Tribunals Ontario / Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario
Assessment Review Board / Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: August 29, 2022
FILE NO.: WR 180843
Assessed Person(s): R.B. and I.R-B.
Applicant(s): R.B. and I.R-B.
Respondent(s): City of Mississauga
Property Location(s): Address Withheld
Municipality(ies): City of Mississauga
Roll Number(s): Roll Number Withheld
Appeal Number(s): 3483964
Taxation Year(s): 2021
Hearing Event No.: 770265
Legislative Authority: Section 357(1)(d1) of the Municipal Act 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Representative |
|---|---|
| R.B. and I.R-B. | Self-represented |
| City of Mississauga | Sean Doyle |
HEARD: August 2, 2022 by telephone conference call
ADJUDICATOR(S): Dan Weagant, Member
DECISION
OVERVIEW
1R.B. and I.R-B. (the “Applicants”) filed an application with the City of Mississauga (“City”) to have their 2021 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.
Background
3In 2021, the household was comprised of R.B., I.R-B. and their two children. Both children attended post secondary education in 2021. Tuition, housing and meal expenses for the children were funded through the proceeds of Registered Education Savings Plans (RESP’s) that were established in previous years. The records of these RESP’s were not in evidence at the hearing.
4Both the Applicants were diagnosed with illnesses in 2020 that affected their abilities to work in 2021. The family ran a construction business up until their health issues arose and until the Covid 19 pandemic restrictions affected business.
5There was no construction work available for the family business in 2021. The Applicants testified that they made ends meet in 2021 by drawing from the Home Equity Line of Credit (“HELOC”) portion of their residential mortgage agreement.
6In addition to meeting the day-to-day financial commitments of running the household, the Applicants also used proceeds from the HELOC to make improvements to the subject property, estimating that $25,000 to $50,000 was used for that purpose.
7Through these efforts in 2021, the Applicants closed out a building permit that had been issued in 2016 for improvements to the property. Upon the closing of the permit, the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) applied a supplementary assessment, reflecting the additional value represented by the improvements that were made. This increased the assessment of the property in 2021 from $985,000 to $1,654,000.
Issues for the Hearing
8At 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:
- if the Applicants were unable to pay their 2020 property taxes;
- 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
- 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 2021 to be cancelled, reduced or refunded.
Result
9The Board finds that the Applicants were able to pay the property taxes levied in 2021. The application is dismissed.
ANALYSIS
Issue 1 – Were the Applicants able to pay their property taxes in 2020?
10The Applicants testified that the family had income in the amount of approximately $30,175 in 2021. The income was derived from Canadian Emergency Relief Benefit (CERB) payments.
11The household income and expenses were managed through multiple bank accounts held by the Applicants either singly or jointly. There was also one active business account. The documentary evidence at the hearing of this matter showed multiple and continuous transfers of funds from one bank account to another in order to provide sufficient funds in each account to cover ongoing living expenses.
12While this method of household financial management is complicated, in this case, the various transfers and payments lead to the source of the funds, being the HELOC and the CERB income. In 2021, the HELOC balance started at $0. By the end of 2021 the balance on that account was just over $70,000. By this means the Applicants leveraged the value in their residence to meet their obligations and to increase the value of the subject property.
13The City submitted that the total taxes levied in 2021 totaled $10,324.12 and that the account was paid in full in 2021.
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.
15In M. M. U. v Toronto (City), 2015 CanLII 46826 (ON ARB) (“M.M.U.”) 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.
16M.M.U. is instructive in this case. The Applicants had a challenging year on many fronts. Those facts are not in dispute. However, they made every effort to draw on the resources available to meet their annual financial obligations, including the use of HELOC funds. Those efforts resulted in the ability to pay the property taxes in 2021.
17The Board finds therefore, that the Applicants have failed to demonstrate that they were unable to pay the property taxes levied in 2021.
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.