Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: March 27, 2018 FILE NO.: WR 151442 Assessed Person(s): J.M., F.M. Appellant(s): J.M., F.M. Respondent(s): City of Mississauga Property Location(s): Withheld Municipality(ies): City of Mississauga Roll Number(s): Withheld Appeal Number(s): 3228645 and 3235937 Taxation Year(s): 2015 and 2016 Hearing Event No.: 693981 Legislative Authority: Section 357.(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, as amended Heard: February 16, 2018 in Mississauga, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
J. M.	Self-represented
City of Mississauga	Sean Doyle

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY MARGARITA OKHOVATI AND SUBUOLA AWOLERI

INTRODUCTION

1J.M. and F.M. (the “Applicants”) own and live together in the subject property which is a fully detached 4-bedroom house with a building total area of 2,700 square feet (“sq. ft.”) and two parking spaces. The subject property was purchased in 1988 for $320,000. The Applicants paid their 2015 property taxes in full but did not pay their 2016 property taxes. This application pertains to the property taxes for both of these years. They filed this application with the City of Mississauga (the “City”) seeking a refund of the 2015 taxes, and cancellation or reduction of property taxes for the 2016 taxation year due to sickness and/or extreme poverty.

2The first sitting of this hearing was scheduled on November 6, 2017. That hearing was adjourned to February 16, 2018, due to lack of sufficient financial disclosure.

ISSUE

3The issue before the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) is to determine whether the Applicants’ property taxes for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years should be cancelled, reduced or refunded as a result of the Applicants’ inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty pursuant to s. 357.(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 (“Act”).

DECISION

4The Board finds that based on the evidence before it, the Applicants should not be granted a full or partial refund of the property taxes for 2015; and the 2016 property taxes should not be cancelled, reduced or refunded due to sickness or extreme poverty. The Board determines that the Applicants had an ability to pay their property taxes for 2015 and 2016 taxation years. The Board therefore, dismisses this application.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Legislation

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

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;

6In making a determination in this application, the Board must first determine whether sickness or extreme poverty exists, which is the first part of the two-part test. If neither sickness nor extreme poverty exists, the Applicants would not qualify for relief. If either exists, to fulfill the second part of the test, the Applicants must demonstrate an inability to pay all or part of their property taxes.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

7F.M. was not present at either hearing. J.M. presented the evidence for the Applicants.

Applicants’ Evidence and Position

Sickness

8J.M. testified that since 2007, she has been suffering from depression. In addition to this sickness, in 2013 she was diagnosed with breast cancer. She stated that every three months she has medical checkups. At the first hearing, she showed the Board a document stating a series of appointments with a doctor in the hospital but she did not bring that same document to the second hearing. J.M. further stated that F.M. has been suffering from diabetes and has medical issues in his eyes and right foot. J.M. submitted that she and her husband F.M. were unable to pay their property taxes because of sickness.

Extreme Poverty

9The term “extreme poverty” is not defined under the Act. In determining whether the Applicant is in a situation of extreme poverty, the Board has to consider the evidence presented by the Applicants regarding their financial situation, which is not limited to their income and expenses. J.M. submitted that she and her husband were living in extreme poverty and were unable to pay their property taxes.

10J.M. submitted that she has retired from working for the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (“CIBC”) after 35 years. She further submitted that she was on disability from 2009 to 2013 because of depression however, her disability payments ceased after she became eligible for pension.

11J.M. testified that F.M. works for a company as an accounting clerk and they are both covered for medical insurance by the company.

12J.M. submitted that from 2013 to 2016, she and F.M. did not file their income tax returns due to her sickness and F.M.’s inaction.

Applicants’ Financial Evidence

13The Applicants submitted as Exhibit 1 and 2 a copy of Form 1 – Financial Information regarding their monthly income and expenses for 2015 and 2016, which is summarized below as Table 1 and 2 respectively.

Table 1

Income/Expenses 2015	Amount ($)
Household Income (monthly)	6,297.08
Expenses (monthly)
Mortgage	1,733.00
Fuel	150.00
Hydro/Water	125.00
Telephone (land line)	30.00
Insurance - Home/car	204.00
Car payment (Nissan Rogue 2015)	452.00
Gas	150.00
Medication	50.00
Groceries	600.00
Transportation	200.00
Credit Card Loans	500.00
Household Supplies	250.00
Clothing and Dry Cleaning	125.00
CRA	50.00
Total Expenses	4,619.00
Net Income (Total Income less Expenses)	(+1,678.08)

Table 2

Income/Expenses 2016	Amount ($)
Household Income (monthly)	8,379.91
Expenses (monthly)
Mortgage	1,733.00
Fuel	150.00
Hydro/Water	150.00
Telephone/Cable/Internet	160.00
Insurance- Home/car	254.00
Car payment (Nissan Rogue 2016)	442.00
Gas	150.00
Medication	50.00
Groceries	600.00
Transportation	200.00
Credit Card Loans	500.00
Household Supplies	250.00
Clothing and Dry Cleaning	125.00
CRA	50.00
Total Expenses	4,814.00
Net Income (Total Income less Expenses)	(+3,565.91)

Assets

14The City provided the assessed value of the subject property for the 2015 and 2016 taxation years by MPAC as $885,000. The outstanding mortgage in 2015 was $339,000 and in 2016 it was $315,000. The Applicants had approximately $546,000 equity in the home in 2015 and $570,000 in 2016. The Applicants are also in possession of $160,000 in the Registered Retirement Savings Plan (“RRSP”) and $8,818.95 cash in the bank ($7,671.85 as of December 16, 2016 in J.M.’s account and $1,147.10 as of November 30, 2016 in J.M. and F.M.’s joint account).

City’s Position

15Sean Doyle on behalf of the City did not make any submissions or recommendations to the Board.

Board’s Analysis

16The 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. Either of these two eligible criteria must exist in order for a property owner to fulfill the first part of the test.

17Although J.M.’s claim of sickness was not specified in the documentary evidence, based on her oral testimony and on the balance of probabilities, the Board finds that in her situation sickness exists which satisfies the first part of the test. In the absence of supporting documents, the Board finds that sickness does not exist in F.M.’s case, as J.M. testified that he was working in 2015 and 2016 despite his claim of sickness, although he was currently off work for a week due to pain in his right foot.

18The Board has considered the oral testimony of J.M. and has reviewed all of the evidence pertaining to the Applicants’ financial situation to determine whether the Applicants are able to pay their 2015 and 2016 property taxes and whether the Applicants are living in extreme poverty.

19The Board is not satisfied that the Applicants are unable to pay their property taxes because of J.M.’s sickness nor that their circumstances rise to the level of “extreme poverty” for the following reasons.

20As stated in paragraph 14, the Applicants had approximately $546,000 equity in the home in 2015 and $570,000 in 2016 which could have been leveraged to pay their property taxes. In addition, they had $8,818.95 cash in their bank accounts and $160,000 in RRSP.

21The Applicants did not provide the Board with bank statements for the years ending December 31, 2015 and 2016. It was brought to J.M.’s attention that they had to furnish the Board with these statements. She stated that these were the only copies given to her by the bank. The Board does not accept J.M.’s explanation for she could have checked all the copies before submitting them to the Board.

22Furthermore, as mentioned above, the Applicants are in possession of RRSP funds for $160,000, which they had the option to withdraw to pay their property taxes. When J.M. was questioned in this respect, she initially stated that the funds were locked and they were unable to withdraw any amount from it, but later she stated that they could do so but it would have had tax consequences. As it’s often reiterated by the Board, applications of this sort are of last resort and applicants must have depleted all financial resources available to them and still be unable to pay their property taxes.

23Based on the evidence presented, the Board finds that many of the monthly expenses are discretionary in nature and are above the basic living needs of the Applicants. These costs are averaged out on a monthly basis and include donating $150.00 to different charities, leasing a brand new 2015 Nissan Rogue for $452.00 and a brand new 2016 Nissan Rogue for $442.00. The amount of this spending indicates that the Applicants had an ability to pay their monthly property taxes of $615.56 per month in 2015, which they paid in full and $644.83 per month in 2016. As determined by the Board in E.D. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 9 and City of Toronto, [2015] O.A.R.B.D., Decision File No. WR 128986, discretionary expenses must not take precedence over the payment of property taxes.

24Moreover, the Applicants spent approximately $2,098 for three trips to Trinidad. J.M. submitted that they took these trips in January 2015 when her uncle passed away, January, 2016 she visited her sick sister and August, 2016 when her sister passed away. J.M. did not provide the Board any corroborating evidence in this respect.

25Having examined all the evidence adduced by the Applicants and all the financial resources available to them, the Board is not persuaded that the Applicants are unable to pay their 2015 and/or 2016 property taxes despite J.M.’s sickness and their claim of extreme poverty. Accordingly, they do not qualify for relief under the Act from paying all or part of their property taxes.

CONCLUSION

26Based on the reasons stated above, the Board finds that the Applicants did not establish the requirements for the Board to make a finding of an inability to pay their 2015 and 2016 property taxes due to sickness and extreme poverty.

27The Board therefore dismisses the Applicants’ application and determines that this application does not qualify for relief under the Act.