J.G. v. City of Hamilton, 2022 CanLII 66869

Tribunals Ontario

Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: July 19, 2022

FILE NO.: WR 180345

Assessed Person(s): J.G.

Applicant(s): J.G.

Respondent(s): City of Hamilton

Property Location(s): Address Withheld

Municipality(ies): City of Hamilton

Roll Number(s): Roll Number Withheld

Appeal Number(s): 3491955

Taxation Year(s): 2021

Hearing Event No.: 770364

Legislative Authority: Section 357(1) (d.1) of the Municipal Act, S.O. 200`, c. 25, as amended

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel/Representative*
J.G.	Self-represented
City of Hamilton	Linda Nimako

HEARD: July 5, 2022 by telephone conference call

ADJUDICATOR(S): Margarita Okhovati, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1J.G. (“the Applicant”) filed an application to the City of Hamilton (“City”) to have her 2021 property taxes cancelled, reduced 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, S.O. 2001 c. 25 (the “Act”).

2The City has passed a by-law delegating its authority to determine such applications to the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”).

Issues for the Hearing

3The main issue before the Board is whether the Applicant’s 2021 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:

1. if the Applicant was unable to pay her 2021 property taxes; and
2. if the Board determines she was unable to pay her property taxes, the Board must then determine if the reason she was unable to pay was either sickness or extreme poverty.

4Finally, 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 2021 to be cancelled, reduced or refunded.

5In this case, the property taxes levied on the Applicant’s home for the 2021 taxation year was $4,303.49. They were paid in full, therefore, the remedy requested in this application was for a refund of the taxes paid.

Result

6Based on the evidence before it, the Board finds that the Applicant was able to pay her 2021 taxes. Therefore, the Board dismisses this application.

ANALYSIS

Issue 1 – Was the Applicant able to pay the property taxes levied in 2021?

7The Applicant testified that in 2021, as a single mother, she lived with her 21-year old son and 14-year old daughter in the subject property, which is a two-storey detached house with three bedrooms and two bathrooms. She stated that in 2021 she was sick, although no documentation was filed to support that submission.

8The Applicant submitted a copy of three bank account statements. The Applicant’s income based on the documentary evidence came from her own employment, a worker for an organic farm, her son’s income, Canada Emergency Response Benefit (“CERB”), Catholic Children’s Aid Society, Government Family Support and rebate for Goods and Services Tax (“GST”). The total monthly income in 2021 was $3,412.64.

9The Board notes that the Applicant’s evidence in the Financial Statement Form with respect to both income and expenses is very different from the documentary evidence. The Board relies on the documentary evidence and the bank records, which provide the best and precise evidence. In addition, the Applicant did not submit a T4 slip for her son although she was explained in the pre-hearing conference and in the procedural order that adult residents of the subject property had to disclose all the required information. When the Applicant was asked to explain, she stated that her son did not file his income with the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) for the past several years.

10The City noted that the monthly expenses also include property tax payments of $2,200 ($191.60 per month) in 2021. The City submitted also that a lumpsum of payment for the amount of $21,891.70 was made through the Applicant’s mortgage company on April 14, 2021 to clear the outstanding balance of the Applicant’s property taxes for 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021.

11Monthly expenses of the Applicant are summarized as follows:

• Mortgage: $309.46
• Property tax: $191.60
• Home and car insurance: $260.75
• Fuel: $87.50
• Hydro/water: $89.09
• Cell phones: $75.00
• Gas: $120.00
• Food: $600.00
• Transportation: $182.40
• Interest on credit cards: $81.94
• Internet: $57.57
• Medication: $50.00
• Clothing: $100.00
• Other expenses: $100.00

Expenses Total: $2,305.31

Income Total: $3,412.64

Expenses Total: $2,305.31

Net Total: +$1,107.33

Assets

• Subject property: $356,000
• Balance in bank accounts: $548.33
• Registered Education Savings Plan (“RESP”): $22,934.90
• Car: $2,100.00

Assets Total: $381,583.23

Liabilities

• Mortgage Owing: $190,020.40
• Credit Card: $5,886.25
• Savings Account: $1,219.95
• Legal Fees: $2,075.53

Liabilities Total: $199,202.13

Net Worth Total: $182,381.10

12The City’s position is to dismiss the application for the Applicant was able to pay her 2021 property taxes after meeting her monthly obligation with additional income of $1,107.33 per month.

Findings on Issue 1- Ability to Pay

13The Board notes that the Applicant was able to pay her 2021 property taxes after incurring all the expenses specially the discretionary expenses like, a lot of meal deliveries and tipping (over $2,000 per year), online purchases, alcohol, etc. The Board determined, in M. M. U. v Toronto (City), 2015 CanLII 46826 (ON ARB), that discretionary expenses must not take precedence over the payment of property tax.

14Therefore, it is the Board’s finding that not only the Applicant was able to pay her 2021 property taxes without cutting from the necessities of life but she also had a balance of $548.33 in the bank accounts and a surplus monthly income of $1,107.33 after calculating her monthly expenses. This indicates to the Board that the Applicant is not in a negative situation when it comes to poverty.

15Having decided that the Applicant was able to pay the property taxes in 2021, the Board has no reason to consider whether the Applicant is in a condition of sickness or extreme poverty.

ORDER

16The Board orders that the application is dismissed.