I.H. v. City of Hamilton, 2019 CanLII 47988

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

ISSUE DATE: May 24, 2019

FILE NO.: WR 160348

Assessed Person(s): I.H.

Appellant(s): I.H.

Respondent(s): City of Hamilton

Property Location(s): Withheld

Municipality(ies): City Hamilton

Roll Number(s): Withheld

Application Number(s): 3234572

Taxation Year(s): 2016

Hearing Event No.: 709782

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

Heard: April 30, 2019 by written submission

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel+/Representative
I.H.	Self-represented
City of Hamilton	Irwin Sampat

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY DAN WEAGANT

INTRODUCTION

1I.H. (the “Applicant”) filed an application to the City of Hamilton (“City”) to have her 2016 taxes reduced, cancelled or refunded because she was unable to pay due either to sickness or extreme poverty, under s. 357(1)(d1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 R.S.O. 2001, c.25 (“Act”).

2The City has passed a by-law, delegating its authority to determine such applications to the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) under s. 357(1) of the Act.

ISSUE

3The issue before the Board is whether or not the Applicant’s 2016 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 2016 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 has not demonstrated that she was unable to pay the property taxes levied in 2016. The application is dismissed.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

Was the Applicant able to pay the Property Taxes levied in 2016?

6The Applicant resides at the subject property with two other adults, M.H. and H.H. The Applicant reported a total household income of $34,229 in 2016. This amount was made up from social security payments to M.H. of $7,566, income attributed to H.H. of $8,272 and pension, Old Age Security and CPP payments to the Applicant, totaling $18,391. The average income per month was $2,852.

7The Applicant reported that monthly financial activity for the household is transacted through three checking accounts. The balances on those accounts on January 1, 2017 totaled $127.40. The balances on December 31, 2016 totaled $176.50.

8The Applicant submitted that the only asset held by the household is the subject dwelling with an assessment of $129,000.

9Monthly expenses reported by the Applicant for 2016 totaled approximately $2,871 per month. These expenses are summarized as follows (all rounded to the nearest dollar):

• Line of Credit Payments - $290;
• House Insurance - $108;
• House Repairs - $344;
• Cash withdrawals and debit card purchases attributable to groceries, personal and household items $651;
• Undisclosed purchases made at a Canadian tire gas bar and local convenience store - $103;
• Visa, Mastercard and HBC credit card payments - $210;
• Debt consolidation loans and credit bureau payments - $453;
• Utilities (telephone, heat, hydro water and sewer) - $453;
• Transportation - $12; and
• Property taxes - $247.

10The Line of Credit balance is approximately $59,000 as of the end of 2016. The subject property had a tax account adjustment in the amount of $2,537.71 for property standards repairs made to the subject property. The total tax owing in 2016 was $2,233.05, net of the payments shown above.

11Property tax payments made in 2016 were applied to tax arrears that accumulated from previous years.

The City’s Submissions

12The City submitted that it does not refute any of the statements or submissions of the Applicant. The City noted that an average of $65 per month was spent at a gas bar, whereas the Applicant reported that the household did not own a car. Further, the City submitted that there were very few expenses reported by the Applicant for groceries and personal needs. Even if those needs were met some other way, he submitted the true costs of those needs should be considered as part of I.H.’s application.

13The City tax records indicate that the property tax levied in 2016 was $1,202.79.

The Board’s Analysis

14Without property tax payments being considered, the Applicant had monthly expenses of $2,624, leaving approximately $228 left over to address the 2016 property taxes. The property tax levied in 2016 was $1,209 or approximately $100 per month.

15The balance indicated would be approximately $128 per month left over after the current year’s taxes were paid.

16In considering its accounting of income and expenses incurred by the Applicant’s household, the Board finds that the income in 2016 was adequate to meet the basic necessities of the residents and the annual property taxes.

17The Board finds that the Applicant has not demonstrated that she was unable to pay the property taxes in 2016. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.