Tribunals Ontario

Assessment Review Board

Issue Date: August 9, 2022 File No.: WR 179995 Assessed Person(s): E.G.L. Applicant(s): E.G.L. Respondent(s): City of Toronto Property Location(s): Address withheld Municipality(ies): City of Toronto Roll Number(s): Roll number withheld Appeal Number(s): 3484163 and 3484164 Taxation Year(s): 2015 and 2017 Hearing Event No.: 768564 Legislative Authority: Section 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A

Parties / Representative E.G.L. / Self-represented City of Toronto / Graham Thomson

Heard: June 28, 2022 in writing Adjudicator(s): Carly Stringer, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1E.G.L. (the "Applicant") filed applications with the City of Toronto (the "City") pursuant to s. 323(1) of the City of Toronto Act (the "Act") to have their property taxes for the 2015 and 2017 taxation years cancelled, reduced or refunded because they were unable to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty.

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

3This hearing to consider the Applicant's applications was held in writing at the Applicant's request.

Issues for the Hearing

4The main issue before the Board is whether the Applicant's 2015 and 2017 property taxes should be cancelled, reduced or refunded due to their inability to pay because of sickness or extreme poverty. In F.E.J.B. v Mississauga (City), 2019 CanLII 59502 (ON ARB), the Board confirmed that the analysis of this question requires the Board to address the following issues:

• Issue 1: Was the Applicant unable to pay their 2015 and 2017 property taxes?
• Issue 2: If the answer to Issue 1 is yes, was the reason they were unable to pay either sickness or extreme poverty?
• Issue 3: If the answer to Issue 2 is also yes, what amount of property taxes should be cancelled, reduced or refunded?

Result

5For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that the Applicant failed to demonstrate they were unable to pay their 2015 and 2017 property taxes. The application is dismissed.

ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Was the Applicant unable to pay their 2015 and 2017 property taxes?

Applicable Law

6In M. M. U. v Toronto (City), 2015 CanLII 46826 (ON ARB) at paragraph 21, the Board wrote 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.

Evidence and Submissions

From the Applicant

7The Applicant provided lengthy written submissions that were difficult to follow and understand. These submissions included references to a number of issues that are not relevant to the issues to be decided in these applications. The Applicant also provided a book of authorities that included excerpts of the Act; a copy of Toronto (City) v. E.L., 2019 CanLII 29140 (ON ARB); an undated, anonymous article entitled "Price control: a social emergency"; the Wikipedia entry for Ruth Bader Ginsburg; and an article dated April 24, 2012 from The Ottawa Citizen entitled "Working to keep a son's memory alive." The Applicant did not provide sworn affidavit evidence. That said, it is clear that the Applicant takes the position they are catastrophically impaired and were unable to pay their property taxes due to their medical conditions and injuries.

8Although the bulk of the Applicant's written materials focused on their medical issues, the Applicant did provide the following information with respect to their financial position:

a. Income (monthly): i. approximately $1,100 from TD "low-income replacement check"

b. Expenses (monthly): i. $650 for mortgage ii. $300 for property tax iii. $45 for home insurance iv. $890 for condominium maintenance fee v. $42 for phone vi. $250 for accident insurance vii. $560 for personal loan viii. $200 plus interest for credit line loan ix. $80 for internet x. The Applicant did not state any monthly expense amounts for water, heat or hydro. In relation to groceries, outside meals, clothing and household supplies, the Applicant stated "can't afford".

c. Assets: i. $255,000 assessed value for home ii. $500 in chequing account

d. Liabilities i. $150,000 for mortgage ii. $110,000 in personal loans

9It is unclear from the Applicant's materials whether the above-noted amounts apply specifically to the Applicant's financial position in 2015 and 2017.

10The Applicant provided numerous medical records including letters and reports from healthcare providers; notices of reassessment from the Canada Revenue Agency for the 2012 to 2019 and 2021 tax years; and property tax account statements and various notices and letters from the City issued between 2015 and 2018. However, the Applicant provided limited financial records in relation to their other income, expenses, assets and liabilities in the 2015 and 2017 taxation years, as outlined below.

11The Applicant provided the following records regarding their income in 2015 and 2017:

a. 2015 i. A notice of income tax reassessment from the Canada Revenue Agency for the 2015 year showing a declared taxable income of $155 and a pre-existing credit of $479.62. ii. A statement from TD Insurance for a $528 cheque dated December 24, 2015 to the order of the Applicant, for the December 18 to 31, 2015 pay period with respect to a November 3, 2011 date of loss.

b. 2017 i. A notice of reassessment from the Canada Revenue Agency for the 2017 year showing a declared taxable income of $156 and a pre-existing credit of $479.62.

12The Applicant did not provide any financial records or other documentation to confirm their expenses and assets for 2015 and 2017.

13The Applicant provided the following records regarding their liabilities in 2015 and 2017:

a. A past-due account reflecting a balance of $6,734.58 owing as of November 30, 2015. The document does not disclose enough information to discern who issued it, or the nature of the account. The Applicant has not provided evidence explaining where this document is from or what it proves, other than stating it is a "Bank Past Due Notice".

b. Property tax account statement from the City issued January 4, 2016, indicating $3,991.95 in property taxes owing from 2014 and 2015.

c. Property tax account statement from the City issued January 1, 2017, indicating $6,830.30 in property taxes owing from 2014, 2015 and 2016.

d. Property tax account statement from the City issued March 17, 2017, indicating $7,991.55 in property taxes owing from 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017.

e. Property tax notice from the City issued April 6, 2017, indicating $8,093.67 in property taxes owing from 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017.

From the City

14The City provided evidence that as of January 24, 2020, all of the Applicant's outstanding property taxes from 2014 to 2019 – including $3,150.58 for the 2015 year and $2,605.41 for the 2017 taxation year – were paid by a lawyer on the Applicant's behalf. It appears this payment was made in accordance with a Court-approved settlement of a legal claim brought in the Ontario Superior Court by the Applicant. The City provided the Board with a copy the Superior Court's decision in which it approved settlement of a court action on the Applicant's behalf. The Court approved the payment of the Applicant's unpaid property taxes as part of that settlement. The Court of Appeal quashed the Applicant's appeal from the Superior Court's decision in 2021.

15The City submits that the Applicant has failed to produce sufficient evidence of their income, expenses, assets and liabilities to demonstrate that they were unable to pay their 2015 and 2017 property taxes.

Findings on Issue 1

16The Board must determine if the Applicant was unable to pay their property taxes based on the evidence before it.

17While the Applicant's materials were difficult to follow, the Board recognizes the struggles that self-represented parties face in matters before the Board. For this reason, the Board has reviewed the Applicant's materials very carefully to ensure that it understands the Applicant's submissions and evidence.

18In this instance, the bulk of the Applicant's evidence focused on their medical conditions and injuries. While this evidence would be relevant explaining why the Applicant may have had issues paying their taxes, it does not assist the Board in determining whether the Appellant was or was not unable to pay their 2015 and 2017 property taxes.

19With respect to the Applicant's inability to pay, the Board finds the Applicant had an income of approximately $1,100 per month. This finding is based on the Applicant's uncontradicted information that their income was approximately $1,100 monthly, as supported by the statement from TD Insurance reflecting a December 24, 2015 cheque in the amount of $528. This document suggests that the Applicant was receiving bi-weekly payments from TD Insurance in 2015, and the amount is consistent with the Appellant's stated $1,100 income.

20While the Board has made a finding respecting the Applicant's income, the Board finds the Applicant failed to produce detailed financial records to account for all of their expenses, assets and liabilities in the applicable years. Namely, the Applicant has not produced any documentation to support the expenses itemized at paragraph 8(b) above, other than property tax. Nor has the Applicant produced documentation to support the assessed value of their home; their bank account balance; a mortgage; or personal loans.

21Simply put, while the Applicant provided general information regarding their expenses, assets and liabilities, there is not enough reliable documentary evidence to confirm the Applicant's information and otherwise satisfy the Board that "every reasonable effort has been made to pay all or part of the taxes" for the 2015 and 2017 years, such that the Applicant was unable to pay part or all of their property taxes for these years.

22Moreover, the Board considers that the Applicant's outstanding taxes for 2015 and 2017 were paid in full on the Applicant's behalf on January 24, 2020 due to settlement of a court action. This is similar to the situation in C.G. v London (City), 2022 CanLII 12798 (ON ARB) ("C.G."). In C.G., the applicant sought a refund of his 2019 property taxes. The applicant stated that he was unable to pay his taxes in 2019, but eventually paid them from a mortgage he secured in 2020. The Board considered whether it should determine that the applicant was unable to pay taxes when he did pay them by accessing equity in his property the year after the taxation year at issue.

23At paragraph 29 of C.G., the Board found that:

it cannot have been the intention of the legislation that a refund should follow in a situation where an applicant managed to mitigate his damages, simply because that mitigation occurred after the taxation year in question…. Requiring the [m]unicipality to refund some of those taxes, effectively passing that burden on to other taxpayers after the Applicant was able to extinguish it using his own resources, would be an absurd result in these circumstances.

24The Board applies the same reasoning to this case. While the fact that the taxes were paid does not in itself preclude eligibility for a refund – otherwise, the option for a refund would not exist – in this instance the Applicant was able to mitigate their damages in 2021 by virtue of the Court-approved settlement. The Court had supervision over the settlement in order to ensure that it was in the Applicant's best interest, and the Court determined that it was appropriate for some of the money to be used to pay outstanding property taxes. Without additional evidence to the contrary, this supports a finding that the Applicant was able to pay. In addition, this must be considered along with the fact that there is insufficient evidence before the Board that the Applicant made every reasonable effort to pay their property taxes during the 2015 and 2017 taxation years to the point of going without the necessities of life.

25Based on the evidence before it, the Board is not satisfied that the Applicant was unable to pay their property taxes in 2015 and 2017.

26Having found that the Applicant has not established they were unable to pay their property taxes in 2015 and 2017, the Board has no reason to consider whether the Applicant was in a condition of sickness or extreme poverty.

CONCLUSION

27While the Board has sympathy for the Applicant's plight, based on the materials she provided in support of her application, the Board must base its decision on the best evidence before it. Accordingly, the Board is not satisfied that the Applicant was unable to pay their property taxes for the 2015 and 2017 taxation years.

ORDER

28The Board orders that the application is dismissed.

"Carly Stringer"

CARLY STRINGER MEMBER Assessment Review Board

Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb