Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: October 01, 2019

FILE NO.: WR 161695

Assessed Person(s): Y.S.K.

Applicant(s): Y.S.K. and F.K.

Respondent(s): City of Mississauga

Property Location(s): Withheld

Municipality(ies): City of Mississauga

Roll Number(s): Withheld

Appeal Number(s): 3348663

Taxation Year(s): 2018

Hearing Event No.: 720972

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

Heard: July 23, 2019 in Mississauga, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel⁺/Representative

Y.S.K. and F.K.

Self-represented

City of Mississauga

Sean Doyle

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY DAN WEAGANT

INTRODUCTION

1Y.S.K. and F.K. (the “Applicants”) filed an application to the City of Mississauga (“City”) to have their 2018 taxes reduced, cancelled or refunded because they were unable to pay due either to sickness or extreme poverty, under s. 357.(1)(d1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25 as amended (“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 Applicants’ 2018 property taxes should be cancelled, reduced or refunded due to their inability to pay because of sickness or extreme poverty. This requires the Board to determine a number of things. First the Board must decide, based on the evidence at the hearing, if the Applicants were unable to pay their 2018 property taxes. If the Board determines they were unable to pay their property taxes, the Board must then decide if the reason they were unable to pay was either sickness or extreme poverty.

4If the Board determines that they were unable to pay because of 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 Applicants did not demonstrate that they were unable to pay the property taxes levied in 2018. The Application is dismissed.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

Were the Applicants able to pay the Property Taxes levied in 2018?

Applicants’ Evidence

6The Applicants testified that they live at the subject property. In 2018, F.K. worked outside of the home, for a temporary services agency. Y.S.K. received a monthly pension from the Canada Pension Plan. The Applicants testified that their income came from these two sources, a small capital gain from investments and federal / provincial government tax rebates or credits. These income sources added up to $43,010 in 2018. The total monthly income reported for the household was $3,584.19.

7The Applicants testified that monthly financial activity for the household is transacted through two chequing accounts. The combined balance on those accounts on January 1, 2018 was $11,515.76. The combined balance on October 22, 2018 (the last day in 2018 that balances for both accounts were provided by the Applicant) was $14,534.88.

8The Applicants also had savings, in the form of two savings accounts and five separate term deposits. The total savings account balances on December 31, 2018 were $15,586.69. The term deposits had maturity dates ranging from February 2019 to January 2021. The term deposits had a value, on December 31, 2018 of $57,703.18.

9Monthly expenses reported by the Applicants for 2018 totaled approximately $2,127. These expenses are summarized as follows (all rounded to the nearest dollar):

• House and car Insurance - $134;
• Utilities - $150;
• Groceries and household supplies and clothing - $700;
• Condominium fees - $416;
• Car and car expenses - $318;
• Medical expanses not otherwise covered: $115
• Cell phone, telephone, cable and internet - $94; and
• Property taxes - $200.

10The Applicants did not report any other financial liabilities.

The City’s Submissions

11The City submitted that the evidence before the Board strongly suggested that the Applicants not only were able to pay their property taxes in 2018, the total income clearly indicates that commitments are being met, with a monthly surplus of $1,457 and that balances in two bank accounts at the end of 2018 totaled more than $14,000.

12The City submitted that the monthly expenses also include $200 for the payment of property taxes. It submitted further that the property tax account in the City’s records indicated a balance owing of zero for the 2018 taxation year.

13Because the account was fully paid and that there were funds available each month in the household finances, the City submitted that the Applicants have proven they were able to pay their property taxes in 2018 and therefore are not eligible for a refund, cancellation or reduction of those taxes.

The Board’s Analysis

14The monthly income as reported and compared to the monthly expenses, is higher by approximately $1,450. 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 an Applicant can meet the property tax obligation.

15The Applicant’s documentary evidence showed significant balances in current chequing accounts and multiple savings instruments. When all of the cash assets, including the balances on the two chequing accounts are accounted for, the total exceeds $80,000. This is clear evidence that the applicants were able to pay their property taxes in 2018.

16The Board finds that the Applicants are meeting their monthly obligations, with additional financial resources available each month, after their property taxes were paid. They have failed to demonstrate they were unable to pay the property taxes in 2018.

17The application is dismissed.