N.N. v. City of Toronto, 2019 CanLII 16519

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: February 26, 2019

FILE NO.: WR 155642

Assessed Person(s): N.N.

Appellant(s): N.N.

Respondent(s): City of Toronto

Property Location(s): Withheld

Municipality(ies): City of Toronto

Roll Number(s): Withheld

Appeal Number(s): 3288421

Taxation Year(s): 2017

Hearing Event No.: 701588

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

Heard: August 27, 2018 in Toronto, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties Counsel+/Representative

N.N. Self-represented

City of Toronto Graham Thomson+ and Luis Verastegui

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY DAN WEAGANT

INTRODUCTION

1N.N. filed an application to the City of Toronto (“City”) to have her 2017 taxes reduced, cancelled or refunded because she 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 2017 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 2017 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 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

5The Board finds that the Applicant did not demonstrate that she 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 2017?

Applicant’s Evidence

6The Applicant testified that she lives at the subject property with her spouse. Her spouse is unable to work but collected Ontario Disability Support Program (‘ODSP’) payments and Government of Canada tax rebates totaling $20,396 in 2017. The total monthly income reported for the household was $1,699.67.

7The Applicant reported that monthly financial activity for the household is transacted through a single chequing account. The balance on that account on December 31, 2017 was $3,260.

8She and her spouse also had a savings account with a balance of $3,019 showing at the end of 2017.

9The chequing account statement also showed three significant deposits of unknown origin during 2017, totaling $3,596. The Applicant was not able to explain the source of these deposits.

10Monthly expenses reported by the Applicant for 2017 totaled approximately $2,103 per month. These expenses are summarized as follows (all rounded to the nearest dollar):

• Mortgage payments - $760;
• House and car Insurance - $129;
• Groceries and household supplies and clothing - $380;
• Condominium fees - $597;
• Car and car expenses - $13;
• Cell phone, telephone, cable and internet - $39; and
• Property taxes - $185.

11The Applicant did not report any other financial liabilities.

12The Appellant submitted that she and her spouse had a difficult time meeting their obligations in 2017 and that a refund of the taxes paid would allow them to improve their standard of living.

The City’s Submissions

13The City submitted that the evidence before the Board strongly suggested that the Applicant not only was able to pay her property taxes in 2017, the total income clearly indicates that monthly commitments are being met and that a balance in two bank accounts at the end of 2017 total more than $6,000.

14The City submitted that the monthly expenses also include $185 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 2017 taxation year.

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 $6,000, the City submitted that the Applicant 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 monthly income as reported and compared to the monthly expenses, is lower by approximately $403. 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.

17Monthly 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, as well as other assets.

18The household received payments of unspecified origin totaling $3,696, equivalent to $300 per month. The Applicant was unable to explain the source of these deposits.

19The Board also heard from the Applicant that $1,400 was spent for airfare to Iran and back in 2017. This is clearly a discretionary expense. Discretionary expenses have widely been held by this Board to be costs that are not necessary for the basic operation of the household. Airfare from Toronto to Iran and back is not a cost necessary for the basic operation of the household.

20When this discretionary expense and the deposits of unknown origin are added to the declared income for the household, the total is approximately $416 per month. When this amount is added to the income from government supports, the total is $2,115.67. This amount essentially matches the Applicant’s reported expenses per month, including the payment of property taxes in 2017. The household still had over $6,000 in the bank at the end of 2017.

21The Board finds that the Applicant and her spouse are meeting their monthly obligations, including their property taxes. Accordingly, she has failed to demonstrate that he was unable to pay the property taxes in 2017.

22The application is therefore dismissed.