Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: January 20, 2020

FILE NO.: WR 163294

Assessed Person(s): F.F.

Applicant(s): F.F.

Respondent(s): City of Hamilton

Property Location(s): Withheld

Municipality(ies): City of Hamilton

Roll Number(s): Withheld

Appeal Number(s): 3369585

Taxation Year(s): 2018

Hearing Event No.: 727165

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

Heard: November 1, 2019 in Dundas, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Representative

F.F.

Self-represented

City of Hamilton

Irwin Sampat

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY MARGARITA OKHOVATI

INTRODUCTION

1F.F. (the “Applicant”) filed an application to the City of Hamilton (the “City”) under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25 as amended (“Act”) to have his 2018 property taxes reduced, cancelled or refunded because he was unable to pay due either to sickness or extreme poverty.

Preliminary Matters

2The first sitting of this hearing was scheduled on August 16, 2019. On the day of the hearing, the Applicant appeared before the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) accompanied by an individual who introduced herself as the Applicant’s daughter, “C.”. The Applicant did not provide the Board with supporting documents to conduct a hearing. C. stated that her father was an “old-school” person and that he did not trust the City to disclose his personal financial information. The Applicant was explained the procedure of the hearing and the necessity of the documents. The Board granted an adjournment on the recommendation of the City after the Applicant promised that he would provide the Board with the necessary documents. On the second sitting, C. answered most of the questions on behalf of the Applicant although the Applicant confirmed that he had no language barrier and that he understood all the questions. When asked C. whether she was representing her father, she responded that she was there only as a support to her father by refusing to give her full name to the Board.

ISSUE

3The issue before the Board is whether the Applicant’s 2018 property taxes should be cancelled, reduced or refunded because of the Applicant’s inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty. This requires the Board first to determine, based on the evidence adduced in 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 whether the reason he was unable to pay was due to either sickness or extreme poverty.

DECISION

4The Board finds that the Applicant did not demonstrate that he was unable to pay the 2018 property taxes. The Application is dismissed.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Evidence and Analysis

Applicant’s Position

5The Applicant is a 67-year old widower who lives by himself in a 3-bedroom, 2-bathroom house with a separate entrance of a finished basement. The Applicant stated that he worked for a company for 27 years until 2011 when his employer went bankrupt. He stated that he was unable to find a job until August 13, 2018 when he was hired by a company on a part-time basis. The Applicant testified that he has four children who live separately and do not assist him financially. He stated further that he is struggling to pay his bills therefore, he decided to put forward this application regarding his property taxes.

6The Applicant submitted a copy of his financial statement and provided evidence regarding his monthly income and expenses, assets and liabilities as follows:

Income Total $3,471.67/month

Expenses Total $2,717.78/month

Net Total $+753.89/month

Assets

Destination value of the subject property in 2018 $315,000

Life Income Fund (“LIF”) $71,000

Assets Total $386,000

Liabilities

Line of Credit $199,990

Credit Card $3,058.16

Liabilities Total $203,048.16

NET WORTH TOTAL $+182,951.84

7Based on the information set out above, the net worth of the Applicant is $182,951.84.

City’s Position

8Irwin Sampat, on behalf of the City, submits that the City does not support this application as it believes the Applicant had the ability to pay his 2018 property taxes for the following reasons:

• The Applicant’s income is greater than his expenses.

• Even if the Applicant paid his monthly property taxes of $294.98 in full, there would still be extra money left for him considering his monthly income.

• The Applicant had many overdrafts from his accounts with high interest rates amounting $1,400/year.

• These applications are for the Applicants who are unable to pay their property taxes after exhausting all the resources available to them.

• These applications are very serious and if the Applicants fail to pay their taxes, the burden falls to other taxpayers.

Analysis

9The intent of the legislation is to provide relief for property owners who cannot pay their property taxes in full or in part due to sickness or extreme poverty in a given taxation year. If the Applicant proves an inability to pay the taxes, they must then prove the reason why they cannot, and only then can relief be granted. In this application, the Board must decide if the Applicant was unable to pay all or part of his property taxes. This requires a contextual analysis of the Applicant’s income and expenses and an examination of all financial resources available to him in 2018. This will be used to determine if he could have mitigated his property tax obligations.

10The Board notes that there are fixed deposits of $492.70 every month in the Applicant’s personal bank account from January 26, 2018 to July 31, 2018, and an additional deposit of $2,323.57 on August 1, 2018. When asked regarding the source of the deposits, he stated that he did not remember. When asked that the statement shows that the deposits came from LIF, he said it could not be possible for he is not allowed to touch the LIF account. Later, he stated that he could withdraw from that account and he did so for the amount of $5,772.46, which was the maximum withdrawal he was allowed for 2018. Furthermore, as the City stated in its observation, the Applicant has overdrafts from his accounts with high interests for which he did not offer any explanation.

11Moreover, the Board asked the Applicant whether he considered to rent out one of his bedrooms or the basement with a separate entrance to generate additional income to assist him to pay his property taxes, he stated that he never considered it for he does not wish to have strangers in his property.

12The Board has reviewed all the evidence pertaining to the financial situation of the Applicant to determine whether he is experiencing extreme poverty and therefore unable to meet some or all of his tax obligations. As determined by the Board in M. M. U. v Toronto (City), 2015 CanLII 46826 (ON ARB) at paragraph #21:

… to qualify for relief under this section of the Act the condition cannot be one where an individual simply cannot make ends meet but amounts to a situation where the Applicant after having called upon every resource available to him and having applied every reasonable means to mitigate and manage his expenditures is left with no means of being able to pay some or all of their property taxes. In the Board’s view the Act envisages that an individual seeking relief on application under s. 357 of the Act should clearly demonstrate that for the year under appeal the Applicant, after scrupulously managing his/her resources and expenditures, was left with no resources available to meet his/her obligations to provide for the basic necessities of living and at the same time pay some or all of his/her property taxes.

13The Act envisages a situation where after calling upon all financial resources available to the Applicant, if the Applicant is still unable to pay all or part of the property taxes relief may be granted. Applications under this section of the Act are of last resort and Applicants must not have an ability to pay because of sickness or extreme poverty to obtain relief.

14Reviewing the Applicant’s financial situation, the Board notes that the subject property is mortgage free. In addition, as mentioned above the Applicant’s net worth assets are $182,951.84 and his monthly income is $753.89 more than his expenses, which would have enabled him to pay his monthly property taxes of $294.98. The Board finds that this evidence indicates that the Applicant was not unable to pay his 2018 property taxes.

CONCLUSION

15Based on the reasons stated above, the Board finds that the Applicant had the financial ability to pay all his monthly expenses and still had a monthly surplus of $753.89 to cover his property taxes.

16The Board therefore dismisses the Applicant’s application to cancel or reduce his 2018 property taxes.