Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: December 19, 2017

FILE NO.: WR 148343

Assessed Person(s): F.R.

Appellant(s): F.R.

Respondent(s): City of Toronto

Property Location(s): Withheld

Municipality(ies): Toronto

Roll Number(s): Withheld

Application Number(s): 3140631

Taxation Year(s): 2015

Hearing Event No.: 684665

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

Heard: August 28, 2017 in Toronto, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative/Counsel
F. R.	Self-represented
City of Toronto	Alison Mintoff* and Melanie Shankar

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY DAN WEAGANT AND MARLENE CASHIN

INTRODUCTION

1F.R. (the “Applicant”) made an application to the City of Toronto (“City”) for a refund, cancellation or reduction of taxes for the 2015 taxation year. The City has delegated its authority on applications under this section of the City of Toronto Act (“Act”) to the Assessment Review Board (”Board”).

ISSUE

2The issue before the Board is whether or not the Applicant’s 2015 property taxes should be cancelled, reduced or refunded because of the Applicant’s inability to pay for the reason(s) of sickness or extreme poverty.

DECISION

3The Board must determine if the Applicant is in a condition of ‘sickness’ or ‘extreme poverty’. If either is present, the Applicant must demonstrate an inability to pay property taxes because of either of these two conditions.

4The Board finds that the Applicant has demonstrated a condition of sickness. However, the application to cancel, reduce, refund 2015 property taxes on the grounds of the Applicant’s sickness is dismissed because the Board finds that the Applicant’s sickness did not result in an inability to pay her property taxes.

5The Board finds that the Applicant has not demonstrated a condition of extreme poverty, and further that the Applicant has not demonstrated an inability to pay property taxes. The application to cancel, reduce, refund 2015 property taxes on the grounds of the Applicant’s extreme poverty is dismissed.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

The Applicant’s Evidence and Submissions

6The Applicant testified that during the 2015 taxation year, difficulties arose with respect to her employment owing to her ongoing health issue. During that year, the Applicant’s income fell off and decisions were made to sell some possessions to gather enough money to meet her financial obligations.

7The Applicant testified that her 2015 income amounted to $2,039 per month with off-setting monthly expenses of $2,937.28 per month.

8The Applicant submitted that with the discrepancy in her income/expense balance, it was not possible to pay property taxes during that year without serious hardship. The expense total per month included $165.38 for property taxes. The Applicant further submitted that her 2015 financial situation, and in particular her annual income, demonstrates she was in a condition of extreme poverty and for that reason the application should be granted.

The City’s Evidence and Submissions

9Melanie Shankar is a tax analyst with the City. Ms. Shankar testified that the taxes levied on the subject property were paid in full for the 2015 taxation year. In addition, she provided the Board with the 2015 assessment of the subject property of $281,250. Ms. Shankar noted that the balance owing on the property’s mortgage was $41,920.40 on January 1, 2015, and by the end of 2015 it had been paid in full. This was confirmed by the Applicant’s annual mortgage statement, showing total principal payments of $41,920.40 in 2015.

10Ms. Mintoff submitted that the evidence shows the Applicant was capable of paying the taxes owing in 2015 because:

• the taxes were in fact paid; and

• in addition to any monthly commitments experienced by the Applicant, an additional $41,920.40 was sourced to pay the subject mortgage in full.

11Ms. Mintoff confirmed that the City has no position with respect to the Applicant’s health and that the City accepts this evidence at face value. She concluded submissions by saying the resources available to the Applicant, as demonstrated by the facts in evidence, show the Applicant was not in a condition of extreme poverty and while the Application showed evidence of sickness, the Applicant did not demonstrate that taxes could not be paid as a result of that sickness.

Does the Applicant’s situation in 2015 reflect “sickness” or “extreme poverty”?

12The Board finds that the medical evidence provided by the Applicant indicates that she was in a condition of sickness during 2015. However, the Board finds that the Applicant did not provide evidence that her sickness resulted in an inability to pay her property taxes. The Board now moves to an examination of whether or not the Applicant was in a condition of “extreme poverty”.

13In order to assess whether or not a person is in a condition of extreme poverty, the Board must consider not only income, but all other financial resources available to the Applicant.

14Exhibit 1 provides a complete picture of the Applicant’s finances in 2015. In addition to the declaration submitted with the application as to income and expenses, Exhibit 1 includes statements from the Applicant’s bank account for January through December 2015. The statements confirm the Applicant’s declaration of net income, but also show other deposits totalling $6,739.28, described by the Applicant as being money she received for side work, in addition to regular employment and proceeds from the sale of some personal effects.

15The opening balance of the Applicant’s bank account in January of 2015 totalled $19,073.53. The closing balance on December 31 2015 was $23,598.85.

16The Board acknowledges that the Applicant has demonstrated a serious and admirable approach to meeting her financial obligations during 2015. The documents in evidence indicate that bills were paid in full and on time, with a significant closing balance at the end of the year.

17The Applicant’s financial situation does not meet the test of extreme poverty. In summary, there was a significant balance in the bank at the end of the year and significant equity lies in the subject property.

18The Board finds a disconnect between the facts in evidence that the Applicant was able to pay out the mortgage in 2015 and the Applicant’s submission that she was unable to pay her property taxes. For example, a significant payment was paid to clear the mortgage, sometime after the last date of the bank statements, and the end of the calendar year. In this time frame, some $32,000 was paid to the Bank of Nova Scotia to eliminate the mortgage debt. There is no evidence as to the source of these funds. In any case, these events serve to show that, either the Applicant was well positioned financially to pay the mortgage off, or that some other source of funds were used, that were not in evidence. In either case, the Board finds that the Applicant was not in a condition of extreme poverty in 2015.

CONCLUSION

19The Board agrees with the City, that the evidence shows the Applicant had the ability to pay the 2015 property taxes, and did so. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.