Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: June 3, 2019

FILE NO.: ID 160493

Assessed Person(s): F. S. and E. S.

Appellant(s): F. S.

Respondent(s): City of Toronto

Property Location(s): Withheld

Municipality(ies): City of Toronto

Roll Number(s): Withheld

Appeal Number(s): 3253362 and 3286085

Taxation Year(s): 2016 and 2017

Hearing Event No.: 713365

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

Heard: May 13, 2019 in Toronto, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel+/Representative
Ms. F. S.	Mr. F. S. (son of Ms. F.S.)
City of Toronto	Graham Thomson+ and Melanie Shankar

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY SUBUOLA AWOLERI ON May 13, 2019

DECISION

The Board Orders

1The hearing of the Application for the 2016 and 2017 taxation years is adjourned.

2Mr. F. S., the son of the Applicant, Ms. F.S., (the “Son”) and/or the Applicant shall provide the following “non - exhaustive” documents on or before the next hearing date to be scheduled by the Board.

a. All Mortgage Statements for the subject property, for 2016 and 2017;

b. Notices of Assessment for 2016 and 2017 including notices of assessments of other parties living in the subject property during this period;

c. All 2016 and 2017 monthly Bank Statements for the son and the Ms. F. S. (“Applicant”), including Line of Credit Statements;

d. All monthly Credit card Statements for 2016 and 2017 for the son and the Applicant;

e. All Investment account Statements for 2016 and 2017 for the son and the Applicant;

f. All Bills relating to expenses in 2016 and 2017 for the son and the Applicant and;

g. All Financial Documents for the Estate of E. S., as requested by the City of Toronto (“the City”).

3Failure by the son to provide these documents on the next hearing date may result to the Board making the appropriate decision, which may include dismissing the applications.

4The next hearing is peremptory on the Applicant. That means that the Applicant (or her son who is representing her) should not anticipate any further adjournments and the hearing will proceed on the next scheduled date.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

5This is a ruling that was delivered orally by the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) regarding the City’s request to have the 2016 and 2017 applications dismissed due to the lack of financial disclosure to provide the necessary evidentiary documentation to support the Applications. The parties requested for the ruling in writing.

Hearing of May 13, 2019

6This was a peremptory hearing. The son did not provide any financial documentation to support the Applicant’s application. Graham Thomson, on behalf of the City requested a dismissal of the application, due to the delay in hearing this matter and the fact that it is a peremptory hearing.

Background

7On August 29, 2017, this matter was scheduled to be heard, but it was adjourned on the request of the son to obtain a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee from the Superior Court of Justice, in order to proceed with the hearing. The City did not object to this request.

8The hearing of this application was reconvened on November 9, 2017. The Board directed a motion to be considered in writing in order to determine the eligibility of the Estate of E. S. to make an application under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 S.O. 2006 c. 11 (“Act”). The Board in a written decision, E.S. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp., Region 9, [2018] O.A.R.B.D. No. 177, determined that the Estate of E. S. is not a person and is not eligible to make an application under s. 323(1)(e) of the Act and that eligibility to apply under this section of the Act ends upon death.

9The Board scheduled the hearing of the Application for March 15, 2019, a date chosen by the son. The son again requested an adjournment since he was unable to obtain permission from his employers to attend the hearing. The City was in agreement with this adjournment but further requested that the next scheduled hearing be made peremptory due to the delay in hearing the matter.

Should the Applications be dismissed due to the lack of supporting financial documents?

10Mr. Thomson submits that the son is aware of the need to provide the requisite financial documents to support the Application. He provided the Board with two letters dated August 18, 2017 and March 5, 2019, sent by the City to the son, which provides that “failure to produce sufficient evidence with respect to your family’s (and the Estate’s) financial situation in 2016 may result in your application being postponed or dismissed by the Board.” He further submits that the onus is on the son to provide this evidence and that if the matter is adjourned, based on the history of the case, there is no guarantee that the son will provide the required financial disclosure.

11The son advised the Board on the complicated family situation he is involved in with his brother and sister-in-law who resided with the Applicant in 2016. He submits that this complicates obtaining the documents for the 2016 taxation year. He states that he is unable to pay the different service providers in order to obtain the requisite billing statements, as this will cause undue hardship on him as these statements date back to 2016. He however admitted that he will be able to obtain the mortgage and bank statements for 2017. He further submits that he had initially provided the City and the Board with the Mortgage statement and Notices of Assessment. The City disagreed with this as there was no evidence provided to prove this fact and the Board also did not have these documents in its file.

12The hearing on May 13, 2019, was actually the first time that the substantive issues were to be heard. The hearings on August 29, 2017 and November 9, 2017, both dealt with procedural matters. It is obvious that the son does not have an understanding of the process of this hearing, as he submits that the Board can hear the matter based on the recollection of his memory which he used to fill the financial statement form provided to him by the City. However, such evidence would not be sufficient to prove that the Applicant is entitled to receive the tax relief sought in this application. The son is not legally represented, as he had advised the Board that if he was legally trained he may have a better understanding of the process and how to easily obtain the supporting documents from the different service providers. The son lacks the legal understanding of the implication of proceeding with the hearing without the supporting financial documents. These supporting financial documents are mandatory for applicants to have a fair hearing and are also essential for the Board to make its decisions based on evidence.

13In order to have procedural fairness at this hearing, the probative value of having these critical supporting financial documents substantially outweighs any potential prejudice to the City. Consequently, the Board adjourns this hearing to another peremptory hearing in order to enable the son provide the non-exhaustive supporting financial documents as ordered by the Board on or before the next hearing. The Board cautions the son that failure to provide these documents on or before the next peremptory hearing will result in the Board making the necessary decision, which could include dismissing the applications.