R.S. and I.S. v. City of Mississauga, 2020 CanLII 26223

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

ISSUE DATE: March 31, 2020

FILE NO.: WR 164102

Assessed Person(s): R.S. and I.S.

Applicant(s): R.S. and I.S.

Respondent(s): City of Mississauga

Property Location(s): Withheld

Municipality(ies): City of Mississauga

Roll Number(s): Withheld

Appeal Number(s): 3368562

Taxation Year(s): 2018

Hearing Event No.: 729069

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

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
R.S. and I.S.	Self-represented
City of Mississauga	Sean Doyle

HEARD: February 13, 2020 in person

ADJUDICATOR(S): Dan Weagant, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1R.S. and I.S. (the “Applicants”) filed an application with the City of Mississauga 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 (“Act”).

2The City of Mississauga has passed a by-law, delegating its authority to determine such applications to the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) under s. 357(11) of the Act.

Issues for the Hearing

3The main 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:

1. whether the Applicants were unable to pay their 2018 property taxes; and
2. if the Board determines they were unable to pay their property taxes, whether they were unable to pay because of sickness or extreme poverty.

4Finally, if 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 in 2018 to be cancelled, reduced or refunded.

RESULT

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.

ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Were the Applicants Able to Pay the Property Taxes Levied in 2018?

6The Applicants reported a total annual income for 2018 of $106,004. This amount includes $1,116 in E.I. benefits for I.S., $19,150 in CPP disability pension and $24,850 in RRSP income for R.S. and, $60,888 of employment income for M.S. who is an adult child of the Applicants living at the subject property in 2018. The total net income demonstrated through bank records was $89,065, or $7,422 per month, rounded.

7The Applicants reported that monthly financial activity for the household is transacted through three separate accounts. The balance on those accounts, collectively at the beginning of January 2018 was $21,750. The balance at the end of December 2018 was $19,680.

8The Applicants submitted that the subject property has a value of approximately $325,000; equivalent to the 2018 assessment. There is no mortgage on the property.

9Monthly expenses reported by the Applicants for 2018 totaled approximately $4,087 per month. This figure was determined from testimony and the documentary evidence submitted in the form of electronic records of activity on the bank accounts and activity on two credit cards. These expenses are summarized as follows (all rounded to the nearest dollar and averaged):

a) Groceries & restaurant meals: $1,778; b) Household expenses and clothing: $300; c) House maintenance and repair: $698; d) House and Automobile Insurance: $208; e) Car Expenses (fuel, repairs): $415; f) Internet, cable, phone and cell phones: $250; g) Transportation: $50; and h) Property taxes: $388.

10The Applicants submitted that they require the equivalent amount paid in property tax to support their household expenses and that a refund of the 2018 taxes paid would allow their family to meet their financial obligations for the 2018 taxation year.

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 family income clearly indicates that monthly commitments are being met and that the monthly expenses declared by the Applicants were approximately $3,335 less per month than the household income.

12The City submitted 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 are monthly funds available each month in the household finances, including total bank balances exceeding $19,000, 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 of those taxes under the Act.

Findings on Issue 1 - Ability to Pay

14The 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. In this case the monthly income of the three adults living at the subject property exceed monthly expenses by a substantial amount, after the 2018 property taxes were paid.

15There is no mortgage on the property and the Applicants were able to pay off their two credit cards each month. There is no ongoing debt in evidence for 2018. The Board finds that the Applicants were able to pay the 2018 property taxes.

Issue 2 – Were the Applicants unable to pay because of sickness or extreme poverty?

16The Applicants did not make any submissions on the issue of whether they were in a condition of sickness or extreme poverty. As the Board finds that the Applicants were able to pay the 2018 property taxes, it is unnecessary to consider reasons for an inability to pay.

CONCLUSION

17The Board finds that the Applicants have failed to demonstrate that they were unable to pay the property taxes in 2018.

ORDER

18The Board orders that the application is dismissed.