R.E. v. City of Toronto, 2020 CanLII 103479

Tribunals Ontario

Assessment Review Board

Issue Date: December 21, 2020 Amended Decision Issued: December 23, 2020 File No.: WR 167594A Appeal Number(s): 3342262 Taxation Year(s): 2019 Hearing Event No.: 737564

Assessed Person(s): R.E. Appellant(s): R.E. Respondent(s): City of Toronto Property Location(s): Address withheld Municipality(ies): City of Toronto Roll Number(s): Roll number withheld

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

Appearances:

• R.E., Self-represented
• City of Toronto, Graham Thomson (Counsel)

Heard: October 20, 2020 and December 2, 2020 by telephone conference call

Adjudicator(s): Dan Weagant, Member

AMENDED DECISION

In accordance with Rule 114 of the Assessment Review Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, as amended May 2019, related to the correction of minor errors and in accordance with Rule 21.1 of the Statutory Powers and Procedure Act regarding the correction of errors, this Amended Decision is issued to correct errors in the Decision at paragraphs 1 and 14. The amendments have been underlined for ease of reference. There are no other changes in this Amended Decision

OVERVIEW

1R.E. (the “Applicant”) filed an application to the City of Toronto (“City”) to have her 2019 property taxes cancelled, reduced or refunded because she was unable to pay, due either to sickness or extreme poverty, under s. 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006 c. 11, Sched. A (“Act”).

2The City has passed a by-law, delegating its authority to determine such applications to the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) under s. 323(11) of the Act.

3The issue before the Board is whether the Applicant’s 2019 property taxes should be cancelled, reduced or refunded due to her inability to pay because of sickness or extreme poverty. This requires the Board to determine:

1. if the Applicant was unable to pay her 2019 property taxes; and
2. 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.

4Finally, if the Board determines that she was unable to pay because of sickness or extreme poverty, the Board must then decide on the amount of the property taxes levied in 2019 to be cancelled, reduced or refunded.

Result

5The Board finds that the Applicant has failed to demonstrate that she was unable to pay the property taxes levied in 2019. The Application is dismissed.

ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Was the Applicant able to pay the property taxes levied in 2019?

6The Applicant testified that she received an average monthly income of approximately $3,684. Upon review of the documents submitted in support of the application, this income was derived from ODSP support, Child Tax Credits and cash transfers from family and friends.

7The balance on the Applicant’s sole bank account on January 1, 2019 was - $12. The balance on December 31, 2019 was $1,632.

8Monthly expenses reported by the Applicant for 2019 totaled approximately $4,427. These expenses are summarized as follows (all rounded to the nearest dollar):

• Mortgage: $2,857*;
• Utilities: $291;
• Groceries, household supplies and clothing: $414;
• Fuel for car: $130
• Cell phone: $21;
• Bank Charges and fees: $72
• Land line telephone, cable and internet: $99;
• Transportation including Uber and Presto: $37
• Medications and health related expense; $18;
• One-time costs incurred in 2019 (airfare to Egypt): $31;
• Tax Free savings account contributions: $46;
• Entertainment / personal services: $14;
• Restaurant and takeout meals: $106
• Cash withdrawals for unspecified expenses: $291.

*Property tax payments in the amount of $492 are included in the monthly mortgage payment total.

9The Applicant testified that, in 2019 she drove an older model car that was given to her. She also testified that the insurance and car maintenance were paid for by friends.

10The applicant testified that she took a trip to Egypt in November of 2019 and during her stay there had to undergo emergency surgery. She testified that the costs of that surgery and the associated hospital stay in Egypt were covered by her extended family. There are no documents in evidence that indicate the Applicant covered any of these costs.

11The Applicant’s testimony and the documentary evidence available were vague in answering questions regarding household expenses. For instance, a significant payment to Toronto Hydro was made ($1,517), but no source of that payment was provided. Similarly, the Board had access to bell Canada and Rogers Communications bills that totaled over $1,100, but there was no corresponding evidence of those bills having been paid.

12The frequent testimony from the Applicant during cross examination was that her ex-spouse provided ongoing support to the household, chiefly to support expenses incurred by their children, who live at the subject address. Despite repeated attempts, the City was unable to glean from the Applicant the total amounts of these payments. She did stipulate that any payments from her ex-spouse were ’for the children’. The Applicant further explained that the amounts advanced by her ex-spouse were done so, through a group of several third parties, who were known to both the Applicant and her ex-spouse.

13The Board understood that this process required the Applicant to either explain the expense being incurred to a third-party go-between, who would then contact her ex-spouse, who would then advance funds through the third Party directly to the children. It is unclear from the Applicant’s testimony whether this arrangement is supported by a separation or family support agreement.

14In any case this process of moving money in and out of bank accounts with the assistance of third-party go-betweens is sufficiently convoluted that the application before the Board is impacted. It remains, after the testimony and cross examination of the Applicant, very unclear as to the actual financial situation of the Applicant and her children in 2019. It is evident that there were some financial management challenges, but without the supporting ex-spouse’s information, or a specific accounting of the support payments made, the Applicant was unable to meet the onus of proving her case - that she was unable to pay her property taxes in 2019.

15To the contrary, she demonstrated that, even with what appears to be modest means, she was able to pay her taxes (as part of her regular mortgage payments), while meeting all of the necessities of running the household, and while incurring discretionary costs like regular TFSA contributions, airfare to Egypt and frequent and regular trips to take out and dine – in restaurants.

Findings on Issue 1

16Despite the monthly average shortfall demonstrated by the documents in evidence, the Board finds that the Applicant did not demonstrate that she was unable to pay her taxes in 2019. The evidence of this is the net (although small) surplus in her bank account even after an extraordinary year when she was faced with an illness abroad and ongoing management of significant debts.

17Having determined that the Applicant was able to pay her property taxes in 2019, there is no reason for the Board to decide whether she was in a condition of sickness or extreme poverty.

CONCLUSION

18The Board finds that the Applicant has failed to demonstrate that she was unable to pay her property taxes in 2019.

ORDER

19The Board orders that the application is dismissed.