Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE:
October 19, 2020
WR 166594
Assessed Person (s):
G.S.
Appellant(s):
G.S.
Respondent(s):
City of Mississauga
Property Location(s):
Address withheld
Municipality(ies):
City of Mississauga
Roll Number(s):
Roll number withheld
Appeal Number(s):
3412455
Taxation Year(s):
2019
Hearing Event No.:
734798
Legislative Authority:
Section 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, c. 25
Parties
Representative
G.S.
K.S.
City of Mississauga
Sean Doyle and Deanna Simoes (observing)
HEARD:
September 30, 2020 by telephone conference call
ADJUDICATOR(S):
Subuola Awoleri, Member
DECISION
OVERVIEW
1G.S. (the “Applicant”) filed an application to the City of Mississauga (the “City”) to have her 2019 property taxes reduced, cancelled or refunded because she was unable to pay these taxes due to either sickness or extreme poverty under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, c.25 (the “Act”). The City passed a by-law delegating its authority to determine such applications to the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”).
2The property taxes levied on the subject property in the 2019 taxation year was $5,171.31. The Applicant benefited from a senior rebate in the amount of $423. The Applicant is requesting a cancellation of $4,748.31, being the total property taxes levied on the subject property less the senior rebate of $423.
3At the completion of the hearing, the Board provided an oral decision. The City thereafter requested written reasons.
ISSUE
4The Board must determine if all or part of the Applicant’s 2019 property taxes should be cancelled as a result of the Applicant’s inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty. In order to make this determination, the Board must determine:
a) if the Applicant was unable to pay all or part of her property taxes;
b) if the Board finds that she was unable to pay all or part of her property taxes, the Board must determine if the inability to pay was due to either sickness or extreme poverty.
RESULT
5The Board determines that the Applicant was unable to pay all her 2019 property taxes.
6The Board finds that the Applicant’s inability to pay all her 2019 property taxes was as a result of sickness.
7The Board therefore orders that the Applicant’s 2019 property taxes in the amount of $4,748.31 be cancelled for the 2019 taxation year.
Procedural Order
8The Board issued a procedural order (DM 165746) on August 21, 2020. This order outlines information about the hearing of the Application and confirmed the required documents the Applicant needs to serve the City and file with the Board to support the Application.
9The procedural order emphasized that adjournment requests to obtain necessary documentation needed for the hearing will only be considered in exceptional circumstances. The Applicant served and filed the City and the Board with her disclosure. The City did not provide any disclosure in this Application. The Applicant was unaware that she did not serve and file her 2019 Notice of Assessment (“NOA”). She testified that due to COVID-19, there was delay in filing her 2019 income tax returns. However, she confirmed that it was filed but she was unaware if the NOA was received. The Board confirmed with the City that there was enough evidence to determine the Applicant’s Income.
ANALYSIS
Ability to Pay
10A determination by the Board of the Applicant’s ability to pay her property taxes requires a contextual analysis of the Applicant’s income and expenses and an examination of all financial resources available to her in 2019. This will be used to determine if she could have mitigated her property tax obligation.
Income
11The Applicant is 67 years old. Her source of income is Ontario Age Security (“OAS”) pension and other retirement benefits and supplements from the government of Ontario.
12The Board determines that the Applicant’s 2019 monthly income is $2,616.06. This amount was obtained from all the deposits made into the Applicant’s bank account. The Applicant testifies that her bank suddenly discovered that her deceased spouse had a Registered Retirement Savings Plan (“RRSP”) with the bank and paid it into the Applicant’s bank account in the amount of $2,856.12 and $5,000 on June 13 and September 26, 2019. She further added that she paid $500 as taxes for cashing the $5,000 RRSP. The Applicant also testifies that on January 25, 2019, the amount of $200 that was deposited into her account was a reimbursement from her daughter, for using the Applicant’s credit card and this amount was paid back into her credit card.
13The total annual income of the Applicant based on all the deposits paid into her bank account less the $500 paid as taxes on the $5,000 cashed RRSP and the $200 reimbursement from her daughter was $31,393.75. This provides a monthly income of $2,616.06.
14The Applicant also provided the Board with an alternative amount to be used as her monthly income. The Applicant obtained the alternative income from her T4 slips, which was not served and filed prior to the hearing. The total annual income on the T4 slips was $27,881.08. This provides a monthly income of $2,323.42.
Expenses
15The Applicant’s monthly expenses in 2019 was $3,089.72. This provides a net income of (-$473.66), using the Applicant’s monthly income of $2,616.06.
Assets and Liabilities
16Sean Doyle, representing the City testified that the assessed value of the subject property as of the valuation date of January 1, 2016 for the 2019 taxation year is $687,000. The Applicant objected to this value and submits that the assessment is too high, as the subject property is in disrepair. The City advised the Applicant that she can contact the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) to dispute the assessment. The Board agrees with the City that this Application is not the appropriate forum to argue about the assessment of the subject property.
17The Applicant testifies that she has a private loan in the amount of approximately $110,000 including interest. She did not provide any documentation supporting her claim. She advised the Board that in prior applications she provided the City with this document. Mr. Doyle indicated that he had to check the Applicant’s file to locate this document. The Board was unable to use this amount as part of the Applicant’s liability as the Applicant did not provide any document to support the claim.
18The Applicant’s financial statement is summarized in Table 1 below:
Table 1
Income
$2,616.06
Expenses
$3,089.72
Net Income
(-$473.66)
Assets/Liabilities
Amount ($)
Assets
Home (Destination Value from MPAC)
687,000
Bank Acct. (balance December 2019)
441.00
Automobile (2009 Ford Flex)
3,000.00
Total Asset
690,441.00
Liabilities
Mortgage
118,224.00
Credit Cards
1,814.52
Total Liabilities
$120,038.52
Net Asset (Total Assets Less Liabilities)
$570,402.48
Travel outside Canada
19The Applicant traveled outside Canada in February and August 2019 for medical treatment. The Board determines that this is not a discretionary expense.
20The Applicant testifies that since her spouse unexpectedly died in a hotel room in 2012, she has suffered various health issues, which includes depression, mood disorder, anxiety attacks, panic attacks and trigeminal neuralgia (headaches). She also testifies that she has had a series of fractures, when she falls, due to the problem she has with maintaining her balance. The Applicant cannot lift anything due to complications from hernia and cannot prepare her food and relies on her daughters for help. The Applicant’s testimony is corroborated by various medical reports filed with the Board prior to the hearing.
21Due to the complications from the fractures, the Applicant testifies that she requires physiotherapy to heal her body. She testifies that her travel out of Canada was for medical treatment, specifically for physiotherapy. She added that she also travelled in 2018 for the same treatment. She also testifies that her Physician advised her that she can now qualify for physiotherapy; however, there is no available space due to the backlog caused by COVID-19.
22The Applicant further testifies that she did not provide the physiotherapy documents since it was not translated to English.
23The Board finds the Applicant credible in her testimony, as there are various medical reports provided in evidence to show that she has suffered series of fractures. Her travel outside Canada was for medical treatment and not for recreation.
Equity in the Subject Property
24The Board determines that the Applicant was unable to access the equity in the subject property in 2019 in order to mitigate her property tax obligation. The Applicant has a net asset of $570,402.48. The Applicant testifies that she has approached several financial institutions to re-finance but has been declined due to the unpaid property taxes outstanding from prior years and her low income. According to the Applicant, this accounts for the high interest rate on her mortgage.
25The Applicant further testifies that she is unable to rent or sell the subject property due to its unusual structure with only one bathroom and no basement, and it is in disrepair. She added that repairs on the subject property would be capital intensive and this is not affordable. Most importantly, the Applicant testifies that due to the nature of her sickness, which includes anxiety and panic attacks, it will be difficult to have renters residing in the same house with her.
26Due to the nature of the Applicant’s medical diagnosis, the Board finds that it will be unreasonable for the Applicant to rent part of her living space to an unknown person.
Yearly Application
27Section 357(1)(d.1) of the Act provides:
Upon application to the treasurer of a local municipality made in accordance with this section, the local municipality may cancel, reduce or refund all or part of taxes levied on land in the year in respect of which the application is made if,
(d.1) the applicant is unable to pay taxes because of sickness or extreme poverty; [emphasis added]
28The legislation does not impose any limit on the number of times an Applicant may apply for relief. In T.I v. Toronto (City), [2020] O.A.R.B.D. No. 47 at paragraph 46, (“T.I.”) the Board provided the main consideration in these applications by stating that:
Determining whether an applicant has an ability to pay requires a contextual analysis and consideration as to whether that person has exhausted every reasonable effort to pay taxes.
29The Board in T.I. disagreed with the City’s argument that those with chronic illnesses are excluded from applying for relief and determined at paragraph 44 that:
…even if the Applicant has a chronic sickness, the Applicant has the right to apply for relief every year.
30In this Application, the City made no recommendation to the Board neither did it take any position on the Application; however, Mr. Doyle submits that the Applicant has been before the Board since 2013 and the City will like to know the Applicant’s future plans.
31In response to the City, the Applicant submits that her plan is to use the subject property as a rental property; however, presently, she lacks the financial capacity to carry out renovations to rent it or list it for sale. Furthermore, she added that since 2013, some of her Applications were not heard due to late filings and some were denied.
32The Applicant is entitled by the legislation to make yearly applications. The Board is a creation of statute and must enforce the provisions of the Act. However, every application must be reviewed on its own merits. As the Board determined in T.I., “a contextual analysis must be undertaken to determine if the Applicant could have mitigated her property tax obligation”. The Applicant used the $7,500 cashed RRSP paid to her by her bank to make payments on her outstanding property taxes. Unfortunately, the City applied this to the outstanding property taxes for prior years. As determined in M. M. U. v Toronto (City), 2015 CanLII 46826 (ON ARB), at paragraph 21, the Applicant in this Application has made every reasonable effort to pay all or part of her property taxes. This reveals that the Applicant has used every available financial resource to mitigate her property tax obligation.
33The Board finds that the Applicant was unable to pay all her 2019 property taxes.
Sickness
34The Board determines that the Applicant’s inability to pay all her 2019 property taxes was due to sickness.
35The Applicant presented as evidence medical reports and certificate from her Physician and Psychiatrist to corroborate her testimony of sickness. The Applicant’s Physician advises that the Applicant was totally disabled to work in 2019 due to medical reasons. In addition, there are various medical reports from the Applicant’s Physician advising that the Applicant’s diagnosis includes depression, mood disorder, anxiety attacks, panic attacks and trigeminal neuralgia (headaches).
36The City does not dispute the Applicant’s sickness.
CONCLUSION
37The Board determines that the Applicant was unable to pay all her 2019 property taxes. The Board finds that the Applicant’s inability to pay all her 2019 property taxes was due to her sickness.
38The Board orders that the Applicant’s 2019 property taxes in the amount of $4,748.31(being the amount less the senior rebate) be cancelled for the 2019 taxation year.
“Subuola Awoleri”
SUBUOLA AWOLERI
MEMBER
Assessment Review Board
A constituent tribunal of Tribunals Ontario
Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb
Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248