Tribunals Ontario
Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario
Assessment Review Board
Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière
ISSUE DATE:
September 21, 2023
Assessed Person(s):
S.J.; V.J.
Applicant(s):
S.J.
Respondent(s):
City of Toronto
Property Location(s):
Address Withheld
Municipality(ies):
City of Toronto
Roll Number(s):
Roll Number Withheld
Appeal Number(s):
3509255
Taxation Year(s):
2022
Hearing Event No.:
781769
Legislative Authority:
Section 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel*/Representative
S.J.
Self-represented
City of Toronto
Amy Tieu*; Barry Henaut
HEARD:
September 15, 2023, by telephone conference call
ADJUDICATOR(S):
Margarita Okhovati, Member
DECISION
OVERVIEW
1S.J. (the “Applicant”) filed an application with the City of Toronto (the “City”) to have her 2022 property taxes cancelled, reduced or refunded because they were unable to pay, due either to sickness or extreme poverty, under section 323(1)(e) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A.
2The City has passed a by-law delegating its authority to determine such applications to the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”).
Background
3The Applicant is 76 years old and married to V.J who is 82 years old. Both are retired. S.J. testified that she stopped working in 2006 at which time her income seized. In 2018, she had kidney transplant and both she and her husband V.J. are diabetic. They have two children, who live separately however, they assist their parents financially whenever they need it.
Issues for the Hearing
4The issue in this proceeding is whether the Applicant’s 2022 property taxes should be cancelled, reduced or refunded because of their inability to pay, due to sickness or extreme poverty. This requires the Board to determine:
if the Applicant was unable to pay the 2022 property taxes;
if the Board determines she was unable to pay her property taxes, the Board must then determine if the reason she was unable to pay was either sickness or extreme poverty; and
if the Board determines she was unable to pay 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
5Based on the evidence before it, the Board finds that the Applicant has failed to demonstrate that she was unable to pay the property taxes levied in 2022. Therefore, the Board dismisses this application.
ANALYSIS
Issue 1 – Was the Applicant unable to pay the property taxes levied in 2022?
6The Applicant submitted copies of three bank account statements. In 2022, the Applicant’s household income, based on the Financial Information form was $2,657.70, which came from Canada Pension Plan (“CPP”), Old Age Security (“OAS”) and employment insurance. The City noted that based on the documentary evidence, the additional incomes of $2,980 from Manulife Insurance company deposited in S.J.’s account, approximately $3,023.73 deposited in the V.J.’s account from Federal Government, and significant unexplained deposits of approximately $13,000 in V.J.’s checking account were not reported by the Applicant in the Financial Information Form.
7Average monthly expenses of the Applicant incurred in 2022 were approximately $2,931.37 and are summarized as follows:
EXPENSES
Mortgage:
$388.04
Property tax:
$200.00
Home insurance:
$46.90
Water:
$69.54
Hydro:
$190.94
Internet/ cable:/land line
$164.31
Cell phones:
$48.00
Groceries
$500.00
House supplies:
$200.00
Transit
$100.00
Interest on credit card:
$19.39
Meals outside:
$200.00
Car insurance, gas and repair:
$406.70
Clothing:
$125.00
Traffic tickets:
$32.00
Medicine:
$100.00
Life insurance:
$69.55
Water heater rental:
$75.00
NET TOTAL
Income Total
$2,657.70
Expenses Total
$2,935.37
Net Total
-$277.67
8The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation’s (“MPAC”) estimated value of the subject property for the 2022 taxation year is $594,000. The City submitted that in 2022, the average price of similar properties sold in the vicinity of the subject property was over a million dollars. S.J. stated that she was aware of this fact however, her property was not renovated. She stated that her property’s value was $850,000.
9The following tables detail the Applicant’s assets and liabilities in 2022.
ASSETS
Subject property:
$850,000
Life insurance:
$25,000.00
Chequing account:
$10,023.00
Car:
$3,000.00
Assets Total:
$888,023.00
LIABILITIES
Mortgage owing
$20,786.44
Credit card balance:
$744.04
Liabilities Total:
$21,530.48
10Subtracting the Applicant’s total liabilities of $21,530.48 from their total assets of $888,023 results in a total net worth of $866,492.52 for the 2022 taxation year.
11The City’s position is to dismiss the application because in 2022, the Applicant was able to manage her finances. The 2022 property taxes are $4,454.40. The City stated that based on the documentary evidence and oral testimony, the Applicant did not have to sacrifice the necessities of life to pay her property taxes for the following reason:
As of December 31, 2022, the Applicant had $10,023 in her and V.J.’s accounts.
There was additional income of $6,000 deposited in S.J.’s account by Toronto Dominion bank, $3,23.73 deposited in V.J. account by the Federal Government, plus approximately $13,000 unexplained amount was deposited in V.J.’s account as well, none of which were listed in the Financial Information Form.
There was $13,000 line of credit available to S.J. which could have been used to pay the property taxes.
In 2022, V.J. paid $10,877 to MJR Capital to clear and close an old credit card which could be paid towards the property taxes.
The Applicant had $827,000 equity in the home. She could have accessed it to pay the property taxes.
V.J. had a joint checking account with his son. Based on his testimony, he could withdraw cash from the account whenever he needed to do so.
There are significant discretionary expenditures incurred by the Applicants which could have been applied towards their property taxes.
Findings on Issue 1- Ability to Pay
12The Board notes that the monthly income as reported, is approximately $277.67 less than the monthly expenses incurred by the Applicant in 2022. This figure is after paying their monthly mortgage of $388.04 and credit card debt of $10,877as mentioned above. Board notes that based on the documentary evidence, S.J. had $25,000 of life insurance, $13,000 credit available to her in her credit card and approximately $827,000 equity in their home. The Applicant could have accessed and used these amounts to add to their monthly income. Moreover, as the City stated, the Applicant had the financial support of her children whenever she needed it. In the opinion of the Board, not only did the Applicant and V.J not cut from the necessities of life, but they were able to maintain their lives as they wanted, by spending $2,440 per year on food delivery and eating outside in addition of $6,000 on groceries, $2,400 donation to the church, $1,200 on cleaning lady and $760 for services of a gardener, $834.60 on life insurance and approximately $14,000 for renovating their kitchen. This indicates to the Board that the Applicant is not in a negative situation when it comes to poverty.
13In M.M.U. v. Toronto (City), 2015 (“M.M.U.”),at paragraph 21, 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 his expenditures is left with no means of being able to pay some or all of their property tax.
14M.M.U. is instructive in this case. It requires an Applicant to make use of the resources available to first address their expenses relating to the necessities of life and to maintaining their property. In this case the Applicant has demonstrated that she was able to draw on her own resources and those of family as a means of meeting her and her husband’s financial obligations throughout 2022.
15The Board finds therefore that the Applicant has failed to demonstrate that she was unable to pay the property taxes levied in 2022.
16Having decided that the Applicant was able to pay the property taxes in 2022, the Board has no reason to consider whether the Applicant was in a condition of sickness or extreme poverty.
ORDER
17The Board orders that the application for reduction, cancellation or refund of the 2022 property taxes is dismissed.
"Margarita Okhovati"
MARGARITA OKHOVATI
MEMBER
Assessment Review Board
Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb