T.T. v. City of Mississauga, 2019 CanLII 7202

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

February 01, 2019

FILE NO.:

WR 158045

Assessed Person(s):

T.T.

Appellant(s):

T.T.

Respondent(s):

City of Mississauga

Property Location(s):

Withheld

Municipality(ies):

City of Mississuaga

Roll Number(s):

Withheld

Appeal Number(s):

3235941

Taxation Year(s):

2016

Hearing Event No.:

701904

Legislative Authority:

Section 357.(1)(d1) of the Municipal Act

Heard:

August 23, 2018 in Mississauga, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Representative

T.T.

Self-represented

City of Mississauga

Sean Doyle

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY DAN WEAGANT

INTRODUCTION

1T.T. (the “Applicant”) filed an application to the City of Mississauga (the “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 (“Act”).

2The City 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 2016 property taxes should be cancelled, reduced or refunded because of the her inability to pay for the reason 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 was sickness or extreme poverty, the Board must then decide on the amount of the taxes levied to be cancelled, reduced or refunded.

5At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties were directed to provide the Board with an agreed statement of fact with respect to the payment of the mortgage account held by the Applicant, and any other pertinent financial data in the Applicant’s possession. The parties made a joint submission on September 18, 2018. This decision reflects findings from the documentary evidence, testimony at the hearing, and the agreed statement of fact submitted subsequent to the hearing.

DECISION

6The Board finds that the Applicant was unable to pay all of the property taxes levied in 2016 due to extreme poverty. The taxes levied in 2016 are reduced by $2,501.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

Was the Applicant Able to Pay the Property Taxes Levied in 2016?

7The Applicant testified that she experienced an assault, prior to the year under application that made it impossible for her to work in 2016. She submitted a number of documents that summarized her treatment, including consultations with physicians and the range of medication that she is required to take.

8The Applicant reported a total annual income for 2016 of $22,635. This amount includes $7,867 in various Government of Canada supports, $9,698 form the Region of Peel social assistance program, and $5,070 payments from friends. The average household income per month was $1,886.

9The Applicant reported that monthly financial activity for her household is transacted through a single checking account. The balance on that account on January 1, 2016 was $858.15. The balance on December 31, 2016 was $1,087.23.

10The Applicant submitted that the subject property has a mortgage balance of approximately $250,000. The Applicant also testified that she owns a 2005 Toyota Camry that has no loan or lease owing. She reported no other assets.

11Monthly expenses reported by the Applicant for 2016 totaled approximately $1,588 per month. This figure was determined from her testimony and the documentary evidence submitted in the form of utility bills, mortgage payment statements, and the checking account activity. These expenses are summarized as follows (all averaged and rounded to the nearest dollar):

• Groceries & household supplies and clothing - $ 42;

• Mortgage - $1,000;

• Electric service- $72;

• Water and wastewater Services - $50;

• Natural gas - $ 133;

• House Insurance - $ 57;

• Transportation (fuel for the car, repairs and licensing) - $27;

• Car Insurance - $137; and

• Property taxes - $100.

12In addition to the above expenditures, the documentary evidence shows the applicant made additional cash withdrawals of approximately $3,100 over the year. The Applicant testified much of her grocery expenses and gas for the car was covered by this cash amount which equates to approximately $258 per month in addition to the expenses reported above.

13The Applicant submitted that she requires the equivalent amount paid in property tax to support her household expenses and that a refund of the 2016 taxes paid would allow her and her son to improve their standard of living.

City’s Submissions

14The City submitted that the taxes levied for 2016 totaled $3,820.90, noting that over the course of the year, the Applicant made $1,200 in payments to her property tax account.

15The City submitted that it does not take a position on the specifics of the application, but cited previous decisions of the Board that looked at discretionary expenses related to automobile ownership and usage as well as costs for such things as cell phones and television cable and internet. The City further submitted that in some cases money spent on those items might better be spent on property taxes and property taxes are an important part of home ownership. The City relies on property taxes to deliver the services and programs that residents of Mississauga rely on.

Board’s Analysis

16A number of facts are clear in this case from the evidence submitted. Firstly, the monthly income, as compared to the monthly expenses is higher by approximately $110, before any property taxes are paid. This accounting includes the impact of the $258 per month average withdrawn from the account in cash. 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 an Applicant 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. The Applicant has no credit card debt. By all accounts she manages her household on a day to day basis with the result that, before property taxes, there is an average of $110 per month remaining.

18The Board notes that the Applicant is taking reasonable steps to meet the obligations of her household and the needs of her son. In order to do that she has appealed to family and friends for additional financial support. To her credit, she considers these additional funds to be part of her income for 2016.

19The Board finds that the Applicant has demonstrated that she was unable to pay a portion of her property taxes in 2016.

Was the Applicant unable to pay taxes for the reason of sickness or extreme poverty?

20Having determined that the full property tax commitment could not be met by the Applicant, the Board must determine why. From the documentary evidence and testimony, the Board is satisfied that the Applicant meets the threshold to be considered in a condition of extreme poverty. While this term is not defined in the Act, the Board has widely held that a person meets the definition if the property tax commitment cannot be met, despite a diligent and realistic approach to finances.

21In this case, the Applicant was raising a high school age son, and meeting the commitments of the household. She has modeled her lifestyle to show a modest spending pattern on a list of what in today’s world, particularly where children are in the house, amounts to necessities.

22The City submitted that a car can be considered a discretionary expense when the consideration of such applications is made by the Board. The Board does not agree in this case. The subject car is a modest model of significant age. There are no payments owing. The price of insurance, fuel, and repairs is quite modest as demonstrated by the Applicant’s financial disclosure. The obvious alternative to travel by automobile would be public transit. When the cost of public transit by the Applicant and her son are compared to the expense incurred by using the car, the Board finds the difference is negligible, making the car a reasonable alternative.

23Even with her diligence, and some help from friends the Applicant has fallen short of the property tax commitment by an amount equivalent to $218 per month.

24The Board finds that the Applicant was unable to pay her property taxes in full for the 2016 taxation year due to extreme poverty, and that the amount available monthly for property tax payment is $110 per month for an annual total of $1,320. When this amount is deducted from the property taxes levied in 2016 of $3,820.90, the result is $2,501 (rounded).

25The 2016 property taxes are therefore reduced, in the amount of $2,501.