Tribunals Ontario

Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: January 18, 2022
FILE NO.: WR 17494

Assessed Person(s): U.K. and N.S.
Applicant(s): U.K. and N.S.
Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation Region 19
Respondent(s): City of Hamilton
Property Location(s): Address Witheld
Municipality(ies): City of Hamilton
Roll Number(s): Roll Number Witheld
Appeal Number(s): 3457366
Taxation Year(s): 2020
Hearing Event No.: 756467

Legislative Authority: Section 357(1)(d1) of the Municipal Act 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Representative
U.K. and N.S.	Self-represented
City of Hamilton	Linda Nimako

HEARD: November 29, 2021 by telephone conference call

ADJUDICATOR(S): Dan Weagant, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1U.K. and N.S. (the “Applicants”) filed an application with the City of Hamilton (“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?

5U.K. testified on behalf of both Applicants in this case. He testified that the family had income in the amount of approximately $3,699 per month in 2020. This total was comprised of employment income, child tax benefits and EI benefits.

6The household income and expenses are managed through a single bank account held by the Applicant. The balance on that account was approximately $10,662 on January 1, 2020 and $8,736 on December 31, 2020.

7Monthly expenses incurred by the household in 2020 averaged $4,018. These expenses are summarized as follows (all rounded to the nearest dollar):

• Mortgage payments: $1,842
• Utilities: $229
• Groceries and general household expenses: $500
• Car Loan: $421
• Car and home insurance: $297
• Day care: $167
• Cell phone, TV and internet: $198
• Car operating expenses and maintenance: $155
• Funeral expenses: $209
• Property Taxes: $342

8U.K. also testified that, in order to make ends meet, the family accepted loans from friends and family to assist them. He also testified that, throughout the year, the Applicants paid those loans back. There were multiple cash deposits and withdrawals in evidence to support these exchanges.

9In addition to the income for 2020, the Applicants testified to the following assets not accounted for above:

• Balance of two other savings accounts: $6,098
• Precious metals in their possession: $3,724
• Tax Free Savings Account balance: $1,000
• RRSP account balance: $10,567

10The City submitted that in its deliberations, the Board should consider the absence of documentary evidence to substantiate the values of certain expenses, noting that there were no bank records for any account other than the single account cited above.

11The City pointed out that many of the expenses attested to by the Applicants were based on records from 2019 and 2021 or were based only on the oral testimony at the hearing.

12The City further submitted that this hearing was postponed to allow the Applicants more time to file complete documents, but that the Applicants chose to proceed with partial documentary evidence.

13The City also noted that the property taxes levied in 2020 totaled $4,100.70 and that, by November 2020, they were paid in full.

Findings on Issue 1

14The Board must determine if the Applicants were able to pay their property taxes, based on the evidence available at the hearing. The evidence and testimony shows that the expenses attributed to basic household needs were $661 more than the income, on a monthly average basis, including property tax payments.

15If, 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.

16In this case, the Applicants’ necessary household expenses, as testified to, were more than the total household income during 2020. However, the overall financial picture of the Applicants in 2020 supports the finding that they were able to pay their taxes in 2020. While the monthly average shortfall totals approximately $7,900 in 2020, the total assets testified to at the end of the year exceeded this amount by approximately $26,000, after the property taxes were paid. This is clear evidence that the Applicants were able to pay their property taxes in 2020.

17The Board finds therefore, that the Applicants have failed to demonstrate that they were unable to pay the property taxes levied in 2020.

18The Board also finds that since the Applicants were able to pay the property taxes in 2020, there is no reason to determine the reason for any inability to pay.

ORDER

19The application is dismissed.