Tribunals Ontario
Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario
Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: September 12, 2022
Assessed Person(s): R.A.
Applicant(s): R.A.
Respondent(s): City of Mississauga
Property Location(s): Address Withheld
Municipality(ies): City of Mississauga
Roll Number(s): Roll Number Withheld
Appeal Number(s): 3483972
Taxation Year(s): 2020
Hearing Event No.: 769264
Legislative Authority: Section 357(1)(d1) of the Municipal Act 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Representative
R.A.
Self-represented
City of Mississauga
Sean Doyle
HEARD: August 9, 2022 by telephone conference call
ADJUDICATOR(S): Dan Weagant, Member
DECISION
OVERVIEW
1R.A. (the “Applicant”) filed an application with the City of Mississauga (“City”) to have his 2020 property taxes cancelled, reduced or refunded because he was 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 late 2019, the Applicant became ill and was unable to perform the tasks required of his job. He qualified for disability support owing to his illness until the early part of 2020. At that time, the disability support ended and the Applicant was without that income for the remainder of the year.
4At the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Applicant testified that he was concerned about general economic conditions and responded by withdrawing the available home equity portion of his residential mortgage agreement, ($69,000), converted the proceeds to U.S. dollars and purchased a Reverse Exchange Traded Fund (“Reverse ETF”).
5He explained that a Reverse ETF is a hedge against continuing downward performance of the stock market, and from the time he purchased it, the stock market reversed its slide and began to rise. The result of this stock market activity was a complete loss of his investment.
6As the pandemic restrictions continued, the Applicant successfully applied for the Canadian Emergency Response Benefit (“CERB”) and received CERB payments from the government, from May to the end of 2021.
Issues for the Hearing
7At issue in this proceeding is whether the Applicant’s 2020 property taxes should be cancelled, reduced or refunded because of his inability to pay, due to sickness or extreme poverty. This requires the Board to determine:
- if the Applicant was unable to pay his 2020 property taxes;
- if the Board determines he was unable to pay his property taxes, the Board must then determine if the reason he was unable to pay was either sickness or extreme poverty; and
- if the Board determines he was 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
8The Board finds that the Applicant was able to pay the property taxes levied in 2020. The application is dismissed.
ANALYSIS
Issue 1 – Was the Applicant able to pay his property taxes in 2020?
9The Applicant’s documents and testimony indicated that the household income in 2020 was derived from:
- Employer salary and disability payments: $14,393
- CERB: $18,661
- Regular monthly deposits from family and friends: $51,600
10Documents in evidence indicate a number of other deposits from undisclosed sources. The Applicant testified these deposits also came from family and friends.
11Bank records provided by the Applicant show a total opening balance of approximately $7,648 on January 3, 2020 and a closing balance of approximately $6,295 and the end of December 2020. Those records also show that all of the household expenses, including mortgage payments were paid throughout 2020.
12The City submitted that the total taxes levied in 2020 was $6,012.61. At the end of 2020, the unpaid balance was $5,059.61.
Findings on Issue 1
13The Board must first determine if the Applicant was able to pay his property taxes, based on the evidence available at the hearing.
14In 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.
15M.M.U. is instructive in this case. It requires an Applicant to make use of the resources available to first address his expenses relating to the necessities of life and to maintain his property. In this case, rather than draw on the home equity credit available to him to meet these requirements, he chose to use those funds to take a risky position in the stock market. That risk resulted in a loss of those funds.
16Successful applications under this section of the Act have consequences outside of direct impacts to the Applicant. Where property taxes are reduced, refunded or cancelled, that requires the other taxpayers in the same Municipality to make up the resulting shortfall.
17In 2020 the Applicant, had he chosen to use the equity portion of his mortgage for those expenses, including property taxes, he would have been able to meet all of those obligations, with some money to spare. In this case, if the Board was to find in favour of the Applicant, that would result in the other taxpayers of Mississauga subsidizing the Applicant’s poor investment choice.
18Simply not paying the property taxes because of the poor investment choice does not indicate an inability to pay. Rather, it indicates a choice not to pay them.
19The Board finds therefore, that the Applicant has failed to demonstrate that he was unable to pay the property taxes levied in 2020.
20The Board also finds that since the Applicant was able to pay the property taxes in 2020, there is no reason to determine the reason for any inability to pay.
ORDER
21The application is dismissed.