Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: October 15, 2020

FILE NO.: WR 166142

Assessed Person(s): O.I.

Applicant(s): O.I. and Y.S.

Respondent(s): City of Toronto

Property Location(s): Address withheld

Municipality(ies): City of Toronto

Roll Number(s): Roll number withheld

Appeal Number(s): 3368963

Taxation Year(s): 2019

Hearing Event No.: 733267

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

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel/Representative*
O.I.	Self-represented
City of Toronto	Graham Thompson*

HEARD: September 10, 2020 by telephone conference call

ADJUDICATOR(S): Dan Weagant, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1O.I. and Y.S. (the “Applicants”) filed an application to the City of Toronto (“City”) to have their 2019 taxes reduced, cancelled or refunded because they were 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.

Issues for the Hearing

3The main issue before the Board is whether the Applicants’ 2019 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. if the Applicants were unable to pay their 2019 property taxes; and

2. if the Board determines they were unable to pay their property taxes, the Board must then determine if the reason they were unable to pay was either 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 property taxes levied in 2019 to be cancelled, reduced or refunded.

Result

5The Board finds that the Applicants failed to demonstrate that they were unable to pay the property taxes levied in 2019. The application is dismissed.

ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Were the Applicants able to pay the property taxes levied in 2019?

6O.I. testified that prior to 2019 her husband, Y.S., suffered a series of health issues including chronic heart disease and breathing problems. She asserted these problems were brought on, in part, by the condition of the subject property. In 2016, the apartment above the subject property experienced a water leak, the impacts of which have not yet been resolved. For this reason, O.I. testified that Y.S. has been residing at another apartment and pays monthly rent in order to have a place to live that doesn’t make his health situation worse. O.I. and two of their children reside at the subject property.

7The documents at the hearing indicate total income from all sources for 2019 of $52,466.30. This income is derived from Ontario Disability Support Program for both O.I. and Y.S., Canada and Ontario Child Benefits, Ontario Trillium Benefits, and GST tax credits.

8These deposits to the Applicants’ bank accounts reflect an average monthly income of $4,372.19. The two bank accounts used by the Applicants had a combined balance of $3,634.18 on December 31, 2019.

9Monthly expenses reported by the Applicants for 2019 totaled approximately $3,820. These expenses are summarized as follows (all rounded to the nearest dollar):

a) Condominium fees: $783

b) Condominium Insurance: $49

c) Groceries and household supplies and clothing: $665

d) Car expenses: $152

e) Other transportation (TTC, and taxi): $250

f) Cell phone, telephone, cable and internet: $245

g) Property taxes: $123

h) Rent on second apartment for Y.S.: $1,136

i) Hydro for two units: $120

j) One-time expenses for a new range, camp for one child, a laptop for school requirements and a psychological assessment for one child: total $3,560 = $297 monthly.

10The only assets identified by the Applicants were the subject property with an estimated value of $239,000 and a car with an estimated value of $1,000.

11The City did not take a position on whether the Applicants were unable to pay property taxes, as the City has delegated its authority on that decision to the Board. However, the City pointed out that the 2019 property taxes were paid in full and despite the fact the family was operating two separate households, the two bank accounts held by the Applicants had a combined balance of over $3,000 after all expenses were paid.

12The Applicants’ documents provide a clear picture of the financial situation experienced by their family in 2019. While they had some challenges throughout the year, they were able to tailor their lifestyle and expenses. The result is that the monthly expenses as declared are $552 less than the average monthly income. Accordingly, the evidence shows that the Applicants were able to pay their property taxes in 2019.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

13The Board finds that the Applicants have failed to demonstrate that they were unable to pay the property taxes levied in 2019. Having made this finding, there is no reason for the Board to determine if the Applicants were in a condition of either sickness or extreme poverty. The Board orders that the application is dismissed.