V. M. v. City of Toronto, 2018 CanLII 8127

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

February 20, 2018

FILE NO.:

WR 149443

Assessed Person(s):

V. M.

Appellant(s):

V. M.

Respondent(s):

City of Toronto

Property Location(s):

Withheld

Municipality(ies):

City of Toronto

Roll Number(s):

Withheld

Appeal Number(s):

3266055

Taxation Year(s):

2016

Hearing Event No.:

688370

Legislative Authority:

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

Heard:

November 17, 2017 in Toronto, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel⁺/Representative

V. M.

Self-represented

City of Toronto

Alison Mintoff⁺ and Luis Verastegui

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY MARGARITA OKHOVATI

INTRODUCTION

1V. M., (the “Applicant”) is a 64-year old woman who lives by herself in a one-bedroom and one-bathroom residential condominium with a total area of 625 square feet (“sq. ft.”) with a parking space. The property was built and purchased in 2005.

2The Applicant filed an application with the City of Toronto (the “City”) to have her 2016 property taxes refunded pursuant to s. 323.(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A. (“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 2016 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 2016 property taxes and in fact she paid it in full, notwithstanding its finding of sickness. The Board finds that in 2016 the Applicant was not in a condition of extreme poverty. The Board therefore, dismisses this application for the 2016 taxation year.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Legislation

5Section 323.(1)(e) of the Act provides:

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;

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 she has been suffering from breast cancer since 2004. She stated that chemotherapy caused complications and in 2005 she was qualified for disability. She stated that in 2010 she had blood clot in her lungs and in February 2016 she was injured in a car accident. The Applicant submitted a written statement made by Dr. Mariella Ferreyra of Health One Medical Centre (Exhibit 1), who verified and confirmed the condition of the Applicant’s ill-health. The Applicant is also the recipient of the Canadian Pension Plan (“CPP”) Disability benefit. The Applicant submitted that she was seeking a refund for 2016 property taxes paid because of sickness.

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 telecommunications engineer with Northern Telecom Limited (“Nortel”) in Canada and when the Company was closed in Canada, she started working with Nortel in the United States for three years from 1999 to 2001.

10The Applicant stated that she has been receiving disability benefits from both Canada and the United states. She testified further that as a result of her car accident injuries sustained in 2016, the insurance company paid her $6,225 however, she did not receive the money until 2017.

11The Applicant testified that she has one son who is not living with her and is not assisting her financially.

Applicant’s Financial Evidence

12The 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

CPP/Disability Benefits $ 758.11

US Disability Benefits $ 410.69

Interest and Investment $ 46.40

Income Total $1,215.20/month

Expenses

a. Mortgage $ 679.96

b. Property Taxes $ 188.05

c. Home Insurance $ 23.30

d. Condominium Fees $ 407.93

e. Water/Heat/Hydro $ 41.52

f. Telephone/Cable/Internet $ 96.49

g. Groceries $ 216.00

h. Household Supplies $ 30.00

i. Transit/TTC $ 20.00

j. Other Expenses $ 79.00

k. Meals-outside $ 19.57

l. Car insurance and gas $ 8.84

(for 2months before the accident)

Expenses Total $1,810.66/month

Net Total $ - 595.46

Assets

Assessed value of the house in 2016 $ 328,000.00

RRSP $ 41,991.73

Toronto Dominion Bank Mutual Funds $ 32,490.33

Balance in the Chequing Account $ 3,196.24

Balance in the Savings Account $ 474.60

Toronto Dominion US Borderless Account $ 47,697.36

UCU Ukranian Credit Union Retirement Account $ 16,955.56

Assets Total $ 470,805.82

Liabilities

Mortgage $ 96,546.59

NET WORTH TOTAL $+374,259.23

13Based on the information submitted in the Form 1 – Financial Information (Exhibit 2), the net worth of the Applicant is $374,259.23.

Applicant’s Final Remarks

14“The Board must consider the condition of my health. I worked all my life when I was healthy and before I was involved in car accident. I was receiving medical benefits from the insurance company after my accident however, they stopped paying effective September 2017.”

City’s Evidence and Position

15Luis Verastegui, Representative for the City advised the Board that the Applicant paid her property taxes for both 2016 and 2017 taxation years in full with no compounded interest or penalty.

Sickness and Extreme Poverty

16Alison Mintoff, Counsel for the City, submits that the City is not contesting the Applicant’s sickness for she has had many medical situations. However, despite the Applicant’s sickness, the Applicant has shown that she has the ability to pay her property taxes therefore, this application should be dismissed for the following reasons:

• The Applicant is conscientious in spending her money and the City does not expect her to rent out a part of her house to generate more income because she lives in a one bedroom condominium but she could have rented out the parking space belonging to her to generate more income for she does not own a car.
• The Applicant has $231,453.41 equity in the home available to her which will assist her to pay her property taxes.
• The Applicant testified that in the past she borrowed $20,000 against her mortgage. She can do the same thing to pay her property taxes.
• Most importantly, even if we consider that her funds in RRSP for $41,991.73 are locked, she has significant assets and substantial amounts of money ($100,814.09 in total) in her savings, chequing and retirement accounts.
• The City expects every property owner to pay their taxes in order to receive all the city services.

Board’s Analysis

17The 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.

18As noted in paragraph 16 above, the Applicant’s evidence was not disputed by the City. The Applicant’s claim of sickness was supported by and consistent with the fact that she is receiving CPP/Disability benefit both from Canada and the United States and by a written statement from Dr. Mariella Ferreyra. The Board finds this evidence to be reliable and persuasive and therefore finds that the Applicant satisfies the “sickness” portion of the test.

19The Applicant’s inability/ability to pay her property taxes will be discussed in conjunction with the discussion about poverty.

20The 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 are no means of being able to pay some or all of their property taxes.

21The 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 2016 property taxes and whether the Applicant is living in extreme poverty.

22The Board is not satisfied that the Applicant is unable to pay her taxes because of sickness nor that her circumstances rise to the level of “extreme poverty” for the following reasons:

23The Board notes from the Applicant’s Financial Statement (Exhibit 2) that even excluding the $32,490.33 in mutual funds or $41,991.73 in RRSP or the equity in the house for $231,453.41, the Applicant is in possession of $68,323.76 in different bank accounts which is available to her and will enable her to pay her property taxes which is $188.05 per month.

24The Board agrees with Counsel for the City who stated that the payment of property taxes remains one of the foremost obligations of all home owners and when this obligation is not met the tax burden is passed on to all other tax payers.

CONCLUSION

25Based on the reasons stated above, the Board finds that despite the Applicant’s sickness, she had the ability to pay all of her 2016 property taxes. In fact, the evidence reveals that the Applicant was able to pay her 2016 property taxes without compounded interest and fees.

26The Board therefore dismisses the Applicant’s application and determines that this application does not qualify for relief under the Act.