S. T. v. City of Toronto, 2016 CanLII 65233

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

September 27, 2016

FILE NO.

WR 142142

Assessed Person(s):

S. T.

Applicant(s):

S. T.

Respondent(s):

City of Toronto

Respondent(s):

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”), Region 09

Property Location(s):

Withheld

Municipality(ies):

City of Toronto

Roll Number(s):

Withheld

Appeal Number(s):

3139630

Taxation Year(s):

2015

Hearing Event No.:

633172

Legislative Authority:

Section 323.(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S. O. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A

Heard:

August 24, 2016 in Toronto, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Representative

S. T.

Self-represented

City of Toronto

Penelope Ma and Luis Verastegui

MPAC

No one appeared

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY PETER ANDREWS

ISSUE

1The issue before the Board is to determine whether the Applicant S. T.’s property taxes for the taxation year 2015 should be cancelled, reduced or refunded because of the Applicant’s inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty.

DECISION

2The Board must first determine if “sickness” or “extreme poverty” exists, and secondly, if either is present, the Applicant must demonstrate an inability to pay some or all of the taxes under appeal.

3The Board concludes that “sickness” does not exist and consequently the Board must assess the application on the basis that the Applicant was unable to pay his/her taxes due to “extreme poverty”.

4The Board finds that the Applicant did not meet the standard of “extreme poverty” and as such, does not qualify for relief under this section of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 (“Act”).

5Accordingly, the Board finds that the Applicant has failed to meet the tests set out in s. 323. (1)(e) of the Act, regarding an inability to pay part or all of his/her taxes for the taxation year 2015 due to “sickness” or “extreme poverty”.

6The Board therefore, dismisses the application for the cancellation, reduction or refund of taxes for the taxation year 2015 on the property located at (address withheld).

REASONS FOR DECISION

7Section 323. (1)(e) of the Act states:

323. (1) Upon application to the city treasurer made in accordance with this section, the City 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,

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

8Hence, a two-part test must be applied. Firstly, the Board must determine if sickness or extreme poverty exists. If such is not the case, then the application fails. Secondly, if either is present, the Applicant must demonstrate an inability to pay some or all of the taxes.

Sickness

9The Applicant presented no clear evidence to support a claim for eligibility due to sickness, other than a short note stating that the Applicant is being seen twice a day for diabetic care at his/her apartment by a registered nurse. This evidence is insufficient.

Extreme Poverty

10Accordingly, the Board must assess the application on the basis that the Applicant was unable to pay his/her taxes due to “extreme poverty”.

11In determining whether an Applicant can be reasonably expected to pay part or all of his/her taxes due to extreme poverty, the Board is required to examine the evidence presented by the Applicant as well as the overall financial situation (including, but not limited to, expenses and income) of the Applicant and to assess after consideration of all the evidence and factors whether the Applicant was in a state of extreme poverty, and therefore, was unable to meet all or part of his/her tax obligation.

Assets

12The largest part of the assets of the Applicant is his/her home. In September 2014 the Applicant purchased a property located on (address withheld) for $179,000. Part of the purchase price was satisfied by a mortgage which had at that time a loan value of $130,500 (rounded).

13The parties differ in arriving at the net value for the property:

• Using the analysis prepared by the municipal Revenue Services with its estimated value of the property at $207,000 indicates a net value of $76,500 for the property.
• Using the purchase price of the property of $179,000 in September 2014 indicates a net value of $48,500 for the property.
• Using the assessment of the property for 2012 of $164,000 in September 2014 indicates a net value of $33,500 for the property.

Depending upon the valuation system used, there is a net value in the property available to the Applicant of between $33,500 and $76,500.

Sources of Income

14The Applicant provided a copy of his/her Notice of Assessment from the Canada Revenue Agency for the taxation year 2015. The notice shows the Applicant as having an income of $14,700 and a net income of zero.

Analysis

15The test under this section of the Act refers to whether the Applicant is unable to pay his/her property taxes due to sickness or extreme poverty. In this case minimal evidence was presented to support sickness and therefore the Board must turn its attention to extreme poverty as the basis of the application for relief.

16In the Board’s view the threshold of extreme poverty must be demonstrable and significantly of a much higher threshold than that which is generally accepted for persons living in a state of poverty in society. It cannot be viewed simply as a state of not being able to make ends meet but amount to a situation where an individual, after having called upon every resource available to him/her, has no means of affording to pay some or all of his/her property taxes. The Board is of the view that the Act envisages that an individual seeking relief on an application under s. 323 of the Act should clearly demonstrate that for the year under appeal no resources were available to meet his/her obligations to provide for the basic necessities of living and at the same time pay some or all of his/her property taxes.

17The Board is of the view that the payment of property taxes remains one of the foremost obligations of all home owners. Having examined the transactions within the various income and expense statements provided by the Applicant, the Board is not persuaded that the use of funds at the Applicant’s disposal demonstrated that the payment of property taxes was treated as a priority. The Board is therefore not convinced that the application for relief under “extreme poverty” has been satisfied as envisaged under the Act.

18The Board finds that based on the evidence before it, the Applicant fails to meet the test of “extreme poverty” as intended under the Act.

CONCLUSION

19The Board must first determine if “sickness” or “extreme poverty” exists, and secondly, if either is present, the Applicant must demonstrate an inability to pay some or all of the taxes under appeal.

20The Board concludes that “sickness” does not exist and consequently the Board must assess the application on the basis that the Applicant was unable to pay his taxes due to “extreme poverty”.

21Based on the analysis above, the Board finds that the Applicant did not meet the standard of “extreme poverty” and as such, does not qualify for relief under this section of the Act.

22Accordingly, the Board finds that the Applicant has failed to meet the tests set out in s. 323.(1)(e) of the Act regarding an inability to pay part or all of his/her taxes due to “sickness” or “extreme poverty.”

23The Board therefore dismisses the application of the Applicant for the cancellation, reduction or refund of taxes for the taxation year 2015 on the property located at (address withheld).