M.N. and N.K. v. City of Toronto, 2021 CanLII 83467

Tribunals Ontario

Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: September 01, 2021

FILE NO.: WR 173345

Assessed Person(s): M.N.; N.K.

Appellant(s): M.N.; N.K.

Respondent(s): City of Toronto

Property Location(s): Address Withheld

Municipality(ies): City of Toronto

Roll Number(s): Roll Number Withheld

Appeal Number(s): 3422380

Taxation Year(s): 2020

Hearing Event No.: 742886

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

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel*/Representative

M.N. and N.K.

Self-represented

City of Toronto

Jennifer Boyczuk*

HEARD: August 10, 2021 by telephone conference call

ADJUDICATOR(S): Dan Weagant, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1M.N. and N.K. (the “Applicants”) filed an application with the City of Toronto (“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 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

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?

5M.N. testified on his own behalf and on behalf of his spouse N.K. He testified that in 2020, the Applicants lived at the Subject Property with their 17 year old son. In September of 2020, their son moved out of town to attend university.

6M.N.’s testimony and documents provided at the hearing indicated that the household had income in the amount of approximately $7,360 per month in 2020. This total was comprised of Canada Covid related benefits, Canada Family Benefits, employment income, HST rebates, a 2019 Income Tax refund, rent derived from part of the subject dwelling and personal loans from family.

7The household income and expenses are managed through three bank accounts held by the Applicants. The total balance on those accounts was $12,550 on January 1, 2020 and $15,315 on December 31, 2020. In addition, N.K. had a Tax-Free Savings Account with a balance of $1,656 at the end of 2020.

8Monthly expenses incurred by the household in 2020 averaged $8,089. These expenses are summarized as follows (all rounded to the nearest dollar):

• Mortgage Payments: $4,747
• Utilities: $ 480
• Clothing and personal items: $250
• Home Insurance: $125
• Cell phone, home phone, TV and internet: $109
• Car Lease: $326
• Car operating expenses and maintenance; $240
• Car Insurance: $204
• Line of Credit: $234
• Property taxes: $499
• Medications: $67
• Property and dwelling maintenance: $208
• Groceries: $600

9The City of Toronto submitted that the value of the subject property in 2020, based on neighbourhood sales is approximately $1,550,000, indicating that there is over $500,000 in equity in the property when the balance of the mortgage in 2020, of $963,193 is considered.

10The City further submitted that the Applicants’ submissions clearly showed expenses relating to meals outside the home, the acquisition of a new automobile in 2020 and expenses relating to short recreational and vacation excursions. The City’s position is that these types of expenses are discretionary in nature and cannot be considered a priority over the payment of taxes.

11In summary, the City submitted that the taxes levied in 2020 were paid and that the bank balances held by the Applicants at the end of 2020 are clear evidence that the Applicants were able to pay their taxes in 2020 and are therefore not eligible for tax reduction, cancellation or refund.

Findings on Issue 1

12The Board must determine if the Applicants were able to pay their property taxes, based on the evidence available at the hearing.

13If, 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.

14The accounting of income and expenses indicates a shortfall of approximately $729 per month.

15Monthly accounting is not the only measurement the Board takes in assessing the Application and determining whether the Applicants were able to pay the property taxes levied in 2020. In this case, the Applicants were able to meet their monthly and annual financial obligations throughout 2020. They were also able to assist their son in his first term at university in another City and had the financial resources to negotiate and secure a lease on a new automobile. As of December of 2020, three of the four bank accounts in evidence showed total balance in excess of $15,000, after the property taxes were paid. This is a clear indication that the Applicants were able to pay the taxes in 2020.

16The 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?

17As 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

18The Board orders that the application is dismissed.