S. A. v. City of Mississauga, 2019 CanLII 29134

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: April 4, 2019

FILE NO.: WR 159242

Assessed Person(s): S. A.

Appellant(s): S. A.

Respondent(s): City of Mississauga

Property Location(s): Withheld

Municipality(ies): City of Mississauga

Roll Number(s): Withheld

Appeal Number(s): 3319168

Taxation Year(s): 2017

Hearing Event No.: 711564

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

Heard: March 6, 2019 in Mississauga, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

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

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY MARGARITA OKHOVATI

INTRODUCTION

1S. A. (the “Applicant”) is a 37-year old single woman who lives with her mother in a four-bedroom and two-bathroom detached house. The subject property has a building area of 1,244 square feet (“sq. ft.”), a finished basement, an attached garage, and a swimming pool. The assessed value of the subject property for 2017 is $674,000.

2The Applicant filed this application with the City of Mississauga (the “City”) seeking a cancellation, reduction or refund of property taxes for the 2017 taxation year due to an inability to pay taxes because of sickness or extreme poverty pursuant to s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25 (the “Act”).

Preliminary

3The first sitting of this hearing was scheduled on June 26, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. At 12:26 p.m. on the day of the hearing, the Applicant requested an adjournment by sending an email to the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) stating that she had just returned from a trip and was not feeling well to attend the hearing. She also stated that she was unable to gather all the necessary documents for the hearing. A peremptory hearing was scheduled for September 19, 2018. On that day, the Applicant appeared before the Board without providing documents regarding her mother’s and brother’s income, who she said were living with her. A second adjournment was granted and another hearing was set peremptory for March 6, 2019. At this hearing, the Applicant provided the Board the required documents for herself and her mother only by stating that, in 2017, her brother was not living with her and her mother.

ISSUE

4The issue before the Board is to determine whether the property taxes of the Applicant for the 2017 taxation year should be cancelled, reduced or refunded as a result of the Applicant’s inability to pay taxes due to sickness or extreme poverty under the Act.

DECISION

5Based on the evidence before it, the Board determines that the Applicant’s 2017 property taxes should not be cancelled, reduced or refunded. The Board therefore, dismisses this application.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Legislation

6Section 357(1)(d.1) of the Act states that:

Upon application to the treasurer of a local municipality made in accordance with this section, the local municipality may cancel, reduce or refund all or part of the taxes levied on land in the year in respect of which the application is made if the Applicant is unable to pay taxes because of sickness or extreme poverty.

7The Act outlines a two-part test. In order for the Applicant to qualify for relief under this section of the Act, the Board must first determine whether the Applicant is able to pay her taxes. If the Applicant was able to pay the 2017 taxes, then the application fails. If the Applicant proves that she is unable to pay the taxes, the Board must then determine the reason the Applicant is unable to do so. Relief can only be granted if the Applicant is unable to pay based on either sickness or extreme poverty.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

Applicant’s Evidence and Position

Ability to Pay

8In determining whether the Applicant has the ability to pay her taxes, the Board has to consider the evidence presented by the Applicant regarding her financial situation, which is not limited to her income and expenses. The Applicant submitted that in 2017, she was living in extreme poverty and was unable to pay her property taxes.

9The Applicant testified that before her father passed away in 2015, he transferred the ownership of the subject property to the Applicant’s name. She stated that in 2017, she worked for Ontario Government but presently she is unemployed and is receiving Employment Insurance. She stated that only her mother lives with her. She stated that she has a partner who lives in Toronto and every month since 2015 she has been paying her partner’s condominium maintenance fee for $468.66.

Applicant’s Financial Evidence

10The Applicant submitted a copy of the Form 1 – Financial Information and also provided evidence at the hearing regarding her 2017 monthly income and expenses, assets and liabilities as detailed hereunder:

Income Total $6,279.00/month (2 adults combined)

Expenses

a. Mortgage 0

b. Fuel (gas/oil) $175.00

c. Hydro $210.00

d. Water $ 60.00

e. 2 Cell Phones $129.55

f. Internet/Cable $ 70.00

g. Insurance: House $167.71

h. Insurance: Car and Scooter $283.18

i. Gas/Auto Repair $270.00

j. Medication $ 62.00

k. Food $900.00

l. Transportation $120.00

m. Prescription glasses $ 35.58

n. Dog Insurance and Expenses $ 71.86

o. Dental $ 30.92

p. Water/Furnace Repair $ 58.14

q. Citizenship Applications (2) $105.00

r. Temporary Travel documents $ 65.00

s. Swimming pool expenses $381.00

Expenses Total $ 3,194.94

NET TOTAL $+ 3,084.06

Assets

Assessed value of the house $674,000.00

in 2017

Cash in checking Account $ 20,088.65

Cash in mother’s checking

Account $ 729.34

RRSP $ 5,926.66

Assets Total $700,744.65

Liabilities

Toronto Dominion checking $ - 5,621.63

Account

Liabilities Total $ 5,621.63

NET WORTH TOTAL $+695,123.02

11Based on the information set out above, the net worth of the Applicant is $695,123.02.

Applicant’s Final Remarks

12“I was hesitant to put forward my appeal but thought I had to do this. I don’t know whether the Board’s decision will be positive. My father passed away and I was in a bad mental state. It was my negligence not to pay the bills on time.”

City’s Evidence and Position

13Sean Doyle, Representative for the City, advised the Board that the Applicant’s property taxes for 2016 is $4,546.61 of which, the Applicant has paid $3,096.16. The property taxes for 2017 taxation year, is $4,743.75 or $395.31 per month which is outstanding. He made no submissions or recommendations.

Board’s Analysis

14The intent of the legislation is to provide relief for property owners who cannot pay their property taxes in full or in part due to sickness or extreme poverty in a given taxation year. If the Applicant proves an inability to pay the taxes, they must then prove the reason why they cannot, and only then can relief be granted.

15The first question to be determined is if the Applicant had the ability to pay her 2017 taxes.

16An ability to pay requires individuals to demonstrate that, after having called upon every resource available to them, and having explored every reasonable opportunity to mitigate any financial stresses, there are no means to pay some or all of their property taxes.

17The Board has considered the oral testimony of the Applicant, and has reviewed all of the evidence pertaining to her financial situation to determine whether the Applicant is able to pay her 2017 property taxes.

18The Board finds that the Applicant had the ability to pay her 2017 taxes for the following reasons:

• The subject property is mortgage free.

• In 2017, the Applicant’s total assets were $695,123.02.

• In 2017, the Applicant’s monthly net total was $3,084.06.

• As of December 28, 2017, the Applicant had $15,196.36 cash in the bank, which would have enabled her to pay her property taxes of $395.31 per month.

19In the Board’s view, notwithstanding the evidence regarding the equity in the house, which is mortgage free and the Applicant’s assets, the monthly cash in hand was sufficient for the Applicant to pay her monthly property taxes.

CONCLUSION

20Based on the reasons stated above, the Board finds that the Applicant had adequate income to pay her 2017 taxes.

21The Board therefore dismisses the Applicant’s application and determines that this application does not qualify for relief under the Act.