Tribunals Ontario Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario Assessment Review Board Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: December 05, 2022 FILE NO.: WR 182442 Assessed Person: K.L. Appellant: K.L. Respondent: Whitewater Region Township Property Location: Address Withheld Municipality: Whitewater Region Township Roll Number: Roll Number Withheld Appeal Number: 3481221 Taxation Year: 2021 Hearing Event No.: 776865 Legislative Authority: Section 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25
APPEARANCES:
Parties K.L. Whitewater Region Township
Representative Lara Mylly Sean Crozier
HEARD: November 29, 2022 ADJUDICATOR: Jean-Paul Pilon, Member
DECISION
OVERVIEW
1K.L. (the “Applicant”) filed an application with the Township of Whitewater Region (the “Municipality”) pursuant to section 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25 (the “Act”). This provides that “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 the taxes levied on land in the year in respect of which the application was made if the applicant is unable to pay taxes because of sickness or extreme poverty.”
2Pursuant to section 357(11) of the Act, the Municipality authorized the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) to exercise the powers and functions of the municipal council in deciding these applications.
3The taxes levied against the Applicant’s residential property were $1,910.32 in 2021, and the remaining balance (excluding interest and penalties over which the Board has no jurisdiction) is $839.29.
4The Applicant requested an order cancelling that outstanding amount due.
5This application pertains to a taxation year in the past, therefore its description of the Applicant’s financial circumstances is in the past tense.
Issue for the Hearing
6The single issue to be determined in this proceeding is whether the Applicant was unable to pay taxes because of extreme poverty in the 2021 taxation year.
Result
7This application is dismissed.
ANALYSIS
8At the hearing, the Applicant provided evidence as to his income, expenses, assets and liabilities for the 2021 taxation year.
Income
9Prior to the hearing, the Applicant filed a copy of his tax return for 2021 showing a total income of $13,617.96. This amount was comprised of social assistance payments of $12,720.60, $481.36 from taxable dividends, $116.00 for interest and other investment income that was not explained at the hearing, and rental income of $300.00.
10The Applicant’s representative at the hearing who was also his witness testified that the Applicant’s social assistance payments from ODSP amounted to $1,363.20 monthly. This multiplied by 12 totals $16,358.40, however the Applicant testified that the number on his tax return above, $12,720.60, was correct because he only received lower Ontario Works payments at the start of 2021 for an unspecified number of months.
11The Applicant also owned agricultural property rented out to a farmer who paid the Applicant a percentage of receipts from cash crops. The Applicant testified that his rental income was, in fact, $800.00 for 2021 without explaining why only $300.00 of rental income was shown on his tax return.
12As a result, the Board finds that the Applicant’s income for 2021 was the amount shown on the return, $13,617.96, plus the $500.00 difference in rental income, for a total of $14,117.96.
Expenses
13The Applicant’s witness testified that the Applicant’s monthly expenses were $967.25, which included expenses for telephone, cable, car insurance, fuel and maintenance, groceries, pet food, personal items such as medication, bank fees and meals outside the home. None of these expenses appeared outside of a range that might be considered reasonable in the circumstances, however not included in this summary were the taxes paid in 2021 of $1,071.03.
14The Board therefore finds that the Applicant’s expenses in 2021 were $12,678.03 ($967.25 * 12 + $1,071.03).
Assets
15The Applicant owned the property against which the taxes at issue were levied which had a current value assessment of $184,000.00 as of January 1, 2016.
16The Appellant also owned the rental agricultural land described above which he testified had a value of $200,000.00.
17In addition, the Appellant owned 151 unencumbered dividend-paying common shares of Sun Life Financial that had a value of $10,488.46 as of December 31, 2021.
18The Appellant also had other assets of note, including a car worth $7,000 and a credit with MacEwen Pembroke, his petroleum provider, of $1,268.45 as of December 31, 2021.
19The Board therefore finds that the Applicant’s assets amounted to $402,756.91.
Liabilities
20According to the summary compiled by his representative, the Applicant had liabilities of $1,482.62 owing to Virgin Mobile and Shaw Direct.
Summary of Financial Information
21It was determined above that the Applicant’s income in 2021 was $14,117.96 and his expenses were $12,678.03, leaving an outstanding balance at the end of the year of $1,439.93.
22It was further determined above that the Applicant’s assets amounted to $402,756.91 and that his liabilities were $1,482.62. This meant that his net worth was $401,274.29.
Inability to Pay
23The question to be determined is whether the Applicant was unable to pay his taxes for the 2021 taxation year, and, if so, whether that was due to extreme poverty.
24In M. M. U. v Toronto (City), 2015 CanLII 46826 at para. 21, the Board held that:
In order to qualify under this section of the Act, the Applicant is required to show that every reasonable effort has been made to pay all or part of the taxes. There is an expectation that to qualify for relief under this section of the Act the condition cannot be one where an individual simply cannot make ends meet but amounts to a situation where the Applicant after having called upon every resource available to him and having applied every reasonable means to mitigate and manage his expenditures is left with no means of being able to pay some or all of their property taxes (emphasis added).
25Did the Applicant call on every resource available to him to pay the taxes he now wants cancelled? This is important, because as the Board determined at para. 13 of W.H.S.M. v Mississauga (City), 2019 CanLII 98694, “any tax relief given results in an assessed property owner’s tax burden being shifted to the other property taxpayers in the…municipality.”
26The Board finds that the taxes of $839.29 that the Applicant wants cancelled could have been paid from five sources:
a. From the balance of his income less expenses in 2021 of $1,439.93;
b. From the sale of his Sun Life Financial shares worth $10,488.46, where there was no evidence before the Board of any restrictions to their liquidation;
c. From the sale of his rental property with a value of $200,000.00;
d. From the further liquidation of his MacEwen Pembroke credit of $1,268.45; and,
e. From renting out part of the residential property against which the taxes at issue in this application were levied.
27In summary, the Board finds that the Applicant did not call on all resources available to him to pay the property tax at issue in this application. It therefore finds that he was not unable to pay the taxes for 2021 and that a determination of extreme poverty is not necessary.
CONCLUSION
28The Board finds that the Applicant was not unable to pay the taxes levied for 2021, and that the application should be dismissed.
ORDER
29The Board orders that this application is dismissed.
"Jean-Paul Pilon"
JEAN-PAUL PILON MEMBER Assessment Review Board Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb