Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: January 22, 2018

FILE NO.: WR 149192

Assessed Person(s): C. D.

Appellant(s): C. D.

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) Region 09

Respondent(s): City of Toronto

Property Location(s): (Address Withheld)

Municipality(ies): City of Toronto

Roll Number(s): (Roll Number Withheld)

Appeal Number(s): 3253366

Taxation Year(s): 2016

Hearing Event No.: 684882 & 687983

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

Heard: September 12, 2017 and November 3, 2017 in Toronto, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel⁺/Representative
C. D.	Self-represented
City of Toronto	Jennifer Boyczuk⁺ and Melanie Shankar

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY MARLENE CASHIN

INTRODUCTION

1This matter involves an application to the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) to cancel, reduce or refund, all or part of the taxes levied on the subject property identified above, for the taxation year 2016, pursuant to s. 323.(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 (“Act”).

2The Applicant, C. D. (“Applicant”), represented himself at the hearing of the matter. He provided relevant medical and financial information, answered questions put to him by the Respondent and the Board, and made submissions.

3Jennifer Boyczuk, Counsel, appeared on behalf of the City of Toronto (“City”) to contest the application. Melanie Shankar, a Revenue Analyst with the City, appeared as a witness for the City.

ISSUE

4The issue before the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) is whether the Board should cancel, reduce, or refund all or part of the taxes levied on the subject property for the taxation year 2016, because the Applicant was unable to pay taxes because of sickness or extreme poverty.

DECISION

5Based on all the evidence before it, the Board has found that the Applicant was not unable to pay his taxes because of sickness or extreme poverty as contemplated by the Act. Therefore, no cancellation, refund of part or all of the taxes paid is granted.

ANALYSIS

6Section 323.(1)(e) of the Act states as follows:

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;

7The test under this section of the Act refers to whether an applicant is unable to pay his or her property taxes due to “sickness” or “extreme poverty.” If either sickness or extreme poverty exists, the applicant must then demonstrate an inability to pay some or all of the property taxes because of the sickness or extreme poverty.

Sickness and Inability to Pay Taxes

8The Applicant provided evidence that on April 10, 2015 he was involved in a serious road traffic accident while working. Medical records and letters from his doctors, union, employer and insurers, confirm that throughout 2016 he underwent extensive treatment and rehabilitation related to his injuries, and that he has been unable to work since his accident.

9The City agreed that “sickness” clearly exists in this case, and based on the reliable and persuasive evidence provided by the Applicant, the Board finds that the Applicant is indeed sick. Nevertheless, there was no evidence presented to show that the Applicant’s sickness resulted in an inability to pay his taxes. Therefore, the Board finds that the Applicant’s sickness did not result in an inability to pay his taxes.

Extreme Poverty and Inability to Pay Taxes

10The evidence before the Board on the Applicant’s monthly income was uncontested. Similarly, the parties agreed on the Applicant’s approximate monthly expenses. There were a number of one-time income payments (such as holiday pay), and one-time expenses (such as legal fees), which had to be averaged over the year. The evidence showed that the Applicant’s total monthly income of $3,729 (average monthly rental income for 2016 on a property not related to the Application (“Second Property”); monthly income replacement benefits; and one-time income amounts), less his total monthly expenses of $4,211 (including interest payments on credit cards and a line of credit), resulted in a net total of -$482 per month.

11The Applicant’s property taxes on the subject property for the year 2016 were paid in full, on time, in the amount of $2,263, by payments made throughout the year.

12Regarding the Applicant’s assets, the Board was provided with evidence relating to three bank accounts held by the Applicant in 2016. The first was a chequing account, containing $3,248, the second was a savings account containing $282, and the third was another small account containing $173, for a total of $3,703. The Applicant also owned a vehicle, which he operated throughout 2016, and which “died” late in 2016. The vehicle had an estimated value of $200 at the end of that year.

13The other assets owned by the Applicant are a condominium property (taxes for which are the subject of this application) and a Second Property referred to above, which is a house located in a municipality outside of Toronto. The subject property is a one-bedroom, one-bathroom condominium, with a parking space.

14The City submitted evidence that the assessed value of the subject property was $329,000. The parties agreed that this was an appropriate amount to use in an accounting of the total of the Applicant’s assets for 2016. Neither party presented evidence on the assessed value in 2016, of the Second Property owned by the Applicant. However, the parties submitted together, that a fair estimate for the property would be $380,000, based on the purchase price of the property and the monthly mortgage amount. Based on the evidence, the Board finds that the value of the Applicant’s two properties totals $709,000.

15Regarding the Applicant’s liabilities, the agreed evidence is that there is a mortgage on the subject property of $171,856, a mortgage balance on the second property of $220,000, line of credit balance of $9,000, a $3,197 credit card balance, as well as $11,554 owing (protected funds) for various types of physiotherapy treatments, for a total of $415,607.

16Having found that the Applicant’s assets totaled approximately $712,903 (bank account of $3,703, two properties estimated at a total of $709,000, and a vehicle valued at $200), and the Applicants liabilities totaled $415,607, the Board finds that the Applicant was left with a net total of $297,296 in assets in 2016.

17The City submits that although the Applicant has had a severe injury, and has shown candor and honesty during the process of the application and the hearing, he has not demonstrated that he was in a situation of extreme poverty in 2016. The City further submits that the fact that the taxes were paid in full demonstrates an ability to pay, that the Applicant’s car expenses of approximately $240 per month must be considered discretionary spending, and that the Applicant could have leveraged his equity in his properties to pay the taxes. The City asks that the application be dismissed.

18The Applicant acknowledges that his car expenses were discretionary, but says that he has done much to leverage the equity in his properties, such as consolidating his home insurance, and taking out a private mortgage to pay debts. He adds that he approached one bank to consolidate his mortgage loans but was denied, and that he has started the process with his other bank, but is not hopeful that the loan restructuring will be successful. He requests a partial or full refund of his taxes paid.

19The Board finds that the Applicant had the resources to pay for his 2016 property taxes, by using the money in his bank accounts or by leveraging the equity in his home. Based on the evidence, the financial situation of the Applicant does not support a finding that the Applicant lived in “extreme poverty” in 2016.

CONCLUSION

20The Board concludes that “sickness” does exist in this situation, but that the sickness did not cause the Applicant the inability to pay his taxes for 2016. Further, the evidence does not support a finding that “extreme poverty” caused the Applicant an inability to pay his taxes.

21In conclusion, having made the findings set out above, the Board declines to make an order cancelling, reducing or refunding the Applicant’s property taxes for the year 2016. The application is dismissed.