A.G. v. City of Mississauga, 2019 CanLII 101166

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: October 25, 2019

FILE NO.: WR 161694

Assessed Person(s): A.G.

Applicant(s): A.G.

Respondent(s): City of Mississauga

Property Location(s): Withheld

Municipality(ies): City of Mississauga

Roll Number(s): Withheld

Appeal Number(s): 3348868

Taxation Year(s): 2018

Hearing Event No.: 720966

Legislative Authority: Section 357.(1)(d1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25

Heard: July 15, 2019 in Mississauga, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel+/Representative
A.G.	Self-represented
City of Mississauga	Sean Doyle

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY DAN WEAGANT

INTRODUCTION

1A.G. (the “Applicant”) filed an application to the City of Mississauga (“City”) to have her 2018 taxes reduced, cancelled or refunded because she was unable to pay due either to sickness or extreme poverty, under s. 357.(1)(d1) of the Municipal Act. 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25 (“Act”).

2The City has passed a by-law, delegating its authority to determine such applications to the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) under s. 357(11) of the Act.

ISSUE

3The issue before the Board is whether or not the Applicant’s 2018 property taxes should be cancelled, reduced or refunded due to the Applicant’s inability to pay because of sickness or extreme poverty. This requires the Board to determine a number of things. First the Board must determine, based on the evidence at the hearing, if the Applicant was unable to pay her 2018 property taxes. If the Board determines she was unable to pay her property taxes, the Board must then determine if the reason she was unable to pay was either sickness or extreme poverty.

4If the Board determines she was unable to pay due to was sickness or extreme poverty, the Board must then decide on the amount of the taxes levied to be cancelled, reduced or refunded.

DECISION

5The Board finds that the Applicant did not demonstrate that she was unable to pay the property taxes levied in 2018. The Application is dismissed.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

Was the Applicant able to pay the Property Taxes levied in 2018?

Applicant’s Evidence

6The Applicant testified that she lives at the subject property with her minor child who was a high school student in 2018. Family income for 2018 consisted of child tax credits, HST rebates, Canada Provincial payments, CPP child benefits, an income tax refund, the Applicant’s employment income and a series of transfers to her checking account from an undetermined source. The total monthly income reported by the Appellant and demonstrated by the documents in evidence for the household was $3,972.27.

7The Applicant reported that monthly financial activity for the household is transacted through a single chequing account. The balance on that account on January 1, 2018 was $1,809.15. The balance on December 31, 2017 was $1,109.39.

8Monthly expenses reported by the Applicant for 2018 totaled approximately $3,389 per month. These expenses are summarized as follows (all rounded to the nearest dollar):

• Mortgage payments - $793;
• Utility payments - $370;
• House and car Insurance - $268;
• Groceries and household supplies and clothing - $675;
• Car and car expenses - $320;
• Telephone, cable and internet - $77;
• Medication and other medical not otherwise covered - $66;
• House repairs - $50;
• Orthodontist - $200;
• Miscellaneous school expenses - $30;
• Payments to home equity line of credit - $100; and
• Property taxes - $440.

9The Applicant did not report any other financial liabilities.

10The Applicant submitted that she and her daughter had a difficult time meeting their commitments in 2018 and that a refund of the taxes paid would allow them to improve their standard of living.

The City’s Submissions

11The City testified that the taxes levied for 2018 were $5,282.60 and that those taxes were paid in full. At the time of the hearing, the property tax account had a balance owing of $0.

12The City submitted that the evidence before the Board strongly suggested that the Applicant not only was able to pay her property taxes in 2018, the total income clearly indicates that commitments are being met, with an average monthly surplus of approximately $583.

13Because the account was fully paid and that there are monthly funds available each month in the household finances, including a bank balance of more than $1,100 at the end of the year, the City submitted that the Applicant has proven she was able to pay her property taxes in 2018 and therefore is not eligible for a refund, cancellation or reduction of those taxes.

The Board’s Analysis

14A number of facts are clear in this case from the evidence submitted. Firstly, the monthly income as reported and compared to the monthly expenses, is higher by approximately $583. The comparison of monthly income and expense is a common measure used by the Board to calculate if basic household needs can be met, prior to determining if an Applicant can meet the property tax obligation. The Board notes that this surplus is the difference in income and expenses after the property taxes were paid.

15The household received payments of unspecified origin totaling $6,742, equivalent to approximately $562 per month. Even if these transfers to the Applicant’s bank account are not counted, the monthly household expenses are still slightly lower than the household income.

16It is clear that the Applicant and her daughter are frugal with their spending. They are evidently aware of the financial constraints they lived under in 2018. They should be commended for living within their means. However, the records in evidence clearly show the Applicant and her daughter were able to meet all of their financial commitments in 2018, including the payment of property taxes.

17Accordingly, the Applicant has failed to demonstrate that she was unable to pay the property taxes in 2018. The application is therefore dismissed.