R.S.A. v. City of Windsor, 2019 CanLII 14353

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: February 21, 2019

FILE NO.: WR 156693

Assessed Person(s): R.S.A.

Appellant(s): R.S.A.

Respondent(s): City of Windsor

Property Location(s): Withheld

Municipality(ies): City of Windsor

Roll Number(s): Withheld

Appeal Number(s): 3274205

Taxation Year(s): 2016

Hearing Event No.: 707864

Legislative Authority: Section 357(7) of the Municipal Act, 2001. S.O. 2001, c. 25 as amended

Heard: October 19, 2018 in Windsor, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
R.S.A.	Self-represented
City of Windsor	Janice Guthrie

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY DAN WEAGANT

INTRODUCTION

1R.S.A. (the “Appellant”) filed an application to the City of Windsor (“City”) to have her 2016 taxes reduced, cancelled or refunded because she was unable to pay due either to sickness or extreme poverty, under s. 357 (7) of the Municipal Act. 2001. S.O. 2001, c.25 (the “Act”).

2The City considered the application and denied it. The application was first denied by staff at the City and, when that decision was appealed, City Council considered it and also denied it. Council’s final decision took place on September 7, 2017.

3Upon receipt of Council’s denial, the Appellant then appealed that decision to the Board, in accordance with s. 357(12) of the Act.

ISSUE

4The issue before the Board is whether or not the Appellant’s 2016 property taxes should be cancelled, reduced or refunded due to the Appellant’s inability to pay because of sickness or extreme poverty. This requires the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) to determine a number of things. First the Board must determine, based on the evidence at the hearing, if the Appellant was unable to pay her 2016 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.

5If the Board determines that the reason she 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

6The Appellant failed to demonstrate that she was unable to pay the property taxes levied in 2016. The Appeal is dismissed.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

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

7The Appellant reported a total annual household income for 2016 of $58,790. This amount includes the Appellant’s earnings of $6,500, her spouse’s earnings of $17,490, and child tax credits/benefits of $34,800. The total monthly income reported for the household was $4,899 (rounded).

8The Appellant reported that monthly financial activity for the household is transacted through a single checking account. The balance on that account on January 1, 2016 was $15,924.00. The balance on December 31, 2016 was $9,482.08.

9The Appellant testified that the subject property has a value of approximately $180,000. The mortgage balance on the property in 2016 was approximately $110,694. The family has two mini-vans; one a 1998 model and the other from 2011. There are no loans or leases payable on either automobile. She reported no other assets.

10Monthly expenses reported by the Appellant for 2016 totaled approximately $3,698 per month. These expenses are summarized as follows (all rounded to the nearest dollar):

• Mortgage payments - $504;
• House and Car Insurance - $211;
• Groceries and household supplies and clothing - $1,896;
• Utilities (heat, hydro water and sewer) - $288;
• Car expenses - $65;
• Cell phone, telephone, cable and internet - $68;
• Private School Tuition, books and uniforms - $391; and
• Property taxes - $275.

In addition, 2016 bank records in evidence show undefined cash withdrawals averaging $1,278 per month. The Applicant was unable to specify the use of these funds, indicating her spouse has access to the account and makes withdrawals for purposes unknown to her.

11The Appellant reported that she had $79,000 in unpaid OSAP loans. No payments on these loans were made in 2016.

12The Appellant submitted that she had a difficult time meeting her obligations in 2016 and that a refund of the taxes paid would allow her to improve her family’s standard of living. She indicated that there are seven people in her household; five children aged two through 16, and herself and her spouse. The Applicant submitted that with a large family, expenses are sometimes large and unpredictable.

The City’s Submissions

13The City submitted that the evidence before the Board strongly suggested that the Appellant not only was able to pay her property taxes in 2016, the total income clearly indicates that monthly commitments are being met and that the monthly expenses declared by the Appellant were less per month than the household income.

14The City submitted that the monthly expenses also include $275 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, meaning the taxes were paid.

15Because 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 $9,000 at the end of the year, the City submitted that the Appellant has proven she was able to pay her property taxes in 2017 and therefore is not eligible for a refund, cancellation or reduction of those taxes.

The Board’s Analysis

16A number of salient facts are clear in this case from the evidence submitted. Firstly, the Applicant’s bank balance exceeded $15,000 at the beginning of 2016 and had a balance exceeding $9,000 at the end of that year. Secondly, even when accounting for unspecified cash withdrawals from the account, the ‘shortfall’ monthly is approximately $100. Thirdly, the 2016 property taxes were fully paid.

17Monthly finances are not the only measure used by the Board to determine if an Appellant 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.

18In this case, the Appellant testified that there are no car loans or credit card debts. The mortgage is being paid regularly. The only other debt is the OSAP loan. The Applicant provided no detail as to the outstanding balance or interest accruing to this loan, but testified as to the amount of $79,000. She testified this loan was not being paid. She also testified that this loan, or portions of it, were used as a down payment for the subject property when it was purchased. By this accounting, the Board considers the OSAP loan to be part of the costs of borrowing for the house.

19While the Applicant and her family have made some questionable choices with respect to their finances, the Board has no jurisdiction to make findings of fault or bad judgement. However, the Board must make a decision as to her ability to pay property taxes in 2016.

20Given the net financial balance shown in the bank records of over $9,000, after the property taxes were paid, the Board finds that the Appellant has failed to demonstrate that she was unable to pay the property taxes in 2016.

21The appeal is therefore dismissed.