Tribunals Ontario / Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario

Assessment Review Board / Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: February 23, 2023 FILE NO.: RD 22-032

Assessed Person(s): G.S. Applicant(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): 3482758 Taxation Year(s): 2021 Hearing Event No.: 772366

Legislative Authority: Section 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25

Parties	Representative
G.S.	Self-represented
City of Mississauga	Submissions not received

REQUEST FOR: A review of the Board’s Decision WR 181692 issued on October 31, 2022 HEARD: In writing ADJUDICATOR(S): Carly Stringer, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1G.S. (the “Requestor”) requests a review of the Assessment Review Board’s (the “Board”) decision in G.S. v Mississauga (City), 2022 CanLII 104007 (ON ARB) (the “Decision”).

Background

2The Requestor filed an application with the City of Mississauga (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 set out the 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 $5,072.05. In the Decision, the Board determined that the Requestor’s monthly income was $418 per month more than their non-discretionary expenses, and that the Requestor had a bank account balance of $1,461.00 at the end of 2021. The Board found that after all non-discretionary expenses were paid, the Requestor had enough financial resources to pay their property taxes in 2021. The Board dismissed the application in this first step of the analysis.

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;

b. should consider new evidence, which was not available at the time of the hearing but that is credible and could have affected the result; and

c. heard false or misleading evidence from a party or witness, which was discovered only after the hearing and could have affected the result.

11Specifically, the Requestor submits that the Board misunderstood the positioning of assets and liabilities including living expenses, and that new documentation became available.

Result

12The request for review is dismissed.

ANALYSIS

Issue 1 – Misunderstanding Assets and Liabilities

Submissions

13The Requestor submits that the Board misunderstood the positioning of assets and liabilities, including living expenses. The Requestor submits that the Board misunderstood the “real costs” of operating the household and maintaining the property, otherwise it would have been clear that the Requestor is not able to live, pay for necessities, and pay property taxes on their income.

Findings on Issue 1

14The Board does not accept the Requestor’s submission on this ground of review.

15The Requestor has not provided any evidence of an error, misunderstanding, or denial of natural justice or procedural fairness in the Board’s findings that the Requestor’s effective total income per month was a monthly average of $2,074, rounded; that the Requestor’s non-discretionary monthly expenses totaled $1,656 per month, on average; that the Requestor’s monthly income averaged approximately $418 per month more than non-discretionary expenses totaling $5,016 for the year; that the Requestor had a bank balance of $1,461 at the end of 2021; and that $5,072.05 were levied as property taxes in 2021.

16Namely, the Requestor has not provided evidence of what additional “real costs” they say were not considered by the Board or reflected in the Decision.

17This ground of review fails.

Issue 2 – New Evidence

Submissions

18The Requestor submits that new documentation became available.

19The Requestor provided a document dated February 8. 2021 with the words “Combis Auto” at the top, including a Mississauga address. The document is untitled and unsigned but appears to reflect some form of invoice in the amount of $1,356 relating to a 2009 Ford Flex.

20The Requestor also provided an affidavit sworn November 30, 2022. The Requestor’s affidavit does not provide information or context in relation to the February 8, 2021, document. Further, the Requestor’s affidavit does not provide information regarding whether this is new evidence that was not available at the hearing, why it would not have been available for the hearing, or how it would have impacted the result at the hearing.

Findings on Issue 2

21The Board does not accept the Requestor’s submission that there is new evidence that was not available at the hearing that would have impacted the result.

22The Requestor’s affidavit does not provide context for the February 8, 2021 document in terms of how it relates to the Requestor’s income and expenses, nor has the Requestor explained how this evidence was not available for the hearing in October 2022 when the document is dated February 8, 2021. In the absence of such information, the Board will not make a finding.

23This ground of review fails.

CONCLUSION

24The Board finds that the Requestor has not established any of the grounds of review pursuant to Rule 102.

ORDER

25The Board orders this Request for Review is dismissed.

"Carly Stringer"

CARLY STRINGER

MEMBER

Assessment Review Board

Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb