Y.J. v. City of Niagara Falls, 2025 CanLII 70999

Tribunals Ontario - Assessment Review Board

ISSUE DATE: July 16, 2025

FILE NO.: WR 188247

Assessed Person(s): Y.J.; Y.C.

Appellant(s): Y.J.; Y.C.

Respondent(s): City of Niagara Falls

Property Location(s): Address Withheld

Municipality(ies): City of Niagara Falls

Roll Number(s): Roll Number Withheld

Appeal Number(s): 3527670

Taxation Year(s): 2023

Hearing Event No.: 786493

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

APPEARANCES:

Parties Y.J.; Y.C.

Counsel/Representative Self-represented

Parties City of Niagara Falls

Counsel/Representative Amber Ferguson; Nidhi Punyarthi

HEARD: December 5, 2024 and March 21, 2025 by video conference

ADJUDICATOR(S): Anita Lovrich, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1Y.J. and Y.C. (the “Applicants”) filed an application with the City of Niagara Falls (“City”) to have their 2023 property taxes cancelled, reduced or refunded because they were unable to pay due to either sickness or extreme poverty, pursuant to s. 357(1)(d1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25 (“Act”).

2The City has passed a by-law, delegating its authority to determine such applications to the Assessment Review Board (“Board”) under s. 357(11) of the Act.

Issues for the Hearing

3At issue in this proceeding is whether the Applicants’ 2023 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:

1. Issue 1: Were the Applicants unable to pay their 2023 property taxes?
2. Issue 2: If the answer to Issue 1 is yes, were they unable to pay because of either sickness or extreme poverty?
3. Issue 3: If the answer to Issue 2 is also yes, what amount of property taxes should be cancelled, reduced, or refunded?

Result

4The Board finds that the Applicants were unable to pay their property taxes because of sickness or extreme poverty in the 2023 taxation year in the amount of $8,307.94.

ANALYSIS

Issue 1 – Were the Applicants unable to pay their property taxes in 2023?

Property Tax Balance

5It was not disputed that the property taxes levied on the Applicants’ home for the 2023 taxation year was $8,307.94. The Applicants made payments totaling $4,057.48 in 2023 and the outstanding balance of the Applicants’ property taxes for 2023 is $4,250.46.

Income

6It was undisputed that the annual household employment income was $8,932.51; and that the Applicants received $14,490 in employment insurance benefits, $17,731.08 from ODSP, and $11,535.28 in various government program payments.

7The Applicants’ household received $5,310.65 in 2023 from the Canada Child Benefit, and $20,000 in 2023 in a personal injury settlement payment. The City argued these amounts should be counted as income. Y.J., who testified at the hearing, contested including the Canada Child Benefit and the legal settlement as income. She testified that the settlement was a one-time payment and was for medical expenses and medical treatments and should not be considered as income. She also testified that she believes that the funds from the settlement were used to pay part of a line of credit.

8The City’s position is that the average monthly income is $6,499.96. The Applicants’ position is that the average monthly income is $4,390.73.

Expenses

9It was undisputed that the average monthly household expenses incurred by the Applicants in 2023 were approximately $10,845 as follows.

a. Mortgage: $1,640.75 b. Property taxes: $338.12 c. Home insurance: $102.58 d. Water $53.43 e. Heat $95.02 f. Hydro $17.51 g. Home telephone $13.41 h. Cellphone $33.90 i. Internet $69.52 j. Groceries: $891.05 k. Outside meals: $31.21 l. Payments to Credit cards and Lines of Credit Principals: $4,538.21 m. Interest on credit cards/lines of credit: $496.32 n. Car insurance: $109.50 o. Life insurance: $101.61 p. Car fuel: $99.75 q. Car maintenance: $35.88 r. Car loan payments: $834.76 s. Clothing: $152.62 t. Recreation/entertainment: $112.88 u. Monthly fees to maintain international patents $318.75 v. Other (including, dental, and other phone payments): $758.67

10Y.J. testified that the Applicants pay several international maintenance fees relating to patents for green technology that her spouse had developed as the Applicants hope that this will generate income in the future.

Assets

11It was undisputed that at the end of 2023, the Applicants had total bank balances of $5,617.46. It was also not disputed that the Applicants property was assessed at $552,000 as of January 1, 2016.

12The Applicants own a 2015 model vehicle purchased for approximately $48,000 in 2018. Y.J. testified that it is a 2015 model that is damaged in a few places and they have not been able to afford to fix it. Y.J. estimates the value of the vehicle at $8,000. The City believed it was a 2018 model and estimated the value to be $18,000 based on sales of similar 2018 models.

13The Applicants property is assessed by MPAC at $552,000 as of the valuation day of January 1, 2016. The City estimated the value of the home to be $1,200,000 as of 2023 on the basis of what the City deemed some comparable sales. The analysis was conducted by a City employee who was not a qualified assessor.

14Y.J. submits that, as per T.I. v Toronto (City), 2020 CanLII 24875 (ON ARB), the Board should consider the assessed value to be the value of the property. In that decision, the Board found:

[25] I am not persuaded that the Board should depart from its practice of relying on the assessed value of the property on the roll. If the City’s perspective is that MPAC systematically undervalues properties, then it is open to the City to appeal the assessed value of properties. This is especially the case here where the City might have reasonably anticipated that this would be an issue at the hearing when the Applicant had previously applied for tax refunds.

15The City states that the value of the Applicants’ assets as of the end of 2023 is $1,223,617.46.

16The Applicants state that the value of the Applicants’ assets as of the end of 2023 is $565,617.46.

Liabilities

17It was undisputed that the Applicants had the following debts outstanding as of the end of 2023:

a. Car loan: $5,008.56 b. Mortgage: $19,689 c. Lines of Credit: $54,458.47

18Y.J. testified that she had an additional debt of $16,373.37 for a student loan that she had forgotten to provide documentation for. She submits that her total liabilities as of the end of 2023 amount to $95,529.40.

19The City argued that the Applicants had not submitted any documentation to substantiate the existence of the student loan. Its position is that the Applicants’ total liabilities at the end of 2023 amounts to $79,156.03.

Sickness

Applicants

20Y.J. testified that she and her spouse were both working before her spouse’s sickness. She states that in 2022, her husband’s optic nerve was severely damaged due to glaucoma; that he is legally blind; and that he may never recover. She testified that this has impacted his ability to work and that she had to leave her employment to take care of him. She says that this has impacted their ability to generate income.

City

21The City did not dispute Y.C.’s sickness, nor that he has been unable to work since the onset of his sickness.

City Submissions

22The City states that portions of the Applicants’ income was allocated to discretionary spending (such as a private tennis membership and lessons at an elite tennis club, paying international patent maintenance fees, and leasing a Mercedes instead of another kind of less expensive vehicle). The City submits that if funds were allocated to paying property taxes instead of the discretionary expenses listed above, the Applicants could have paid their property taxes for the year fully. The City therefore submits that the Applicants were able to pay their property taxes for 2023.

23The City states that the application should be dismissed as the Applicants had room for manoeuvring with respect to their finances, citing Tabak v Regional Assessment Commissioner, [1997] OMBD No 223, 34 O.M.B.R. 398, [1997] O.MB.D No 223 at paragraph 12 where the Board held:

The Board therefore finds that the applicant is not in extreme poverty as intended by the Act. Further, the Board finds that the applicant has some limited room for manoeuvring and that therefore, the poverty of the applicant cannot be considered as rendering him unable to pay taxes.

24The City also relies on V.R. v Mississauga (City), 2021 CanLII 80771 (ON ARB) where the Board held:

The Board has widely held that property taxes must hold a place of priority with respect to the money spent by a household over the course of a given taxation year. The Board has also held that, in order to determine if applicants are able to pay taxes, those payments are to be made once all costs associated with the reasonable necessities of life and care of those resident at the subject property are covered.

Applicants’ Submissions

25The Applicants submit they have a significant shortfall in their net income monthly since Y.C. has fallen ill. Although they had some funds in their bank account at the end of 2023, this balance includes the end-of-month Ontario Disability Support Program payment, while their monthly mortgage and insurance payments are deducted mid-month. Furthermore, basic living expenses such as food, utilities, gas, and car loan payments have not yet been paid. Therefore, they submit that this balance represents the amount before these essential expenses, which have been earmarked for payment, are deducted.

26The Applicants state that they have consulted with their banking institution about the possibility of increasing their mortgage but were told that the bank would likely be unable to approve such a loan application given their circumstances. The Applicants submit that if they are forced to sell the property or increase the mortgage to pay property taxes, it would compromise the security and stability of their living environment, severely impacting Y.C.’s quality of life and independence.

27Y.J. relies on the Board’s decision in T.I. v Toronto (City), 2020 CanLII 24875 (ON ARB) where the Board found that the Applicant was unable to pay property taxes due to sickness. In that decision, the Board held:

Based on the evidence before me, I find that the Applicant was unable to pay his 2018 property taxes despite his extremely careful and scrupulous management of his finances. The Applicant demonstrated that he made every reasonable effort to pay his property taxes, indeed the Applicant exceeded what was reasonable as he went without many of the basic necessities of life including medication.

I find that the Applicant’s inability to pay was due to his sickness. As a result of this sickness, he was not able to work and was limited to the very low revenue stream provided by his ODSP payments. He therefore lacked the ability to pay his 2018 property taxes.

Findings on Issue 1

28The parties had a number of disputes as to the correct average monthly income, whether certain expenses are discretionary, as well as the values of certain assets and liabilities.

29The City’s position is that the Applicants’ average monthly income is $6,499.96. The Applicants’ position is that the average monthly income is $4,390.73. There was no dispute that the average monthly expenses of the Applicants for 2023 were approximately $10,845.45. However, the City’s position is that, of this amount, $112.88 in recreation and $318.75 in monthly fees to maintain international patents are discretionary expenses, which leaves $10,395.80 as non-discretionary expenses. The Board notes that, as per its calculations, this amount should be $10,413.82 based on $10,845.45 in average monthly expenses.

30The Board finds that, even if it were to rule in the City’s favor with respect to every issue in dispute (apart from its submission that the Applicants should have chosen a less expensive car loan option, as the City adduced no evidence as to what an alternative auto loan payment should be so the Board cannot make a determination on this point) – after all non-discretionary expenses, as highlighted by the City, there is still a shortfall each month of over $3,000.

31The Board accepts Y.J.’s evidence that the Applicants’ bank balances at the end of December 2023 included funds earmarked for their mortgage payment and other monthly expenses in January 2024, including mortgage payments, insurance payments, and basic living expenses such as food, utilities, gas, and car loan payments. The Board accepts this evidence, and as per J.O. v Mississauga (City), 2023 CanLII 19280 (ON ARB). In this case, the evidence of $5,617.46 in the Applicants’ bank account at the end of December 2023 does not support the Applicants’ ability to pay their 2023 property taxes.

32The Board also accepts Y.J.’s testimony that the Applicants consulted with their banking institution about the possibility of increasing their mortgage but were told that the bank would likely be unable to approve such a loan application given their circumstances.

33The evidence before the Board indicates that after all non-discretionary household expenses were paid, the Applicants did not have enough financial resources to pay their outstanding property taxes in 2023.

Issue 2 - Was the reason the Applicants were unable to pay either sickness or extreme poverty?

34There was no dispute that the Y.C. was sick in 2023; that he was unable to work as a result of this sickness; and that Y.J. had to care for him due to his sickness, which impacted her ability to earn income The Board accepts this uncontested evidence, and finds that the Applicants could not pay their municipal taxes because of sickness.

Issue 3 - If the answer to Issue 2 is also yes, what amount of property taxes should be cancelled, reduced, or refunded?

35It was not disputed that the property taxes levied on the Applicants’ home for 2023 taxation year was $8,307.94, that payments totaling $4,057.48 were made in 2023, and the balance of the Applicants’ property taxes for 2023 was $4,250.46.

36The Board finds that the Applicants were able to pay the portion of their property taxes that they did in fact pay. The Board also finds that the Applicants were unable to pay the portion of their property taxes that was unpaid and outstanding, which amounts to $4,250.48.

CONCLUSION

37The Board finds that the Applicants were unable to pay their property taxes in the 2023 taxation year in the amount of $8,307.94.

ORDER

38The Board orders that the Applicants’ 2023 property taxes of $8,307.94 be cancelled.