins.: $ 10

iii. Food: $ 200

iv. Insurance-Home: $ 60

v. Insurance-Car: $ 50

vi. Telephone: $ 80

vii. Television: $ 95

viii. Hydro: $ 100

ix. Water: $ 20

x. Clothing: $ 0

TOTAL $1,035

18The oral evidence presented by G.B. indicates that he incurs monthly expenditures amounting to $1,035 per month. The Board takes the submission regarding monthly expenditures entirely at face value because G.B. did not provide supporting evidence to demonstrate that the expenditures are being incurred (i.e. monthly billing statements) and that payments are being made for the years under appeal. In addition, G.B. did not provide actual billing information nor did he provide any banking information to corroborate his argument. G.B. stated that he was never asked to submit this type of information in his previous applications before the Board.

19G.B. indicated that he is in a state of extreme poverty and is unable to meet his tax obligations. The representative from the Township asked G.B. whether he was aware that the Township had other social services relief available to home owners (e.g. assistance in paying water, hydro and access to the Food Bank) through which he could seek assistance. G.B. indicated that he sought assistance but did not receive any help. However, he was unable to provide information on the nature and source of assistance sought and was not able to tell the Board why he was not afforded any assistance.

20The Board requested G.B. to provide details of his $200 monthly food expense for himself, however, he had no details but indicated that he eats poorly and is trying to improve his nutrition. The representative for the Township questioned G.B. as to whether he utilizes the Township’s food bank which would assist him in reducing his monthly food cost. G.B. stated that he had not obtained any assistance from the Food Bank but was unable to provide a reason.

21The representative for the Township advised the Board that G.B. has applied continuously to the Board for relief, and has indeed received relief from property taxes from 1996 to 2012. She further stated that through the Board’s decisions over the period, G.B.’s property taxes were adjusted to one hundred ($100) dollars per year for the period 1996 to 2012.

22The representative for the Township also indicated that the Municipality has written off the penalties associated with outstanding taxes for all the previous years that G.B. has been granted tax relief by the Board.

23G.B. showed the Board a stack of documents which he indicated he has used to seek relief since 1996 (with minor updates of certain documents). The documents were not helpful to the Board because some were irrelevant information, others were significantly outdated, others were not adequate to support his claim and others were simply of a general nature and had no applicability in supporting his claim.

24The Board inquired from G.B. as to the reason he was not able to provide an up-to-date medical assessment from his doctor, the tax assessment from Canada Revenue Agency for the years under appeal, billing information to support his expenses and proof of his inquiries for assistance from the Township’s social services. G.B.’s response was that he did not think it was necessary, since he had not been asked to produce such documentation at previous hearings.

25In her oral submission, the representative for the Township informed the Board that she was not familiar with the hearing process and was at a loss to understand how G.B. has been receiving relief from taxes since 1996 since to her knowledge the Township takes action to recover property taxes by putting up for sale, properties of property owners who are in arrears of taxes after three years.

26G.B. indicated to the Board that he intends to pass on his property to his daughter, and that, if and when she chooses to sell the property, a much larger structure would be built and the Municipality will recoup a higher level of taxes which would compensate for what he has received in relief.

BOARD’S ANALYSIS

27The test under s. 357.(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, refers to whether the Appellant is unable to pay property taxes due to sickness or extreme poverty.

28The Board has reviewed the medical report submitted by G.B with regard to his sickness. The medical report confirms that G.B was involved in an accident around 1995.

29The Board considered the evidence G.B. presented regarding his illness. In this case the Board finds that the medical evidence from 1995 presented by G.B. is grossly outdated and cannot be relied upon to establish “sickness” in 2013, 2014 and 2015. The Board is not convinced that G.B. has made any conscientious attempts to secure current and up-to-date medical reports to support his claim.

30Having regard to the fact that G.B. was involved in an accident around 1995 and the fact that he continues to receive a disability allowance from the Government of Ontario because he is unable to work, the Board accepts this as proof of G.B’s sickness which makes him eligible to apply for relief under the Municipal Act, 2001.

31The Board having accepted that sickness does exist proceeds, to apply the second part of the two-part test which is to determine whether G.B.has demonstrated to the Board’s satisfaction that he is unable to pay all or any portion of his property taxes due to his sickness.

32In the Board’s view, the threshold for individuals who claim an inability to pay their property taxes because of sickness is not simply that the individuals are unable to make ends meet in the year under appeal but they must demonstrate that they have made every effort to meet their tax obligations.

33It is the Board’s view that while G.B. is experiencing sickness, he is receiving a disability income and must demonstrate that after satisfying his basic essential needs, he has a clear and distinct inability to pay some or all of their property taxes. This means that individuals must demonstrate, that after having called upon every resource available to them and having explored every reasonable opportunity to mitigate any financial stresses that exist, they have no means of being able to pay some or all of their property taxes. In addition, individuals must demonstrate that they have taken steps and explored every reasonable opportunity to manage their debts to mitigate their tax responsibility.

34The Board has reviewed the evidence pertaining to G.B.’s financial circumstances to determine whether there exists a legitimate inability to meet some or all of his tax obligations. In general, the Board is not satisfied with the failure of G.B. to produce current and up-to-date records pertaining to:

• Medical evaluation of his sickness;

• Relevant invoices or statements to substantiate his monthly expenses such as hydro, water, telephone, television etc. for the periods under appeal;

• Evidence regarding the status of his mortgage;

• Tax assessment notices from Canada Revenue Agency.

35The Board is left with little choice but to accept the information presented by G.B. entirely at face value.

36G.B. indicated that his only asset is the property in the Township and his only income is the disability assistance of $1,110 per month. G.B. stated that he has no other income, does not have any savings account, does not have a Bank account, has no RRSPs, and has no other investments whatsoever.

37The Board has reviewed the financial information presented by G.B. and notes the following:

a) G.B. is incurring a monthly expense of $95 for digital television services and approximately eighty ($80) dollars per month for telephone charges resulting from him making international calls to relatives and long distance calls to his daughter in Alberta. G.B. claims that this is his only contact with his family. In the Board’s view, an individual’s property tax obligation should take priority over non-essential expenses and notes that the expenditures on telephone and television services add up to more than his property tax obligations.

b) The Board is concerned that G.B. presented no evidence to show details of the outstanding mortgage but notes that according to oral presentation his monthly mortgage payment is $420.

38The Board’s position is that the condition of sickness as a factor that inhibits the ability to pay taxes is premised on the proposition that in order to qualify for relief an individual must demonstrate that he/she is in difficulty in meeting the essential necessities of living such as housing, food, heating, hydro, water and clothing and that all other classes of expenditures must therefore be prioritized so as to ensure that one of the highest obligations remains the payment of property taxes. Further, the Board is of the view that in order to qualify for relief the individual must demonstrate that every effort has been made to meet his/her tax obligations.

39The Board is not convinced that G.B. has made reasonable attempts to explore the various forms of assistance offered by the Township as pointed out by the Township’s representative. In particular, the Township’s representative informed the Board and G.B. that the Township’s social services provides assistance to individuals who demonstrate a need to defray the cost of water, hydro, heating and food. She commented that some of the $200 in monthly food costs can be reduced by G.B using the Township’s food bank.

40G.B. is receiving a disability allowance of $1,110 which includes $450 for shelter allowance and $660 for living expenses. The Board notes that the shelter allowance allocated for shelter is sufficient to cover G.B’s mortgage payment. The Board further notes that of the remaining $711 allocated for living expenses, G. B is spending $440 on basic needs such as food, heating, insurance and water and that an additional amount of $175 is spent on television and telephone services. The Board is of the view that while G.B is seeking relief from his property tax obligations, there are still areas of spending that can be sacrificed in order to pay the property taxes including the monthly expenditure of $175 for television and telephone services.

CONCLUSION

41In viewing an application under the Municipal Act, 2001, the Board does not only look at the income and expenses of the Appellant but also looks at the full spectrum of the Appellant’s financial resources available to him/her and determine whether there was any opportunity that would allow him/her to mitigate their tax obligation as well as to consider whether the Appellant has taken deliberate steps to this direction.

42The Board’s responsibility is to also be cognizant of the extra burden that other taxpayers are required to assume when the Board grants relief from property taxes to any property owner. The Board maintains the position that the payment of property taxes is a primary responsibility of all home owners and when that burden is removed from one homeowner, the burden is then shifted to all other taxpayers, and, therefore the Board must take this responsibility seriously and with care.

43The Board finds that in this case the Appellant did not take any deliberate steps nor did he explore every reasonable opportunity to manage the limited financial resources at his disposal or to seek assistance from the Township in such a manner that would allow him to meet his property tax obligation for the taxation years 2013, 2014 and 2015.

44The Board finds that based on the evidence before it, the Appellant has failed to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Board that there exists an inability to meet his property tax obligations for 2013, 2014 and 2015 as set out in s. 357.(1) (d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

45The Board, accordingly, dismisses the application for the cancellation, reduction or refund of taxes for the taxation years 2013, 2014 and 2015 on the property located at (address withheld).