R.A. and A.A. v. City of Mississauga, 2019 CanLII 18806

Assessment Review Board / Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: March 04, 2019

FILE NO.: WR 156942

Assessed Person(s) Appellant(s): R.A and A.A.

Respondent(s): City of Mississauga

Property Location(s): Withheld

Municipality(ies): City of Mississauga

Roll Number(s): Withheld

Appeal Number(s): 3319167

Taxation Year(s): 2017

Hearing Event No.: 707964

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

Heard: November 2, 2018 in Mississauga, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

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

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY DAN WEAGANT

INTRODUCTION

1A.A. (the “Applicant”) filed an application with the City of Mississauga (“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. 357.(1)(d1) of the Municipal Act 2001, 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 (“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 was able 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?

6The Applicant testified that he and his spouse purchased the subject property in 2016 for $460,000. At the end of 2017, the principal balance on the mortgage was approximately $423,000. The property taxes levied in 2017 totaled $3,403.75. The taxes were paid in full.

7The Applicant reported a total annual net family income for 2017 of $52,687. This amount includes the Applicant’s $38,479 employment income and $14,208 in Employment Insurance benefits for his spouse. In the documents submitted to the Board, the net income amounted to $100,530 (rounded). This higher income was made up of employment income earned by the Applicant’s spouse, of $34,023.25 and cash deposits to his bank account of undetermined and undisclosed source of $13,819.88. The average household income per month was $8,378 (rounded).

8The Applicant reported that monthly financial activity for the household is transacted through two chequing accounts; one each held by the Applicant and his spouse. The balance of the two accounts on January 1, 2017 was $7,822. The balance on December 20, 2017 was $5,002.

9The Applicant also testified that the family has the following additional assets:

• 2013 Kia – undetermined value (no loan or lease reported)

• 2004 Chevrolet – undetermined value (no loan or lease reported)

10Monthly expenses reported by the Applicant for 2017 totaled approximately $4,958 per month. This figure was determined from the Applicant’s testimony and the documentary evidence submitted in the form electronic records of activity on the two checking accounts, and his original disclosure submitted to the City with the application. These expenses are summarized as follows (all rounded to the nearest dollar and averaged):

• Mortgage - $2,066;

• Electric, gas and utility service- $150;

• Internet, cable, telephone and cell phone - $125;

• Groceries, household and clothing - $1,000;

• House and car insurance - $433;

• Fuel and repairs to automobiles - $400;

• Other Unspecified - $500; and

• Property taxes - $284.

11The Applicant submitted that he requires the equivalent amount paid in property taxes to support his family’s household expenses and that a refund of the 2017 taxes paid would allow them to improve their standard of living.

City’s Submissions

12The City submitted that the evidence before the Board 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 was approximately $3,420 less per month than the household income.

13The City submitted that the monthly expenses also include 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.

14The City pointed out that there were several expenses disclosed by the Applicant that were clearly discretionary, including a $1,900 charge from a jewelry store. The Applicant was unable to articulate the purpose of that purchase. The City submitted that this kind of expense clearly shows the Applicant was able to pay the taxes without financial duress.

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 $7,000, the City submitted that the Applicant has proven he was able to pay the property taxes in 2017 and therefore is not eligible for a refund of those taxes under the Act.

Board’s Analysis

16A 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 $3,000. 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.

17However, 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.

18With reported monthly expenses of $4,958 and monthly income of over $8,000, the Applicant’s evidence shows that his expenses were $3,000 less that his net income every month.

19In addition, the taxes were paid. This is a clear indication that the Applicant had an ability to pay, without any undue hardship.

20The situation presented by the Applicant is one of a young family, with both parents gainfully employed, enduring a very normal cycle of things being a bit tight when their second child arrived. Net income for the household exceeds $100,000. The bank accounts held by the Applicant and his spouse showed a balance in excess of $7,000. They appear to be carrying out a modest lifestyle in the early years of child rearing. They should be commended for that, but the situation cannot be described as an inability to pay the property taxes.

21The Board finds that the Applicant has failed to demonstrate that he was unable to pay the property taxes in 2017.

22The application is dismissed.