Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: October 27, 2020

FILE NO.: WR 166697

Assessed Person(s): S.C.

Applicant(s): S.C.

Respondent(s): City of Toronto

Property Location(s): Address withheld

Municipality(ies): City of Toronto

Roll Number(s): Roll number withheld

Appeal Number(s): 3385126

Taxation Year(s): 2019

Hearing Event No.: 733483

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

APPEARANCES:

Parties S.C. City of Toronto

Counsel/Representative* Self-represented Graham Thomson*

HEARD: October 5, 2020 by telephone conference call

ADJUDICATOR(S): Dan Weagant, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1S.C. 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.

Issues for the Hearing

3The main 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 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 $1,907. Upon review of the documents submitted in support of the application, total income for 2019 was $25,450 or $2,121 per month. This income was derived from employment, social assistance, GST and Trillium tax credits, a 2018 income tax refund and cash transfers from family.

7The balance on the Applicant’s bank account on January 1, 2019 was $198. The balance on December 31, 2019 was $146.

8Monthly expenses reported by the Applicant for 2019 totaled approximately $2,547. These expenses are summarized as follows (all rounded to the nearest dollar):

• Mortgage: $565;
• Utilities: $146;
• Groceries and household supplies and clothing: $375;
• House Insurance: $74
• Car insurance: $334
• Cell phone: $141;
• Finance charges (MBNA on $16,000 +/- balance): $71
• Land line telephone, cable and internet: $175;
• Transportation including fuel for the car, TCC and taxis when required: $75
• Medications and health related expense; $29;
• One-time costs incurred in 2019 (house repair, airfare for brother’s funeral, emergency passport fee): $333; and,
• Property taxes: $229.

9The Applicant testified that she owned a 2010 car valued at $3,000. She believed that the subject property would be worth approximately $805,000 in an open market transaction.

10Documents in evidence indicate that the Applicant has financial liabilities in the form of a debt-consolidated MBNA account, the principal owing on the first mortgage and a line of credit. These debts totaled approximately $143,000.

11The City noted several expenditures that, in its view, appeared to be outside of what a household would experience as monthly costs related to meeting the necessities if living. Specifically, the City raised expenditures in credit card statements for meals outside of the home (+/- $100 per month) and relatively high cell phone and technical support charges.

12The City submitted that, in 2019, the Applicant showed an ability to manage her finances. She was able to move assets appropriately to avoid higher financing charges and was also able to withstand the financial pressure of several thousand dollars’ worth of unexpected expenses including a trip to attend her brother’s funeral and a substantial repair to the subject property.

13The City also submitted that it and the Applicant agree on the value of the subject property at slightly more than $800,000, and when total liabilities are considered, the equity in the subject property amounts to approximately $665,000. In the opinion of the City, this financial position does not meet the test of extreme poverty.

14Lastly, the City noted that the monthly expenses also include total property tax payments of $ 2,751.10 in 2019 and that the property tax account was paid in full.

15The Applicant submitted that it might be time for her to acknowledge the necessity of selling the subject property to reduce her monthly expenses and to take advantage of the equity in the property. However, she also acknowledged that she would need to find alternative housing. It was her view that in Toronto, the $665,000 in equity wouldn’t go very far to obtain a different residence.

Findings on Issue 1

16The monthly income as reported is approximately $426 less that the total monthly expenses incurred by the Applicant in 2019. This shortfall includes an average of $229 per month paid toward property taxes.

17On a net balance basis, the applicant’s bank account started and ended the year in the $100 to $200 range, demonstrating her ability to tailor her expenses to the income and other resources available to her in 2019.

18Despite the monthly average shortfall demonstrated by the documents in evidence, the Board finds that the Applicant was able 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 attending a funeral abroad and a major house repair.

CONCLUSION

19The Board Finds that the Applicant has failed to demonstrate that she was unable to pay the property taxes levied in 2019.

20Having decided that the Applicant was able to pay her taxes in 2019, the Board has no reason to consider whether the Applicant is in a condition of sickness or extreme poverty.

ORDER

21The Board orders that the application is dismissed.