<!--mc:cls:cover-masthead-->
Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
**ISSUE DATE:** February 22, 2019
<!--mc:cls:cover-meta-->
**FILE NO.:** WR 156692
**Assessed Person(s):** C.D.
**Appellant(s):** C.D.
**Respondent(s):** City of Toronto
**Property Location(s):** Withheld
**Municipality(ies):** City of Toronto
**Roll Number(s):** Withheld
**Application Number(s):** 3284961
**Taxation Year(s):** 2017
**Hearing Event No.:** 701691
**Legislative Authority:** Section 323.(1)(e) of the [City of Toronto Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/so-2006-c-11-sch-a/latest/so-2006-c-11-sch-a.html), 2006, S.O. 2006, c.11 Sched. A
**Heard:** October 18, 2018 in Toronto, Ontario
**APPEARANCES:**
**Parties**
**Counsel**
<!--mc:cls:cover-masthead-->
C.D.
No one appeared
City of Toronto
Jared Wherle
<!--mc:close:case-cover-->
## DISPOSITION OF MOTION DELIVERED BY DAN WEAGANT
### INTRODUCTION
[1] C.D. (the “Applicant”) filed an application to the City of Toronto (the “City”) to have his 2017 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”).
[2] The 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.
[3] This matter was adjourned from a previous proceeding at the Applicant’s request so that he would have additional time to obtain a Canada Revenue Agency Notice of Assessment to establish the facts of his income. This hearing was scheduled as peremptory and the Parties were given notice accordingly.
[4] On the morning of the hearing, the Board received a telephone call from the Applicant indicating that he would not be attending because he still did not have a Notice of Assessment from the Canada Revenue Agency for the 2017 taxation year.
[5] The Board called the hearing to order at 10:00 a.m., having given the Applicant a 30 minute grace period, as is the Board’s custom. The Applicant did not appear.
[6] Rule 104 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure states, “If a Party fails to appear at a hearing event, the Board may proceed with the hearing event, or take other steps that it deems appropriate.” The Board chose to proceed with the hearing because:
- The Applicant was aware that the event was peremptory and, as demonstrated by his telephone call to the Board, he was aware of the date and time. The Applicant made the choice not to attend;
- The Applicant did not request an adjournment when he contacted the Board;
- The City prepared for and attended the hearing with the expectation that it would have a chance to cross-examine and argue its case. Such preparation and attendance has costs.
[7] The Board finds that the Appellant’s choice not to attend and his failure to request an adjournment is a clear indication of his lack of commitment to the application and his disinterest in participating in its resolution. For that reason and for the reason that the City prepared and attended in good faith, the hearing was commenced, in the Applicant’s absence.
### The City’s Case
[8] The City provided documentary evidence of several facts that it submitted were grounds to have the Application denied. The City indicated as follows:
- The applicant has a tax account of $0 in 2017 having paid his taxes in full;
- The subject property has a 2017 assessment of $358,000;
- The average 2017 sale price among 51 similar properties in the same building as the subject property and the building next door is $479,879;
- The Applicant purchased the subject property on January 5, 2007; a mortgage was subsequently registered on March 18 2011 for $244,000; a second mortgage was subsequently registered on August 23, 2017 for $40,000;
- The Applicant purchased a residential dwelling in the City of Barrie on March 18 2011 for $232,000; a mortgage of $232,000 was registered on the Barrie property on the same day; a subsequent mortgage of $78,000 was registered on October 10 2017.
[9] The City submitted that the parcel registers for the subject property and the property in Barrie show a path by which the Applicant mortgaged the subject property to purchase the Barrie property.
[10] It submits that the Applicant cannot be resident in two dwellings, indicating that one or the other is used to produce rental income. In either case, the City submitted that with real estate holdings exceeding $700,000, the Applicant has options to draw equity from the income producing property.
[11] The City further submitted that the Applicant has failed to demonstrate an inability to pay the 2017 taxes, as the tax account was paid in full.
[12] Finally, the City submitted that the application should be dismissed because the Applicant did not demonstrate an inability to pay the 2017 property taxes for the subject property.
### Was the Applicant able to pay the Property Taxes levied in 2016?
[13] The only document in evidence related to the question of ability to pay is that of the City. The City’s property tax account shows that the only outstanding taxes are a portion of those levied in 2018. For the taxation years 2014 through 2017, the account record shows that Applicant paid the taxes in full, without interest or penalty.
### DECISION
[14] The Board finds that the Applicant did not demonstrate that he was unable to pay the property taxes levied in 2016. The Application is dismissed.
<!--mc:open:case-tail-->
“Dan Weagant”
DAN WEAGANT
MEMBER
Assessment Review Board
A constituent tribunal of Tribunals Ontario - Environment and Land Division
Website: www.elto.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248
<!--mc:close:case-tail-->
minicounsel