Tribunals Ontario
Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario
Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE:
December 1, 2023
WR 185594
Assessed Person(s):
G.S.
Appellant(s):
G.S.
Respondent(s):
City of Mississauga
Property Location(s):
Address Withheld
Municipality(ies):
City of Mississauga
Roll Number(s):
Roll Number Withheld
Appeal Number(s):
3518159
Taxation Year(s):
2022
Hearing Event No.:
782272
Legislative Authority:
Section 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Representative
G.S.
K.S.
City of Mississauga
Sean Doyle
HEARD:
November 14, 2023 by telephone conference call
ADJUDICATOR(S):
Paul Brennan, Member
DECISION
OVERVIEW
1G.S. (the “Applicant”) filed an application with the City of Mississauga (the “City) to have her 2022 property taxes cancelled, reduced, or refunded because she was unable to pay, due to either sickness or extreme poverty, under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 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”) under s. 357(11) of the Act.
3At the hearing, the Applicant was represented by her daughter, K. S.
Issues for the Hearing
4At issue in this proceeding is whether the Applicant’s 2022 property taxes should be cancelled, reduced, or refunded because of her inability to pay, due to sickness or extreme poverty. This requires the Board to determine:
If the Applicant was unable to pay her 2022 property taxes;
If the Board determines she was unable to pay her property taxes, the Board must then determine if the reason for her inability to pay was either sickness or extreme poverty; and
If the Board determines she was unable to pay her property taxes due to sickness or extreme poverty, the Board must then decide the amount of the property taxes levied in 2022 to be cancelled, reduced, or refunded.
Result
5The Board finds that the Applicant was able to pay the property taxes levied in 2022. The application is dismissed.
ANALYSIS
Issue 1 – Was the Applicant able to pay her property taxes in 2022?
6The Applicant received an effective total income of $21,482 in 2022 from CPP and OAS benefits, and an insurance premium refund, for a monthly average of $1,790 rounded.
7The Applicant’s total average monthly expenses in 2022 were:
Insurance (home and car): $147
Utilities: $178
Mortgage payments: $452
Medical expenses: $49
Food: $700
Property maintenance: $213
Car expenses (gas and maintenance): $156
8The subject property is assessed at a value of $687,000. The amount owing on the mortgage at the end of 2022 was approximately $127,000. The Applicant and an unrelated party entered into a written agreement that the Applicant was to pay the party $139,000 upon the sale of the subject property. This left equity in the subject property of $421,000. The Applicant acknowledged that she did not access that equity to pay her property taxes in 2022.
9The Applicant had several vehicles stored on the subject property in 2022, including a horse trailer and two vehicles belonging to the Applicant and K.S., neither of which is operational. K.S. also parked her vehicle at the subject address and resided there about 25 per cent of the time in 2022. The Applicant also had an operational vehicle for her personal use, which she estimated to have a value of $3,000.
Findings on Issue 1
10The Board has widely held that expenses related to the necessities of life and the maintenance of the subject property are considered non-discretionary expenses. The Board has also held that discretionary expenses should be considered separately from those expenses that are considered non-discretionary when determining whether an applicant is able to pay taxes during the year for which the application is made.
11The Applicant’s average non-discretionary expenses were $1,895 per month in 2022. This is approximately $105 per month more than the Applicant’s monthly income for 2022.
12The City submitted that the property taxes levied in 2022 were $5,700.30, and although the Applicant was eligible, she did not apply for a senior’s rebate for 2022.
13The Applicant has the burden of proving her case on a balance of probabilities. This means that there must be sufficient evidence that the Applicant was unable to pay the property taxes levied in 2022.
14In determining the Applicant’s ability to pay, the Board is not restricted to the Applicant’s income and expenses but must review all the financial resources available to the Applicant that could have been used to pay her property tax obligation.
15The documentary evidence establishes that for each month of 2022, the Applicant had a positive balance in her bank account of between $235 and $2,791, with an average closing monthly balance of $1,607, and a year-end closing balance of $773. Further, the evidence establishes that the Applicant had equity in the subject property of approximately $421,000, which she did not access to pay her property taxes.
16The Board finds that the evidence establishes that after all non-discretionary expenses were paid, the Applicant had sufficient financial resources available to pay the property taxes in 2022.
CONCLUSION
17The Board finds that the Applicant has failed to establish that she was unable to pay the property taxes levied in 2022. Accordingly, the Board also finds that there is no reason to determine the reason for any alleged inability to pay.
ORDER
18The application is dismissed.