Assessment Review Board / Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: July 12, 2016 FILE NO.: WR 139943
Assessed Person(s): E. B. (Deceased) Applicant(s): E. B. and R. B. Respondent(s): City of Toronto Property Location(s): Withheld Municipality(ies): City of Toronto Roll Number(s): Withheld Appeal Number(s): 3096834 and 3165055 Taxation Year(s): 2014 and 2015 Hearing Event No. 623231
Legislative Authority: Section 323.(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A
Heard: April 28, 2016 in Toronto, Ontario
APPEARANCES:
Parties R. B. City of Toronto
Counsel/Representative M. B. J. Wehrle and L. Verastegui
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY SUBUOLA AWOLERI
PRELIMINARY ISSUE
1In 2003, E. B. and his spouse R. B. (the “Applicant”) came to Canada as visitors from Israel to visit M. B., their son-in-law and his family. The subject property was purchased in 2003, with no encumbrance, although a charge in the amount of $70,000 in favour of a financial institution was registered on title, the Applicant’s bank statements reveal that there has been no monthly mortgage payment on the subject property. In 2006, E. B. died. In 2007, M. B.’s son, the Applicant’s grandson sponsored the Applicant under the family sponsorship program under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27. Under this Act, the Applicant’s grandson entered into a sponsorship agreement and undertaking with the federal government to provide for the basic welfare of the Applicant for 10 years and promising that the Applicant will not need to apply for social assistance. A breach of this agreement would accrue as a debt to the sponsor, the Applicant’s grandson. The Applicant does not have access to any provincial benefits except Ontario Health Insurance Plan (“OHIP”). The Applicant’s grandson started experiencing financial difficulties due to a change in profession and could no longer financially support the Applicant. This burden has now shifted to other family members including M. B. and his wife, which is causing them financial hardship. This situation is novel as to the question of the Applicant’s eligibility to apply to the City of Toronto (“City”) for a cancellation, refund or reduction of her property tax, during the subsistence of the sponsorship agreement. The City did not provide any jurisprudence to assist the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) in making this determination. However, it did not oppose the Applicant’s eligibility to make these applications.
ISSUE
2The issue before the Board is to determine whether the Applicant’s property taxes for the taxation years 2014 and 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. 323.(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 (“Act”).
DECISION
3The Board finds that the Applicant does not qualify for relief under s. 323.(1)(e) of the Act due to an inability to pay part or all of her property taxes due to sickness.
4The Board therefore dismisses the applications for cancellation, reduction or refund of property taxes for the taxation years 2014 and 2015.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Legislation
5Section 323.(1)(e) of the [Act](https://www.can