Tribunals Ontario
Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario
Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: February 23, 2023
Assessed Person(s): A.L.
Applicant(s): A.L.
Respondent(s): City of Hamilton
Property Location(s): Address Withheld
Municipality(ies): City of Hamilton
Roll Number(s): Roll Number Withheld
Appeal Number(s): 3491959
Taxation Year(s): 2021
Hearing Event No.: 774178
Legislative Authority: Section 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25
Parties
Counsel*/Representative
A.L.
Self-represented
City of Hamilton
Submissions not received
REQUEST FOR: A review of the Board’s Decision WR 181146
HEARD: In writing
ADJUDICATOR(S): Carly Stringer, Member
DECISION
OVERVIEW
1A.L. (the “Requestor”) requests a review of the Assessment Review Board’s (the “Board”) decision A.L. v Hamilton (City), 2022 CanLII 80271 (ON ARB) (the “Decision”). The Requestor alleges that i) the Board violated the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness and ii) made errors such that the Board would likely have reached a different decision.
Background
2The Requestor filed an application with the City of Hamilton (the “City”) to have their 2021 property taxes cancelled, reduced or refunded because they were 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.
3The City passed a by-law delegating its authority to determine such applications to the Board.
4The Board convened a hearing on the Requestor’s application.
5The Board subsequently issued the Decision denying the application.
6The Decision began by setting out the two-step test that the Board applies when considering such applications. The first step involves determining whether the applicant was unable to pay taxes in the year(s) at issue. If the Board determines that the applicant was not unable to pay their taxes, then the application is dismissed. If the Board determines the applicant was unable to pay, the Board then goes on to determine whether that inability to pay was due to sickness or extreme poverty.
7The balance of the Requestor’s property taxes for 2021 was $2,123.34. In the Decision, the Board determined that the Requestor’s monthly income is $155.25 more than their expenses, and that the Requestor had a bank account balance of $1,800.45 at the end of 2021 after paying all expenses. The Board found that the Requestor could have used this amount to pay their 2021 taxes in full. The Board dismissed the application in this first step of the analysis, determining that it did not have to consider whether the Requestor was in a condition of sickness or extreme poverty.
8The Requestor subsequently brought this Request to Review the Decision.
Applicable Rules
9Rule 101 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”) provides that a party may request a review of any final decision or order of the Board. Rule 102 provides that a request for review will not be granted unless the Board is satisfied that:
a. the Board acted outside its jurisdiction or violated the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness;
b. the Board made a significant error of law or fact such that the Board would likely have reached a different decision;
c. the Board heard false or misleading evidence from a party or witness, which was discovered only after the hearing and would have affected the result; or
d. there is new evidence that could not have reasonably been obtained earlier and have affected the result.
Issues for Review
10The Requestor submits that the Board:
a. violated the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness, including allegations of bias; and
b. made an error in law or fact such that the Board would likely have reached a different decision.
11Specifically, the Requestor submits that there are incorrect factual statements in the Decision regarding characteristics of their home; their employment in 2021; and their bank account balance at the end of December 2021.
Result
12The request for review is granted and the Board varies the Decision.
ANALYSIS
Issue 1 – Alleged Errors of Fact
Submissions
13The Requestor states that there are incorrect statements in the Decision:
a. that their home is 2 storeys with 2 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms;
b. that the Requestor stated that they did not work in 2021 because they were sick; and
c. that the Requestor had $1,800.45 in their bank account at the end of December that should be adequate to pay the outstanding 2021 taxes.
14The Requestor states that:
a. their home is a 1 storey, 3 bedroom and 1 bathroom bungalow;
b. they did not tell the Board they did not work in 2021 - they stated they are on social assistance and could not work part-time as usual due to Covid-related shutdowns; and
c. the $1,800.45 in their bank account at the end of December was their social assistance payment for all of January’s expenses, paid early due to holidays over Christmas and New Year.
Findings on Issue 1
Alleged Errors of Fact
15The Board finds that the first two factual errors alleged by the Requestor do not impact the Board’s finding that the Requestor was able to pay their 2021 taxes.
16The third alleged error of fact is slightly different. At paragraph 17 of the Decision, the Board noted that the Requestor’s monthly income was $155.25 more than their expenses and, although this “is not a high figure for monthly surplus income,” the Requestor’s bank account balance in December 2021 was $1,800.45 after expenses. The Board then found that the Requestor could have used this amount to pay their 2021 taxes in full. The Requestor alleges this is an error, as the bank balance included an early social assistance payment for January 2023.
17The Board accepts the Requestor’s submission that the balance in their bank account was an early social assistance payment to cover the Requestor’s January expenses. Therefore, the Decision reflects an error in the characterization of those funds. Those funds were not available to pay the Requestor’s 2021 taxes.
18In the Decision, the Board found that the Requestor’s monthly income was $155.25 more than their expenses. This fact is not disputed. This amount, multiplied by 12 months in a year, represents $1,863.00 in 2021. Therefore, the Board finds that the Requestor was able to pay $1,863.00 of her 2021 taxes.
19Since the Requestor’s 2021 taxes were $2,123.34, the Board finds there is a shortfall of $260.34 that the Requestor was unable to pay ($2,123.34 – $1,863.00 = $260.34).
The Reason the Requestor was Unable to Pay
20Having found the Requestor was able to pay the property taxes in 2021, the Decision did not consider the second stage of the analysis, namely, whether the Requestor’s inability to pay was due to sickness or extreme poverty.
21On this Request for Review, the Board is satisfied that the facts disclose the Requestor was in a condition of extreme poverty that caused them to be unable to pay $260.34 of their 2021 taxes.
CONCLUSION
22This Request for Review is granted because the Board is satisfied that it made a significant error of fact such that it would likely have reached a different decision.
ORDER
23The Board orders that the Requestor’s 2021 taxes are reduced by $260.34. Therefore, the Requestor’s 2021 taxes are $1,863.00.
"Carly Stringer"
CARLY STRINGER
MEMBER
Assessment Review Board
Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb