Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: July 11, 2018

FILE NO.: WR 153944

Assessed Person(s): N. I.

Appellant(s): N. I.

Respondent(s): City Of Mississauga

Property Location(s): Withheld

Municipality(ies): City of Mississauga

Roll Number(s): Withheld

Appeal Number(s): 3282365

Taxation Year(s): 2017

Hearing Event No.: 698775

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

Heard: June 21, 2018 in Mississauga, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
N. I.	Self-represented
City of Mississauga	Sean Doyle

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY MARGARITA OKHOVATI

INTRODUCTION

1N. I., (the “Applicant”) is a 75-year old woman who lives with her 34-year old son in a three-bedroom and three-bathroom town house with a parking space. The property was purchased in 2011 for $391,000.

2The Applicant filed an application with the City of Mississauga (the “City”) to have her 2017 property taxes refunded pursuant to s. 357.(1) (d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, (“Act”), due to sickness and/or extreme poverty.

ISSUE

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

DECISION

4The Board finds that based on the evidence before it, the Applicant would have been able to pay her 2017 property taxes and in fact she paid it in full, notwithstanding its finding of her son’s sickness. In addition, the Board finds that in 2017, the Applicant was not in a condition of extreme poverty. The Board therefore, dismisses this application for the 2017 taxation year.

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,

(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 Applicant would not qualify for relief. If either exists, to fulfill the second part of the test, the Applicant must demonstrate an inability to pay all or part of her property taxes.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

Applicant’s Evidence and Position

Sickness

7The Applicant testified that as a 75-year old woman she does not have major health problem other than cholesterol, high blood pressure and arthritis. However, her 35-year old son who lives with her suffers from a psychological problem and therefore he is only able to work several hours a month as a dishwasher in a restaurant. The Applicant did not provide the Board with medial documents regarding her son’s health however, based on her oral evidence and the undisputed evidence that her son is the recipient of Ontario Disability Support Program “ODSP”, the Board finds that it is more likely than not that the Applicant’s son is sick.

Extreme Poverty

8The 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 Applicant regarding her financial situation, which is not limited to her income and expenses. The Applicant submitted that she was living in extreme poverty and was therefore unable to pay her property taxes.

9The Applicant testified that she worked as a cook in a supermarket for several years before she was retired. She lost her husband four years ago. She has three children. One daughter and one son are married and live outside Canada and the youngest son who lives with her. She stated that her married children do not assist her financially. They only buy her clothing and gifts several times a year. The Applicant stated further that she drives a 1996 Honda Civic for which she paid cash.

Applicant’s Financial Evidence

10The Applicant submitted a copy of the Form 1 – Financial Information (Exhibit 2) and also provided evidence at the hearing regarding her monthly income and expenses, assets and liabilities as detailed hereunder:

Income Old Age Pension Supplement $ 1,273.31 Canadian Pension Plan Benefits $ 47.07 Property Tax Senior Rebate $ 30.00 ODSP (son) $ 1,194.00 Employment Income (son) $ 152.91 Income Total $2,697.29/month

Expenses a. Mortgage $ 1,221.00 b. Fuel (gas/oil) $ 70.00 c. Water/Heat/Hydro $ 120.00 d. Telephone-Home $ 30.00 e. Telephone-Cell $ 73.00 f. Internet/Cable $ 68.00 g. House Insurance $ 48.00 h. Car Insurance $ 138.90 i. Gas/Auto Repairs $ 100.00 j. Transportation $ 60.00 k. Food $ 800.00 l. Medication $ 40.00 m. Property Taxes $ 293.74 n. Other Expenses $ 350.00 Expenses Total $3,412.64/month

Net Total $ - 715.35/month

Assets Assessed value of the house in 2017 $ 499,000.00 Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (“CIBC”) $ 34,953.10 Royal Bank of Canada $ 17,903.00 CIBC (joint account with son) $ 2,971.20 Assets Total $ 554,827.30

Liabilities Mortgage $ 272,855.00 NET WORTH TOTAL $+281,972.30

11Based on the information submitted in the Form 1 – Financial Information (Exhibits 1 and 2), the net worth of the Applicant is $281,972.30. This does not include the value of the Applicant’s condominium value located in her home town. The Applicant gave evidence that she owns a condominium located outside of Canada. The Applicant did not give evidence about the value of this property and therefore the net worth of the Applicant excludes the value of this condominium.

City’s Evidence and Position

12Sean Doyle, representative for the City of Mississauga 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. Either of these two eligible criteria must exist in order for a property owner to fulfill the first part of the test.

14As noted in paragraph 7 above, the Applicant’s evidence regarding her son’s sickness was not disputed by the City although the Applicant did not provide the Board with medical documents. The Applicant’s claim of her son’s sickness was supported by and consistent with the fact that he is receiving Disability benefit. The Board finds this evidence to be reliable and persuasive and therefore finds that the Applicant’s son satisfies the “sickness” portion of the test. With respect to her health, the Applicant testified that she did not have any major problem other than old age aches and pains.

15The Applicant’s inability/ability to pay her property taxes will be discussed in conjunction with the discussion about poverty.

16The Act qualifies the level of poverty as “extreme” and in the Board’s view this raises the level of requirement to qualify for relief under the Act to a level that is materially and substantially above that of the simple and ordinary meaning of poverty. The Board believes that individuals must demonstrate that after having called upon every resource available to them and having explored every reasonable opportunity to mitigate any financial stresses there is no means of being able to pay some or all of their property taxes.

17The Board has considered the oral testimony of the Applicant and has reviewed all of the evidence pertaining to her financial situation to determine whether the Applicant is able to pay her 2017 property taxes and whether the Applicant is living in extreme poverty.

18The Board is not satisfied that the Applicant is unable to pay her property taxes because of “extreme poverty” for the following reasons:

19The Board notes from the Applicant’s Bank Statements (Exhibits 4, 5 and 6)) that the Applicant is in possession of $55,827.30 cash in different bank accounts which is available to her and will enable her to pay her property taxes which is $293.74 per month.

20Furthermore, the Applicant was questioned whether she had a credit card. She stated that she had Visa but never used it. The Board notes from the Applicant’s Bank Statements that she made several purchases in 2017 by using her Visa including airline tickets for $3,295.12. When this was brought to the Applicant’s attention, she then stated that she used her Visa to purchase airline tickets only. She stated that in 2017, she travelled to New Jersey for her nephew’s wedding, Prince Edward Island as a tourist and overseas to her home country. She stated further that she owns a small furnished condominium in her home country and keeps it for her visits where she visits for a couple of months every two to three years. She stated that she pays $750 per year to a cousin to look after her condominium in her absence. The Applicant was asked why she does not rent out the place as she visits there every two to three years. She stated that she would never like a stranger to use her furnished place. The Applicant had the same response for not renting out the furnished basement of her present property.

21Moreover, the Applicant was asked as to why she has both land line telephone and a cell phone. She responded that it was convenient for her to use the house phone when she was at home and the cell phone outside her home.

22Furthermore, the Applicant stated in the Financial Statement Form (Exhibit 2) that she was divorced from her husband. Orally, she stated that her husband passed away four years ago. When asked to clarify, she insisted that her husband has passed away. In this respect, Mr. Doyle, the City representative stated that a co-worker in the City of Mississauga who speaks the Applicant’s native language helped the Applicant to complete the form for the Applicant did not comprehend all the questions in the form. On the balance of probabilities, the Board accepts the Applicant’s oral testimony for it could have been a misinterpretation or translation on the part of the interpreter. In this regard, at the outset of the hearing it was mentioned to the Applicant that if she did not understand a question, she had to ask every question to be repeated to her. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Applicant was asked several times whether she had any problem in understanding the procedure of the hearing or the questions put to her. She stated that she understood everything and had no problem.

23Moreover, the Board notes that the Applicant’s discretionary spending of $3,295.12 on airline tickets and $750.00 costs for managing the Applicant’s condominium (located outside of Canada) totals more than the cost of her property taxes. This indicates that the Applicant had an ability to pay her property taxes in 2017 and I find so accordingly. Further, even though the Applicant has a negative net income, the amount of the Applicant’s discretionary spending, her related lifestyle, her ownership of foreign property (the value of which was not disclosed to the Board), the $55,827.30 cash available in the Applicant’s bank accounts and the Applicant’s total assets, all indicate that the Applicant is not living in a condition of extreme poverty.

CONCLUSION

24Based on the reasons stated above, the Board finds that despite the Applicant’s son’s sickness, she had the ability to pay all of her 2017 property taxes. In fact, the evidence reveals that the Applicant was able to pay her 2017 property taxes without compounded interest and fees. I find that the Applicant is not living in a condition of extreme poverty.

25The Board therefore dismisses the Applicant’s application and determines that this application does not qualify for relief under the Act.