M.C. v. City of Sudbury, 2019 CanLII 83963

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

ISSUE DATE: September 03, 2019

FILE NO.: WR 161492

Assessed Person(s): M.C. and F.C.

Appellant(s): M.C.

Respondent(s): City of Sudbury

Property Location(s): Withheld

Municipality(ies): City of Sudbury

Roll Number(s): Withheld

Appeal Number(s): 3283855

Taxation Year(s): 2016

Hearing Event No.: 717264

Legislative Authority: Section 357.(8) of the Municipal Act 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25 as amended

Heard: June 18, 2019 by telephone conference

APPEARANCES:

Parties M.C.

Representative Self-represented

Parties City of Sudbury

Representative Amy Bouchard

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY DAN WEAGANT

INTRODUCTION

1M.C. (the Appellant) filed an application with the City of Sudbury under s. 357.(1)(d1), for the 2016 taxation year. That section provides for applications to allow the Municipality to reduce, cancel or refund property taxes where the applicant is unable to pay owing to sickness or extreme poverty.

2The Application to cancel, reduce or refund taxes from 2016 was filed under s 357.1(d1) of the Act. The case before the Board is an appeal because the City made no decision on the 2016 application for tax relief by the end of September 2017. This avenue of appeal is available under s. 357.8.

ISSUE

3The issue before the Board is whether or not the Appellant’s 2016 property taxes should be cancelled, reduced or refunded because of his 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 Appellant was unable to pay his 2016 property taxes. If the Board determines he was unable to pay his property taxes, the Board must then determine if the reason he was unable to pay was either sickness or extreme poverty.

4If the Board determines that the reason he was unable to pay was sickness or extreme poverty, the Board must then decide on the amount of the taxes levied in 2016 to be cancelled, reduced or refunded.

DECISION

5The Board finds that the Appellant did not demonstrate that he was unable to pay the property taxes levied in 2016. The Appeal is dismissed.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

Submissions

The Appellant's submissions

6The property taxes levied in 2016 were $2,902.59. The Applicant reported a total annual income for 2016 of $8,265. The Applicant did not testify as to the 2016 income of F.C., the other registered owner of the property.

7The Applicant provided no documentary evidence or testimony as to the household expenses incurred at the subject property, or any assets and liabilities in 2016.

8The Appellant explained that his mother, F.C. was only a registered owner on the title to the property because of a financing irregularity at the time of purchase. When the property was purchased, F.C was added to the title. The Appellant testified that F.C. lives at another address on the same street as the subject property.

9In his submissions, the Appellant referred to a financial statement and an auditor’s report related to the candidacy and campaign finances of Brian Bigger, a candidate for the Mayor of Sudbury. Mr. Bigger was subsequently elected Mayor. After the election, as a result of the financial audit, Mr. Bigger resigned his position as Mayor.

10The Appellant submitted that, as the City of Sudbury did not have a Mayor, it could not properly pass municipal finance, budget or taxation by-laws. As a result, the taxes in 2016 were not legally levied. The Applicant submitted that, because they weren’t properly levied, he doesn’t need to pay them.

11In particular, the Appellant cites several sections of the Act that, in his opinion, support his position that the City did not lawfully establish tax levies in 2016.

12Finally, the Appellant submitted that, if the Board could not make a finding under s. 357.(1) (d1), it could make a finding under s. 357 (1)(f) instead. This section refers to applications where a person was “…overcharged due to a gross or manifest error that is clerical in nature…” He made no submissions with respect to this section of the Act.

The City’s Submissions

13The City submitted evidence in the form of documentation of tax arrears, penalties and the efforts by the City to collect the taxes levied in 2016 at the subject property. Taxes were accruing from 2014 to 2019. In 2016, the City records show a balance owing of $11,579.43, including the 2016 levy and the accrued, unpaid taxes, interest and penalties from previous years.

14The City disagreed with the Appellant about the legality of the taxation bylaws passed for 2016 and submitted the City did all the right things to allow it to collect taxes levied in 2016, on the subject property and throughout the City.

15The City submitted that, because F.C. was on the title to the subject property along with the Appellant in 2016, she is also responsible for the payment of taxes. The City pointed out that, under a pending sale for tax arrears proceeding, the taxes for 2014 through 2017 were paid, indicating that the Appellant was able to pay the 2016 taxes.

16The City finally submitted that the onus is on the Appellant to prove that he was unable to pay the taxes levied in 2016 because he was either sick or financially impoverished. It submitted he had done neither.

The Board’s Analysis

17The Board heard a great deal of detail form both Parties about how taxation for 2016 had been constituted by the City Council. There was a difference of opinion on this point. However, whether or not the City was able to levy taxes, or if they did so legally is not the subject of this appeal. The only issues in this appeal are whether the Appellant has an ability to pay and, if not, the reason for that inability. Furthermore, it is not necessary to determine whether the City has the authority to levy taxes, in order to adjudicate the issues in this appeal.

18The only relevant document filed by the Appellant was his 2016 Canada Revenue Agency Notice of Assessment. This document confirmed the Appellant’s testimony regarding his income. He described his financial situation as being below the poverty line. He testified that he believed the poverty line had been defined and established by law, either at the Federal or Provincial level. He was not able to specify the statute that specified the poverty line.

19In any case, any external authority that refers to ‘poverty’ is of limited assistance to the Board in its deliberations under this section of the Act, unless that authority defines the term ‘extreme poverty’ in the context of this statute.

Finding on inability to pay

20The first step in making a determination in this Appeal is deciding if the Appellant has demonstrated an inability to pay the taxes levied in 2016. In order to do so, the Board must use the evidence at hearing. In this case, the Applicant provided his income in 2016. However, the Appellant made no submissions with respect to expenses incurred in 2016. The Board, therefore, is unable to determine if the Applicant had an ability to pay, once the annual expenses in 2016 were paid.

21The onus rests on the Appellant to establish that he was unable to pay the 2016 property taxes. He has failed to do so. For this reason, the Board finds that the Applicant has failed to demonstrate that he was unable to pay the property taxes levied in 2016. The application is therefore dismissed.