K.D.B. and C.C.B. v. City of Mississauga, 2019 CanLII 37049

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

Issue Date: April 23, 2019 File No.: RD 2019M12 Appeal Number(s): 3282363 Taxation Year(s): 2017 Hearing Event No.: 708169

Assessed Person(s): K.D.B. and C.C.B. Applicant: K.D.B. and C.C.B. Respondent(s): City of Mississauga Property Location(s): Withheld Municipality: City of Mississauga Roll Number(s): Withheld

Legislative Authority: Rule 123 of the Assessment Review Board Rules of Practice and Procedure Request by: K.D.B. Request for: A review of the Board’s Decision WR 157242 issued on December 11, 2018 Heard: By written submission

Parties and Representatives

Parties	Counsel/Representative	Submissions
K.D.B. and C.C.B	Self-represented	Requester
MPAC	No one appeared	Not Requested
City of Mississauga	No one appeared	Not Requested

DECISION DELIVERED BY PAUL MULDOON AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

INTRODUCTION

1K.D.B. (the “Applicant”) filed a written Request for Review with the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) regarding the Board’s Decision WR 157242 issued on December 11, 2018 (“Decision”) which denied an application for property tax relief for the 2017 taxation year on the basis of sickness or extreme poverty pursuant to s. 357(1) (d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25 (the “Act”). This Request for Review was filed with the Board on December 21, 2018 under Rules 120 to 123 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“the Rules”).

2The Applicant indicates that he believes the Decision contains errors in fact or in law and that the Board should have reached a different conclusion. K.D.B. indicates that he wishes to Board to review the Decision so that he can be granted his application for tax relief. The Board has reviewed the Request for Review record and has found the issues raised by the Requester can be addressed without further submissions from the Requester or other parties.

3For the reasons provided below, the Board is not satisfied that the Decision contains any serious errors of fact or law such that the Board would have likely reached a different conclusion. The Request to Review is therefore denied.

RELEVANT RULES

4Review requests must meet the procedural requirements of Board Rule 120 before they are considered. In this case, the Board finds that the procedural requirements of Rule 120 have been met.

5Request for Reviews will not be granted unless a ground for review listed in Rule 121 is established. That Rule states:

Grounds for Review

121. A request for review will not be granted unless the Board is satisfied that:

(a) the Board acted outside its jurisdiction or violated the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness;

(b) the Board made a significant error of law or fact such that the Board would likely have reached a different decision;

(c) the Board heard false or misleading evidence from a party or witness, which was discovered only after the hearing and would have affected the result;

(d) there is new evidence that could not have reasonably been obtained earlier and would have affected the result; or

(e) any of the situations in Rule 122 exist.

6When the Board is not satisfied that a ground for review has been established, the Board may dismiss the Request for Review based on Rule 123(a).

ISSUE – ERROR IN FACT OR LAW

Background

7The Request to Review form provides a check list for the grounds for review which set out all the grounds listed in Rule 121. While the Aplicant did not specifically check off any of the grounds, his comments do not raise any concerns regarding: the Board’s jurisdiction; natural justice; procedural fairness; false and misleading evidence; new evidence; nor are any of the situations in Rule 122 applicable in this case.

8In the Request to Review, the Appicant indicated that he is receiving certain benefits related to his low income senior status including the Guaranteed Income Supplement (“G.I.S.”) from the Government of Canada and $400 realty tax rebate from the City of Mississauga. He indicates that he did not previously apply to the City of Mississauga or the Board for property tax relief until the 2017 taxation year and believes that he should be granted the relief requested. The Applicant lives with his spouse at the property.

9The Board has considered the Applicant’s position as indicating that he is asserting that there is a serious error in law or fact such that the Board would have likely reached a different decision.

The Law

10The Decision correctly sets out the legislation and the legal test to be considered in this application in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Decision. The Board was limited to applying the legislation, considering the facts and submissions before it, to determine the answer to the legal question. This means that the fact that a municipal $400.00 rebate, $200.00 yard maintenance, and a $500.00 government tax rebate were given to the Applicant does not automatically mean that he will be successful at his application. Rather, the Board must consider the specific test set out in the legislation and apply it to the evidence and submissions before it.

11In considering any application under s. 357(1)(d.1) of Act, the Board must first determine if the Applicant is able to pay his taxes. If the Applicant is unable to pay his taxes, then it must be determined that the reason he was unable to pay his taxes was due to sickness or extreme poverty.

Analysis

12The Board found that the Applicant’s 2017 property taxes were $3,879.49 per year or $323.29 per month. The Board considered the Applicant’s income and basic expenses and found that after the Applicant’s typical monthly expenses had been deducted, the Applicant had a net monthly income of $1,131.20. In paragraph 15, the Board found that this net monthly income was sufficient to pay his monthly property taxes. While the Applicant may have had other expenses, the Board is limited to consider the evidence before it. In this case, the hearings held on June 14, 2018 and September 13, 2018 were adjourned to provide the Applicant a reasonable opportunity to bring the documents and evidence required for his hearing which was ultimately held on November 13, 2018.

13Even if the Applicant’s net monthly income was not sufficient to pay his property taxes, for an application such as this one, the Board is required to consider the Applicant’s assets and net worth together with his spouse’s assets and net worth. The principal asset is the property which is the subject of the Decision. The Board calculated the 2017 net worth of the Applicant to be in excess of $500,000 and that the Applicant and his spouse had $5,497.66 in cash in their two accounts at the end of 2017. These facts also indicate that the Applicant had an ability to pay his 2017 property taxes of $3,879.49. Based on the evidence and submissions before the Board, the Board is not satisfied that there was any serious error of fact or law in the Decision and the Request to Review will not be granted.

14Another consideration is with respect to the cash withdrawals from a bank account totaling $13,900 which in the Applicant indicated was sent to his spouse’s family. This withdrawal also supports a finding that the Applicant had the ability to pay his 2017 property taxes.

Conclusion

15In summary, to meet the threshold for a Request for Review under Rule 122(b), the Board must be satisfied that there was a significant error of fact or law such that the Board would likely have reached a different decision had those errors not been made. Based on the Board’s review of the Requestor’s submissions, the hearing record and the Decision, the Board is not satisfied that there is a serious error in fact or law in the Decision, such that the Board would have likely reached a different decision. The Request to Review is therefore denied.

ORDER

16The Request for Review is denied. The Decision dismissing K.D.B.’s application under s. 323(1)(e) of the Act is confirmed.