A.C. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 15, 2021 CanLII 19611

Tribunals Ontario

Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

March 10, 2021

FILE NO.:

WR 168594

Assessed Person(s):

A.C.

Applicant(s):

A.C.

Respondent(s):

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 15

Respondent(s):

City of Mississauga

Property Location(s):

Withheld

Municipality(ies):

City of Mississauga

Roll Number(s):

Withheld

Appeal Number(s):

3411956

Taxation Year(s):

2019

Hearing Event No.:

739664

Legislative Authority:

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

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Representative

A.C.

E.C. and G.C.

City of Mississauga

Sean Doyle

HEARD:

February 17, 2021 by telephone conference call

ADJUDICATOR(S):

Dan Weagant, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1A.C. (the “Applicant”) filed an application with the City of Mississauga (“City”) to have her 2019 taxes reduced, cancelled or refunded because she was unable to pay due either to sickness or extreme poverty, under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25 (“Act”).

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

Issues

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:

a. whether the Applicant was unable to pay her 2019 property taxes;

b. if the Board determines she was unable to pay her property taxes, whether she was unable to pay due to either sickness or extreme poverty; and,

c. 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

4The 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 1a – Was the Applicant able to pay the property taxes levied in 2019?

5E.C. and G.C. are the daughters of A.C. who has been found to be incapable of handling her own affairs. E.C. and G.C. testified that the subject property was the subject of an offer of purchase and sale that went wrong in 2013. Since that time their mother has been experiencing more health issues and, owing to the dispute arising from the 2013 sales transaction irregularities, she has also experienced financial difficulties.

6These financial difficulties are mostly driven by significant legal fees incurred in the Applicant’s attempt to resolve the legal disputes arising from the 2013 issues. According to E.C and G.C., legal fees have exceeded $200,000 and matters are still before the courts.

7During 2019, E.C. resided at the subject property and assisted A.C. in her daily living. The testimony at the hearing and documentary evidence received in advance by the Board indicated that the average monthly income for the household in 2019 was approximately $2,340. This income is derived from part time employment, interest income from a savings account, survivor’s workers compensation benefits, Old Age Security and Canada Pension Plan benefits for A.C. and a 2018 income tax refund for E.C.

8E.C. testified that the household finances in 2019 were administered through three bank accounts; one of which was closed part way through the year. Documentary evidence submitted at the hearing indicated a balance on the accounts of approximately $69,000 at the end of 2019.

9Monthly expenses reported for both A.C. and E.C. for 2019 totaled approximately $2,607. These expenses are summarized as follows (all rounded to the nearest dollar):

• Utilities: $169

• Insurance (home and Auto): $204

• Groceries and household supplies: $460*

• Bank charges, fees, interest and loan payments: $39

• Cell phone, telephone, cable and internet: $156

• Medication and mental health services not otherwise covered: $166

• Car expenses: $46

• Property maintenance: $87

• Credit card payments on charges not included above: $98

• Payments of accrued legal fees: $750

• Property taxes: $432

*Grocery and household expenses are estimated by the Board based on the payment records available at the hearing and the testimony of E.C. that some grocery costs were paid with cash.

10The only asset reported by the Applicant was the subject property with a current value assessment of $763,000. There is no mortgage on the property. E.C. and G.C. testified that certain maintenance issues related to the subject home (roof, leaky basement, electrical work) was being deferred until the dispute over the 2013 purchase and sale agreement is settled.

11The City did not take a position on whether the Applicant was unable to pay property taxes, as the City has delegated its authority of that decision to the Board.

12The City noted that the monthly expenses include total property tax payments of $5,183.09. These payments covered the taxes levied in 2019.

Findings on Issue 1a – Was the Applicant Unable to Pay Her 2019 Property Taxes?

13The monthly income as reported is approximately $267 less than that the total monthly expenses incurred by the Applicant in 2019. The accounting of monthly expenses and income is one way of determining an Applicant’s ability to pay taxes. The Board also must consider the overall financial picture, including assets held by those adults residing at the subject property during the year subject to the application. In this case there is clear evidence that approximately $69,000 was available to the Applicant and E.C. in an account held by E.C. at the end of 2019.

14E.C. submitted that this balance seems large, but that it represents all of the financial assets available and that future costs were expected to erode that balance significantly.

15The Act stipulates that applications under this section are annually filed. That means the Board must consider only that evidence that relates specifically to the year under appeal. While there may be concerns expressed by the Applicant about the longevity of assets holding out, in this case it is clear that the Applicant paid the property taxes in 2019 and that significant assets over and above that amount were also available in the same year.

16Accordingly, the Board finds that the applicant has not proven she was unable to pay the 2019 property taxes.

Findings on Issue 1b – Why was the Applicant unable to pay the property taxes levied in 2019

17Having determined that the Applicant was able to pay the property taxes levied in 2019, there is no reason for the Board to determine the reason for an inability to pay.

CONCLUSION

18The Board finds that the Applicant is meeting her monthly obligations, after accounting for the full payment of property taxes. Accordingly, she has failed to demonstrate she was unable to pay the property taxes in 2019.

ORDER

19The application is dismissed.