Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: October 10, 2019

FILE NO.: WR 161992

Assessed Person(s): H.L.

Applicant: H.L.

Respondent(s): City of Mississauga

Property Location(s): Withheld

Municipality(ies): City of Mississauga

Roll Number(s): Withheld

Appeal Number(s): 3349170

Taxation Year(s): 2018

Hearing Event No.: 722599

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

Heard: August 19, 2019 in Mississauga, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel⁺/Representative

H.L.

L.L.C.

City of Mississauga

Sean Doyle

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY DAN WEAGANT

INTRODUCTION

1H.L. (the “Applicant”) filed an application to the City of Mississauga (“City”) to have his 2018 taxes reduced, cancelled or refunded because he was unable to pay due either to sickness or extreme poverty, under s. 357(1)(d1) of the Municipal Act, 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(11) of the Act. H.L. was represented by his daughter, L.L.C. at the hearing. L.L.C. provided the appropriate authorization to represent the Applicant.

ISSUE

3The issue before the Board is whether or not the Applicant’s 2018 property taxes should be cancelled, reduced or refunded due to his 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 his 2018 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 he was 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 Applicant did not demonstrate that he was unable to pay the property taxes levied in 2018. The Application is dismissed.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

Was the Applicant able to pay the Property Taxes levied in 2018?

Applicant’s Evidence

6L.L.C. testified that her mother and father lived at the subject property during 2018, but that her father passed away earlier in 2019 and her mother was, at the time of the hearing, transitioning to an assisted living residential facility. Both residents were retired and into their 90’s in 2018. L.L.C. testified that the combined income for both of her parents in 2018 was $45,764, as indicated in the Executive Summary of the couples’ 2018 tax return, indicating a monthly income of $3,814.

7There was a single chequing account in evidence, showing a balance at the end of 2018 of $1,208.96.

8Monthly expenses reported by L.L.C. for 2018 totaled approximately $2,291 per month. These expenses are summarized as follows (all rounded to the nearest dollar):

• House Insurance - $140;

• Groceries and household supplies and clothing - $400;

• Utilities - $527

• Credit card Interest payments - $1,081

• Telephone and cable - $143;

9L.L.C. testified that the subject property was encumbered by a reverse mortgage; a financial instrument that allows people with equity in their home to draw on that equity without paying for the proceeds until the property is sold. L.L.C. testified that the accrued charge against the subject property in 2018 was approximately $400,000.

10In 2018, the documents in evidence showed that the Applicant also had debts owing to several credit card companies, as follows:

• MBNA: $5,348

• Canadian Tire Master Card: $12,490

• RBC Visa: $9,272; and

• CIBC Select Visa: $19,763.

11Payments made to these four credit cards in 2018 covered monthly interest only, according to the documents in evidence.

The City’s Submissions

12The City submitted that the evidence before the Board strongly suggested that the Applicant not only was able to pay his property taxes in 2018, the total income clearly indicates that commitments are being met, with a monthly surplus of $1,523.

13The City submitted that property taxes were not paid in 2018 and that the amount levied was $3,693.29, reflected a monthly cost of approximately $308 per month, had the Applicant chosen to pay.

14Because the Applicant’s income was so much higher than the documented expenses for 2018, the City submitted that the ability to pay taxes was clearly demonstrated and as a result, the application should be dismissed.

The Board’s Analysis

15There are a number of facts missing in the application before the Board. While there was a monthly surplus, after the payment of monthly commitments of some $1,500, there is no record as to where that money went. L.L.C. indicated that her mother was a dedicated tither to her church, but that she had no record of how much money that would represent.

16H.L. was not present to ask questions regarding the use of the reverse mortgage funds as he passed away in early 2019. L.L.C. suggested that a more productive use of those funds would have been to keep up with the large credit card balances, or to consolidate them into a single monthly payment. She could not explain why her parents had taken the approach to their finances that they did.

17e Board has to make its decision on applications under this section of the Act, based on the evidence and testimony at the hearing when determining whether or not there is an inability to pay. In this case, there is no evidence to suggest that the Applicant could not have paid the taxes in 2018. There were funds available monthly, according to the accounting of income and expenses. There was also money available through the reverse mortgage according to L.L.C.

18The Board finds that the Applicant did not demonstrate that he was unable to pay the property taxes in 2018.

19The application is dismissed.