F.F. and M.F. v. City of Mississauga, 2018 CanLII 116164

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: November 30, 2018

FILE NO.: WR 156443

Assessed Person(s): F.F. and M.F.

Appellant(s): F.F. and M.F.

Respondent(s): City of Mississauga

Property Location(s): Withheld

Municipality(ies): City of Mississauga

Roll Number(s): Withheld

Appeal Number(s): 3282364

Taxation Year(s): 2017

Hearing Event No.: 703469

Legislative Authority: Section 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25

Heard: September 13, 2018 in Mississauga, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Representative

F.F. and M.F.

Self-represented

City of Mississauga

Sean Doyle

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY MARGARITA OKHOVATI

INTRODUCTION

1F.F. and his spouse M.F. (the “Applicants”) are 76-year old and 69-year old married couple, who live in the subject property, which is a detached two-story house with four-bedrooms, three-bathrooms and a finished basement. It was purchased in 1986 for $162,000. The assessed value of the subject property in 2017 is $744,000. The Applicants paid their 2017 property taxes in full.

2The Applicants filed this application with the City of Mississauga (the “City”) seeking a cancellation, reduction or refund of property taxes for the 2017 taxation year on the basis of sickness or extreme poverty pursuant to s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25 (the “Act”).

ISSUE

3The issue before the Assessment Review Board (the “Board) is to determine whether the Applicants’ property taxes for the 2017 taxation year should be cancelled, reduced or refunded as a result of the Applicants’ inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty under the Act.

DECISION

4Based on the evidence before it, the Board determines that the Applicants’ 2017 property taxes should not be cancelled, reduced or refunded notwithstanding F.F. being sick. The Board therefore, dismisses this application.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Legislation

5Section 357(1)(d.1) of the Act provides:

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;

6The Act outlines a two-part test. In order for the Applicants to qualify for relief under this section of the Act, the Board must first determine whether the Applicants are able to pay their taxes. If the Applicants were able to pay the 2017 taxes, then the application fails. If the Applicants prove that they are unable to pay the taxes, the Board must then determine the reason the Applicants are unable to do so. Relief can only be granted if the Applicants are unable to pay, because of either sickness or extreme poverty.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

Applicants’ Evidence and Position

Ability to Pay

7In determining whether the Applicants have the ability to pay their taxes, the Board has to consider the evidence presented by the Applicants regarding their financial situation, which is not limited to their income and expenses. The Applicants submitted that in 2017, they were living in extreme poverty and were unable to pay their property taxes.

8The Applicants testified that they have three children. The oldest is 48-years old, lives in Acton, and works as a maintenance person in a casino. Their daughter is 45-years old, lives in Toronto and works in a bank and their younger son lives in Hamilton and works for an insurance company. The Applicants stated that none of their children are married and, as parents, they help them financially all the time instead of their children helping the Applicants.

9F.F. stated that he worked as a barber until 2016 but stopped working after he became sick. He sold his business for $25,000 in 2017.

Applicants’ Financial Evidence

10The Applicants submitted a copy of the Form 1 – Financial Information and also provided evidence at the hearing regarding their total monthly income and expenses, assets and liabilities as detailed hereunder:

Income Total $3,057.16/month

Expenses Total $1,803.86/month

NET INCOME TOTAL $1,253.30/month

Assets

Assessed value of the house in 2017 $744,000

Cash $14,831

RRSP $62,000

Assets Total $820,831

Liabilities $0

NET WORTH TOTAL $820,831

11Based on the information set out above, the net worth of the Applicants is $820,831.

Sickness

12F.F. testified that he is diabetic and has osteoarthritis and retinopathy in his right eye. He submitted a note from his physician in this respect. M.F. stated that she suffers from old age aches and pains. The Applicants submitted that they were unable to pay their property taxes because of sickness.

Applicants’ Final Remarks

13“We have to help our children financially because we don’t want to see them struggle.”

City’s Evidence and submissions

14Sean Doyle, Representative for the City, stated that the Applicants paid their 2017 taxes in full. He stated further that the Applicants received rebates of $400.00 from the City of Mississauga and $500.00 from the Province of Ontario towards their 2017 property taxes. He made no submissions or recommendations.

Board’s Analysis

15The 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. If the Applicants prove an inability to pay the taxes, they must then prove the reason why they cannot, and only then can relief be granted.

16There is no dispute that the Applicant F.F. is sick based on his oral testimony and his doctor’s letter. Therefore, the Board finds that sickness exists in the case of Applicant F.F. In the case of the Applicant M.F., although she did not complain about any serious illness, the Board notes that both Applicants are old and retired. The main question to be determined is, if the Applicants had the ability to pay their 2017 taxes.

17The Board has considered the oral testimony of the Applicants, and has reviewed all of the evidence pertaining to their financial situation, to determine whether the Applicants are able to pay their 2017 property taxes.

18The Board finds that the Applicants had the ability to pay their 2017 taxes.

19The Board notes from the Applicants’ Financial Statement that the subject property is mortgage free and its assessed value in 2017, is $744,000. This is considerable equity in the house. The Applicants’ monthly income is $1,253.30 more than their expenses. In addition, they have no liabilities and their net worth stands at $820,831.

20Furthermore, the Board notes from the Applicants’ bank statements that there is substantial amount of withdrawals: $40,007, $5,500, $5,000, $4,052, $3,427, $2,919, $2,000, and $1,146. When asked to explain these withdrawals, they stated that they paid these amounts to their children to assist them to buy a house, and cover some of their expenses.

21In the opinion of the Board, the legal obligation to pay property taxes must come before any support to adult children. Purchasing a house for a child cannot come before the payment of taxes. The evidence is clear that the Applicants had the ability to pay their 2017 property taxes.

CONCLUSION

22Based on the reasons stated above, the Board finds that the Applicants did not establish that they had an inability to pay their taxes. In fact, the evidence reveals that the Applicants were able to pay their 2017 property taxes.

23The Board therefore dismisses the Applicants’ application and determines that this application does not qualify for relief under the Act.