Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: February 21, 2019

FILE NO.: WR 156995

Assessed Person(s): A.K.F.

Applicant(s): A.K.F.

Respondent(s): City of Mississauga

Property Location(s): Withheld

Municipality(ies): City of Mississauga

Roll Number(s): Withheld

Appeal Number(s): 3282380

Taxation Year(s): 2017

Hearing Event No.: 700465 and 708268

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

Heard: August 20, 2018 and November 13, 2018 in Mississauga, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
A.K.F.	Self-represented
City of Mississauga	Sean Doyle

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY DAN WEAGANT

INTRODUCTION

1A.K.F. (the “Applicant”) filed an application with the City of Mississauga to have his 2017 taxes reduced, cancelled or refunded because he was unable to pay due either to sickness or extreme poverty, under s. 357(1)(d1) of the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, c. 25 (“Act”).

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

ISSUE

3The issue before the Board is whether or not the Applicant’s 2017 property taxes should be cancelled, reduced or refunded due to his 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 his 2017 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 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 2017. The Application is dismissed.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

Was the Applicant Able to Pay the Property Taxes Levied in 2016?

6The Applicant reported an annual family net income for 2017 of $37,174.87. This amount includes $ 23,289.72 in payments form the Ontario Disability Support Program, $2,751 in rental income from the Applicant’s daughter, $2,201.65 in various Government of Canada credits, $1,560 in rental income from a parking space in the condominium building, and $7,372.50 in transfers from unspecified sources. The average household income per month was $3,097.91.

7The Applicant reported that monthly financial activity for the household is transacted through a single, joint chequing account. The balance on that account on January 3, 2017 was $1,767.67. The balance on December 27, 2017 was $5,695.36.

8The Applicant submitted that the subject property has a value of approximately $325,000; equivalent to the 2017 assessment. There is no mortgage on the property.

9Monthly expenses reported by the Applicant for 2017 totaled approximately $2,623 per month. This figure was determined from his testimony and the documentary evidence submitted in the form electronic records of activity on a joint checking account and activity on two credit cards. These expenses are summarized as follows (all rounded to the nearest dollar and averaged):

• Groceries & household supplies and clothing - $900;

• Condominium fees - $976;

• House and Automobile Insurance - $139;

• Car Expenses (fuel repairs) - $292;

• Internet, cable, phone - $98;

• Other, (textbooks) - $8; and

• Property taxes - $210;

10The Applicant submitted that he requires the equivalent amount paid in property tax to support their household expenses and that a refund of the 2017 taxes paid would allow he and his family to improve their standard of living.

City’s Submissions

11The City submitted that the evidence before the Board strongly suggested that the Applicant not only was able to pay his property taxes in 2017, the total family income clearly indicates that monthly commitments are being met and that the monthly expenses declared by the Applicants were approximately $475 less per month than the household income.

12The City submitted that that the property tax account in the City’s records indicated a balance owing of zero for the 2017 taxation year.

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 $5,000, the City submitted that the Applicants have proven they were able to pay their property taxes in 2016 and therefore are not eligible for a refund of those taxes under the Act.

Board’s Analysis

14A 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 $400. 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 Applicants can meet the property tax obligation.

15However, monthly finances are not the only measure used by the Board to determine if Applicants 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.

16In this case, there is no mortgage. The Applicants testified that their credit card is paid in full monthly and those payments for the expenses incurred and not otherwise reported are included in these payments. There is no reported debt.

17The Board finds that the Applicants are meeting their monthly obligations, including their property taxes. Accordingly, they have failed to demonstrate that they were unable to pay the property taxes in 2017.

18The application is therefore dismissed.