Tribunals Ontario
Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario
Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE: March 08, 2023
Assessed Person(s): J.O.
Applicant(s): J.O.
Respondent(s): City of Mississauga
Property Location(s): Address Withheld
Municipality(ies): City of Mississauga
Roll Number(s): Roll Number Withheld
Appeal Number(s): 3484272
Taxation Year(s): 2021
Legislative Authority: Section 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25
Parties
Counsel/Representative*
J.O.
Self-represented
City of Mississauga
Submissions not received
REQUEST FOR: A review of the Board’s Decision WR 181793 issued on November 10, 2022
HEARD: In writing
ADJUDICATOR(S): Carly Stringer, Member
DECISION
OVERVIEW
1J.O. (the “Requestor”) requests a review of the Assessment Review Board’s (the “Board”) decision WR 181793 (the “Decision”). The Requestor alleges that the Board made an error in law or fact such that it would likely have reached a different decision, and that the Board should consider new evidence which was not available at the time of the hearing and could have affected the result.
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 sets 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 evidence before the Board was as follows:
a. the balance of the Requestor’s property taxes for 2021 was $4,154.90;
b. the Requestor had $5,783 income per month;
c. average household expenses incurred by the Requestor in 2021 were roughly $6,357 per month;
d. the Requestor had a bank account balance of $3,976.10 at the end of 2021;
e. the Requestor had discretionary expenses totaling approximately $1,260 for the year.
8The Board found that:
a. after all non-discretionary household expenses were paid in 2021, the Requestor had $3,976.10 available to pay taxes;
b. the shortfall experienced by the Requestor on property tax payments, having drawn on all available resources, amounts to $178.80;
c. the Requestor’s discretionary expenses of $1,260 cannot take precedence over payment of property taxes;
d. the value of the Requestor’s discretionary expenses in 2021 exceed the amount of taxes that remain once the non-discretionary expenses were covered; and
e. the evidence indicated that after all non-discretionary expenses were paid, the Requestor had enough financial resources to pay their property taxes in 2021.
9The Board found that the Requestor failed to demonstrate that they were unable to pay the property taxes levied in 2021, and dismissed the application.
10The Requestor subsequently brought this Request to Review the Decision.
Applicable Rules
11Rule 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
12The Requestor submits that the Board:
a. made an error in law or fact such that the Board would likely have reached a different decision; and
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.
13Specifically, the Requestor submits that the Board deemed a debt as income, and failed to recognize ongoing financial obligations. The Requestor also disputes the Board’s characterization of certain expenses.
Result
14The Request for Review is granted, on the following basis.
ANALYSIS
Issue 1 – Income
Submissions
15The Requestor submits that the Board erroneously deemed a debt as income. Specifically, the Requestor states that their income in 2021 was $800 per month from the Canadian Emergency Relief Benefit. The Requestor submits that the additional amounts they received per month pursuant to a loan agreement with their mother was more debt incurred. The Requestor submits their monthly expenses of $6,357 less $800 income per month equals $5,557, leaving their expenses 795% higher than their income not including child support obligations that could not be paid.
Findings on Issue 1
16The Board finds there is no error in the Decision relating to the Board’s consideration of amounts the Requestor received pursuant to a loan arrangement with their mother.
17In F.E.J.B. v Mississauga (City), 2019 CanLII 59502 (ON ARB) at paragraph 22, the Board confirmed the first question to ask in “inability to pay” applications is simply “is there an inability to pay all or part of the property taxes levied for the year in which the application is made”?
18Therefore, the Board’s task in the Decision was to consider evidence of the Requestor’s ability to pay their property taxes. This properly included any amounts the Requestor received in 2021 from the loan agreement. The evidence confirmed that the Requestor had a loan agreement with their mother; that amounts paid to them pursuant to this arrangement were used for monthly expenses in 2021; that the terms of this loan included a 0% interest rate; that there was no repayment schedule; and any outstanding balance could be repaid when the Requestor is able to do so. There was no evidence of any repayments of this loan, or expenses relating to this loan, in 2021 that would affect the Requestor’s ability to pay their taxes in 2021.
19Therefore, this ground of review fails.
Issue 2 – Ongoing Financial Obligations
Submissions
20The Requestor submits that the bank balance at the end of 2021 was loan funds to cover monthly expenses due the next month. The Requestor submits that their mortgage payment was due the first of every month. The Requestor submits that just because the year ended does not mean that the living expenses and mortgage payments end.
Findings on Issue 2
21Again, the task before the Board in the Decision was to determine whether the Requestor was unable to pay some or all of their 2021 taxes.
22In the Decision, the Board considered the Requestor’s bank balance of $3,976.10 at the end of December 2021, along with the amounts of non-discretionary expenses incurred by the Requestor in 2021, as evidence that the Requestor had enough financial resources to pay property taxes in 2021.
23The Board finds that an error was made in relation to the finding that the bank balance at the end of December 2021 was evidence of the Requestor’s ability to pay their 2021 taxes. The Requestor has provided evidence that this amount included funds earmarked for their mortgage payment and other monthly expenses in January 2022. The Board accepts this evidence, and finds that, in this case, the evidence of $3,976.10 in the Requestor’s bank account at the end of December 2021 does not support the Requestor’s ability to pay his 2021 taxes.
24The Board finds that this is a significant error that would likely have led to a different decision, and therefore this ground of review succeeds.
Issue 3 – Other Expenses
Submissions
25In relation to expenses that the Board characterized as “discretionary” including monthly subscriptions to car washes, a motorcycle plan and television streaming services, the Requestor submits that:
a. The car wash account was used as gratitude for friends who drove the Requestor around while their driver’s license was suspended in 2021. It was also used for the Requestor’s vehicle.
b. The motorcycle plan had been in place for over five years and if they would have cancelled it, it would “wipe out” five years of credit.
c. During three months of Covid, they took care of their mother and she paid for cable to watch the news. The Requestor submits that they do not have Roku and uses their mother’s Netflix subscription.
Findings on Issue 3
26The Board is not satisfied there is an error in relation to the characterization of the above-noted expenses as discretionary. The Requestor’s explanation for the car wash expenses (at $29 per month) and the motorcycle rental pan (at $38 per month) do not change the fact that they are discretionary expenses that are not required to meet the necessities of life and care.
27With respect to the Requestor’s submission that they did not pay for cable or streaming services, the Decision states that the Requestor testified that, among other things, they paid for the ongoing subscriptions to Netflix, Amazon, and Roku at $38 per month. The Requestor has not provided account statements or any other supporting evidence to support their assertion on this Request for Review. Accordingly, the Board will not interfere with the evidentiary finding in the Decision.
28This ground of review fails and the Board confirms that the Requestor incurred discretionary expenses of $1,260 in the 2021 year.
Relief
29Rule 103 provides that:
Upon considering a request for review, or on its own initiative, the Board may:
a. dismiss the request; or
b. after providing all parties an opportunity to make submissions:
i. confirm, vary, or cancel the decision; or
ii. order a rehearing on all or part of the matter.
30The Board has found there was a significant error of fact in relation to the Board’s finding that the Requestor had $3,976.10 available to pay taxes at the end of 2021, but confirms other elements of the Decision including the Board’s finding that the Requestor had a monthly income of $5,783 and paid discretionary expenses totaling $1,260 in 2021.
31The Requestor had $4,154.90 in taxes owing for 2021. The Requestor paid $1,260 in discretionary expenses. If the amount of taxes owing is reduced by what the Requestor incurred in discretionary expenses, that amounts to a shortfall of $2,894.90 in taxes owing for 2021.
32In the Decision, the Board found that the Requestor had $5,783 income per month, and that average monthly household expenses in 2021 were approximately $6,357 per month. Based on this evidence, the Board finds that the Requestor had a shortfall of over $500 per month in meeting non-discretionary living expenses. The Board is satisfied that the Requestor was unable to pay the shortfall of $2,894.90 in taxes owing for 2021.
33Next, the Board must make a finding as to whether the Requestor’s inability to pay is due to sickness or extreme poverty. Based on the facts enumerated in the Decision including the shortfall between the Requestor’s monthly income and expenses, as well as the materials provided by the Requestor on this Request for Review, the Board finds that the Requestor was unable to pay their 2021 taxes due to extreme poverty.
CONCLUSION
34The Board finds there is an error of fact that would likely have resulted in a different decision. Therefore, the Board grants this request for review.
ORDER
35The Board orders that the Requestor’s 2021 taxes of $4,154.90 be reduced by $2,894.90, which is the amount the Board has found the Requestor was unable to pay, representing total taxes of $1,260.00 for 2021.
"Carly Stringer"
CARLY STRINGER
MEMBER
Assessment Review Board
Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb