Tribunals Ontario

Assessment Review Board

ISSUE DATE: August 13, 2021

FILE NO.: WR 172892

Assessed Person(s): A.K.M.F and N.A.

Applicant(s): A.K.M.F and N.A.

Respondent(s): City of Mississauga

Property Location(s): Address Withheld

Municipality(ies): City of Mississauga

Roll Number(s): Roll Number Withheld

Appeal Number(s): 3454869

Taxation Year(s): 2020

Hearing Event No.: 747777

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

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
A.K.M.F. and N.A.	Self-represented
City of Mississauga	Sean Doyle

HEARD: July 26, 2021 by video conference

ADJUDICATOR(S): Dan Weagant, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1A.K.M.F and N.A. (the “Applicants”) filed an application with the City of Mississauga (“City”) to have their 2020 property taxes cancelled, reduced or refunded because they were unable to pay, due to either sickness or extreme poverty, under s. 357(1)(d1) 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”) under s. 357(11) of the Act.

Issues for the Hearing

3At issue in this proceeding is whether the Applicants’ 2020 property taxes should be cancelled, reduced or refunded because of their inability to pay, due to sickness or extreme poverty. This requires the Board to determine:

1. if the Applicants were unable to pay their 2020 property taxes;
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; and
3. if the Board determines they were unable to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty, the Board must then decide the amount of the property taxes levied in 2020 to be cancelled, reduced or refunded.

Result

4The Board finds that the Applicants were able to pay the property taxes levied in 2020. The application is dismissed.

ANALYSIS

Issue 1 – Were the Applicants able to pay their property taxes in 2020?

5A.K.M.F. testified on his own behalf and on behalf of his spouse N.A. A.K.M.F. testified that in 2020, the Applicants lived at the Subject Property alone.

6A.K.M.F. testified that neither he nor N.A. were able to work in 2020 and that they lived on income derived chiefly from the Ontario Disability Support Payment (“O.D.S.P.”) program.

7A.K.M.F.’s testimony and documents provided at the hearing indicated that the household had income in the amount of approximately $2,565 per month in 2020. This total was comprised of O.D.S.P., HST rebates, a 2019 Income Tax refund, personal loans from family and other deposits of unspecified origin.

8The household income and expenses are managed through a single joint bank account held by the Applicants. The balance on that account was $3,803.67 on January 1, 2020 and $6,400.14 on December 24, 2020.

9Monthly expenses incurred by the household in 2020 averaged $2,792. These expenses are summarized as follows (all rounded to the nearest dollar):

• Condominium fees: $1,006
• Groceries and personal care items; $800
• Car insurance: $178
• Cell phone, home phone, TV and internet: $135
• Car Loan: $125
• Car operating expenses and maintenance; $270
• Credit card payments on outstanding balances: $278

10A.K.M.F. also testified that some of the household income was in the form of a personal loan from his daughter and that he made periodic payments on that loan in 2020. There were no documents in evidence to describe the terms and conditions of this loan arrangement.

11The City did not take a position on the application as it has delegated its authority to the Board on applications filed under this section of the Act. The City submitted that a number of documents were missing from the list in the Procedural Order issued by the Board in advance of this hearing. For that reason, a complete cross examination of the Applicants’ full financial picture was not possible.

12The City noted that no payments were made on the 2020 property tax account, and that the property taxes levied in 2020 totaled $2,554.38.

Findings on Issue 1

13The Board must determine if the Applicants were able to pay their property taxes, based on the evidence available at the hearing. The evidence shows that the expenses attributed to basic family needs were $227 more than the family income, on a monthly average basis. This equates to an annual shortfall of $2,724.

14As was pointed out by the City, N.K.M.F. did not comply with the Procedural Order issued to the Parties on June 7, 2021. There were no records to support any of the household expenses related to the family car, groceries or utilities not covered by condominium fees. Further, the application filed by the Applicants included costs of home insurance that N.K.M.F. testified they did not have.

15The source of income for the family was also not clearly demonstrated. When asked by the City about the sources of several large deposits totaling several thousand dollars, N.K.M.F. was not able to articulate where the money came from. Similarly, when questioned about cash withdrawals, of more than $11,000 throughout 2020, N.M.K.F. was not able to explain what those funds were used for.

16The City submitted that, despite the expenses claimed by the Applicants not being backed up by documentation, it was reasonably satisfied that those expenses were reasonable in the circumstances.

17If, after meeting the necessities of life and care, applicants are not able to pay some or all of their taxes, the Board has frequently held that all or some of the property taxes should be reduced, refunded or cancelled in the year for which the application is made.

18In this case, the Applicants’ necessary household expenses, as testified to, were $2,724 more than the total household income during 2020. Yet, the Applicants had $6,400 available to them at the end of 2020. If this balance is reduced by the income / expense shortfall of $2,724 to account for necessary household expenses and basic necessities, the difference is $3,676; an amount exceeding the 2020 taxes levied of $2,554.38.

19The Board finds therefore that the Applicants were able to pay their property taxes in 2020.

Issue 2 – Was the reason the Applicants were unable to fully pay their property taxes in 2020 either sickness or extreme poverty?

20As the Board has determined that the Applicants were able to pay the property taxes levied in 2020, there is no reason to decide why they were unable to pay.

ORDER

21The Board orders that the application is dismissed.