Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: January 07, 2019

FILE NO.: WR 154293

Assessed Person(s): M.M.

Appellant(s): M.M.

Respondent(s): City of Toronto

Property Location(s): Withheld

Municipality(ies): Toronto

Roll Number(s): Withheld

Application Number(s): 3235101

Taxation Year(s): 2016

Hearing Event No.: 697272

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

Heard: June 13, 2018 in Toronto, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel⁺/Representative

M.M.

Self-represented

City of Toronto

Graham Thomson⁺ Luis Verastegui

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY DAN WEAGANT

INTRODUCTION

1M.M. filed an application to the City of Toronto (“City”) to have his 2016 taxes reduced, cancelled or refunded because he was unable to pay due either to sickness or extreme poverty, under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act. (“Act”).

2The City has passed a by-law, delegating its authority to determine such applications to the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) under s. 323(11) of the Act.

ISSUE

3The issue before the Board is whether or not the Applicant’s 2016 property taxes should be cancelled, reduced or refunded because of the Applicant’s inability to pay for the reason 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 his 2016 property taxes. If the Board determines he was unable to pay his property taxes, the Board must then determine if the reason he was unable to pay was either sickness or extreme poverty.

4If the Board determines that the reason he was unable to pay 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 he was unable to pay the property taxes levied in 2016. The Application is dismissed.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

Was the Applicant able to pay the Property Taxes levied in 2016?

6The Applicant reported a total annual income for 2016 of $1,962. His spouse had an income in 2016 of $6,018. The Applicant and his spouse live at the subject property with their children. The household also receives various child tax credits and HST/GST refunds form the Government of Canada. The total of these payments for 2016 was $49,698 according to bank records submitted at the hearing. The total monthly income reported for the household was $4,806.

7The Applicant reported that monthly financial activity for the household is transacted through a single checking account held by him and his spouse. The balance on that account on January 1, 2016 was $ 5,511.81. The balance on December 30, 2016 was $5,130.12.

8The Applicant testified that the subject property has a value of approximately $785,000 and that the family’s 2006 mini-van has a value of approximately $6,000. The family has no other tangible assets.

9Monthly expenses reported by the Applicant for 2016 totaled approximately $3,833 per month. These expenses are summarized as follows (all rounded to the nearest dollar):

• Mortgage payments - $1,451
• House Insurance - $75
• Groceries and household supplies and clothing - $1,300
• Utilities (heat, hydro water and sewer) - $267
• Car and car expenses - $118
• Transit Expenses - $90
• Cell phone, telephone, cable and internet - $116
• Credit card, Line of Credit Interest - $65
• Other, non-specified - $14
• Property taxes - $337

10The Applicant reported that he and his spouse also had financial liabilities in 2016. These additional liabilities include:

• Applicant’s Personal Line of Credit—Balance as at July 2016 - $1,283
• Applicant’s Spouse’s personal Line of Credit—Balance as at November 2016 - $2,193
• First mortgage with a balance in 2016 of $378,000.

11The Appellant submitted that he and his family had a difficult time meeting their obligations in 2016 and that a refund of the taxes paid would allow them to improve their standard of living.

The City’s Submissions

12The City submitted that the evidence before the Board strongly suggested that the Applicant not only was able to pay his property taxes in 2016, the total family income clearly indicates that monthly commitments are being met and that the monthly expenses declared by the Applicant were approximately $978 less per month than the household income.

13The City submitted that the monthly expenses also include $377 for the payment of property taxes. It submitted further that the property tax account in the City’s records indicated a balance owing of zero for the 2016 taxation year.

14Because 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 $5,000, the City submitted that the Applicant has proven he was able to pay his property taxes in 2016 and therefore is not eligible for a refund, cancellation or reduction of those taxes.

The Board’s Analysis

15A number of salient facts are clear in this case from the evidence submitted. Firstly, the monthly income, as compared to the monthly expenses is higher by an amount exceeding $900. 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.

16However, monthly finances are not the only measure used by the Board to determine if an Applicant was able to pay property taxes. The Board regularly reviews overall financial conditions, including mortgage and other debts owing, credit card debt and other loans or commitments.

17In this case, the Applicant testified that there are no car loans or credit card debts. The mortgage balance is $378,000, and the only other debts are personal lines of credit for both the Applicant and his spouse, totaling approximately $3,500. The payments on the mortgage and lines of credit are regularly made on time and are part of the monthly commitments testified to by the Applicant.

18The Board finds that the Applicant and his family are meeting their monthly obligations, including their property taxes. Accordingly, he has failed to demonstrate that he was unable to pay the property taxes in 2016.

19The application is therefore dismissed.