K.D.B. v. City of Mississauga, 2018 CanLII 122102

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

December 11, 2018

FILE NO.:

WR 157242

Assessed Person(s):

K.D.B. and C.C.B.

Appellant(s):

K.D.B.

Respondent(s):

City of Mississauga

Property Location(s):

Withheld

Municipality(ies):

City of Mississauga

Roll Number(s):

Withheld

Appeal Number(s):

3282363

Taxation Year(s):

2017

Hearing Event No.:

708169

Legislative Authority:

Section 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, as amended

Heard:

November 13, 2018 in Mississauga, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Representative

K.D.B.

Self-represented

City of Mississauga

Sean Doyle

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY MARGARITA OKHOVATI

INTRODUCTION

1K.D.B., (the “Applicant”) is a 79-year old man who lives with his 78-year old wife in a three-bedroom and two-bathroom town house with a parking garage. The subject property was purchased in 2004 for $275,000 and its assessed value for the 2017 taxation year is $552,000. The Applicant filed an 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”).

Preliminary

2The first sitting of this hearing was on June 14, 2018. On that day, the Applicant appeared before the Board with insufficient documents. He did not show his wife’s income in the Financial Statement Form as well. The hearing was adjourned pending the required documents and amended Financial Form. The second sitting was scheduled for September 13, 2018. Although the Applicant was advised several times, both by the Board and the City, regarding the 2017 disclosures, the Applicant provided the Board with the 2018 documents only, stating that he was misunderstood. The Applicant was given another opportunity by adjourning the hearing to November 13, 2018. The Applicant arrived to this hearing without bringing his and his wife’s credit card statements although one day prior to the hearing day, the City had reminded him regarding the importance of this document. In addition, he did not include the wife’s income in the Financial Form again. He also attached the 2018 bank statements to the 2017 statements. Based on the submitted documents, the Board conducted a full hearing.

ISSUE

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

DECISION

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

Legislation

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

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 the taxes levied on land in the year in respect of which the application is made if the Applicant is unable to pay taxes because of sickness or extreme poverty.

6The Act outlines a two-part test. In order for the Applicant to qualify for relief under this section of the Act, the Board must first determine whether the Applicant is able to pay his taxes. If the Applicant was able to pay the 2017 taxes, then the application fails. If the Applicant proves that he is unable to pay the taxes, the Board must then determine the reason the Applicant is unable to do so. Relief can only be granted if the Applicant is unable to pay based on either sickness or extreme poverty.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

Applicant’s Evidence and Position

Ability to Pay

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

8The Applicant testified that he owned a restaurant and bar in the middle of the 1970s for five to six years. He purchased a convenience store after he sold the restaurant, and operated that store for seven years. He stated that after selling the store, he worked for the advertising department of the Pearson International Airport before he was retired. The Applicant sated that he has two married children who live separately and do not help him financially. The Applicant stated further that three or four years ago, he heard from people that he could appeal his property taxes, and he decided to submit an application to the City regarding his 2017 taxes.

Applicant’s Financial Evidence

9The Applicant submitted a copy of the Form 1—Financial Information and also provided evidence at the hearing regarding his monthly income and expenses, assets and liabilities as detailed hereunder:

Total Income

$2,764/month

Expenses

Mortgage

$ 0

Fuel (gas/oil)

$ 90.95

Water/Heat/Hydro

$127.60

Telephone

$ 37.05

Cable

$ 85.75

Car/House Insurance

$201.45

Gas/Auto Repair

$200.00

Line of Credit

$195.00

Transportation

$ 20.00

Other Expenses

$175.00

Total Expenses

$1,632,80/month

Net Total

$+1,131.20

Assets

Assessed value of the hours in 2017

$552,000.00

Balance in Bank Statements

$ 5,497.66

Total Assets

$557,497.66

Liabilities

$ 0

TOTAL NEW WORTH

$+557,497.66

10Based on the information submitted in the Financial Information Form, the net worth of the Applicant is $557,497.66.

Sickness

11The Applicant testified that he had no serious illness other than old age aches and pains and was not basing his application on the sickness part of the Act.

City’s Evidence and Position

12Sean Doyle, representative for the City, stated that the Applicant paid all of his taxes for 2017 and previous years without any compounded interest or fees. He stated further that in 2017, the Applicant received a $400 rebate from the City towards his property taxes and $200 for yard maintenance. The Applicant also received a $500 rebate towards his property taxes from the Government of Ontario. He made no submissions and recommendations.

Board’s Analysis

13The 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 Applicant proves an inability to pay the taxes, they must then prove the reason why they cannot, and only then can relief be granted.

14The Board finds that the Applicant had the ability to pay his 2017 taxes based on the submitted documents and in the absence of important financial documents for the following reasons.

15The Board notes from the Financial Statements of the Applicant that after all the expenses incurred in 2017, the net monthly income of the Applicant is $1,131.20, which is sufficient to pay his monthly property taxes of $323.29.

16Furthermore, the bank statements of the Applicant and his wife show that as of December 2017, they were in possession of $5,497.66 cash in their accounts ($199.37 in the Applicant’s account and $5,298.29 in his wife’s account). In the Financial Statement Form, the Applicant wrote zero money in his wife’s account. In this respect, the representative of the City questioned the Applicant as to why he did not show his wife’s balance of money in her account. He stated, “it is my wife’s money. Woman is woman.”

17Moreover, the Applicant was questioned regarding several amounts of cash withdrawals in his wife’s account ($13,900 in total). In response, he stated that his wife sent this money to her family to assist them financially in her home country.

18As stated above, the Applicant refused to provide the Board with a copy of his and his wife’s credit card statements although it was mentioned to the Applicant several times. In this respect, he stated that he could not afford to pay the bank $12.00 for a copy of each month of the 2017 statement. The Board rejects the Applicant’s explanation considering the Applicant’s financial situation. In this regard, the City representative stated that it made no sense why the Applicant would not pay this money to the bank considering that he is seeking a refund of $3,879.50.

19Furthermore, the Board notes that the Applicant’s existing equity in the house is $552,000. There is no evidence before the Board to show that the Applicant has explored any option in accessing the equity in his home before making this application. In addition, the Applicant has no outstanding mortgage on the property; he has zero liabilities with total assets of $557,497.66.

CONCLUSION

20Based on the reasons stated above, the Board finds that the Applicant had the ability to pay his 2017 property taxes. In fact, the evidence reveals that he paid the 2017 taxes without compounded interest and fees.

21The Board therefore dismisses the Applicant’s application for relief under the Act.