Tribunals Ontario

Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: January 08, 2026

FILE NO.: WR 189592

Assessed Person(s): S.A.B.; D.L.B; A.B. Estate

Applicant(s): S.A.B.

Respondent(s): City of Mississauga

Property Location(s): Address Withheld

Municipality(ies): City of Mississauga

Roll Number(s): Roll Number Withheld

Appeal Number(s): 3531276

Taxation Year(s): 2024

Hearing Event No.: 790165

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

APPEARANCES:

Parties

S.A.B.

Counsel/Representative

Self-represented

Parties

City of Mississauga

Counsel/Representative

Sean Doyle

HEARD: November 17, 2025 by video conference

ADJUDICATOR(S): Hayleigh Cudmore, Member; Rema EL-Tawil, Member

DECISION

OVERVIEW

The Application

1S.A.B. (the “Applicant”) filed an application with the City of Mississauga (the “City”) pursuant to s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25 (the “Act”) to have her property taxes for the 2024 taxation year cancelled, reduced, or refunded because she was unable to pay because of sickness or extreme poverty. The Applicant provided submissions on both extreme poverty and sickness.

2The City has passed a by-law delegating its authority to determine such applications to the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”). The application was heard by the Board on November 17, 2025. The City appeared at the hearing and did not make recommendations on the application.

Issues for the Hearing

3Section 357(1)(d.1) of the Act imposes three specific conditions to qualify for relief: (i) the taxpayer must be ‘unable to pay’ taxes; (ii) because of ‘sickness’; or (iii) because of ‘extreme poverty’.

4On December 11, 2025, the Board issued a Review Decision in M.A.N. v Hamilton (City), 2025 CanLII 128556 (ON ARB) (“M.A.N.”) which examines the meaning of ‘poverty’, ‘extreme poverty’ and ‘unable to pay’ and identifies an objective method for applying s. 357(1)(d.1) to ensure both objectivity and consistency when adjudicating Inability to Pay applications/appeals. Although the parties did not have the benefit of this decision at the time of the hearing, the Board will comment on its application to the current case, generally.

Result

5The Board finds that the Applicant failed to demonstrate she was unable to pay her 2024 property taxes because of sickness or extreme poverty. The application is dismissed.

ANALYSIS

Applicable Law

6Section 357(1)(d.1) of the Act states:

357.(1) Upon application to the treasurer of a local municipality made in accordance with this section, the local municipality may cancel, reduce or refund all or part of taxes levied on land in the year in respect of which the application is made if,

(d.1) the applicant is unable to pay taxes because of sickness or extreme poverty;

Evidence and Submissions

7The City provided evidence that it levied $6,673.88 in taxes for 2024, which was paid in full by the Applicant.

8The Applicant testified that she earned an annual income $24,707. This amount was not disputed. The Applicant’s Notice of Assessment provided that she paid income taxes of $1,440 in 2024.

9The Applicant submitted evidence with respect to her non-discretionary expenses which includes food, utilities, insurance, car and household expenses and maintenance, medical expenses, membership fees, and pet care expenses. The evidence before the Board is that the Applicant’s non-discretionary spending was between $26,000 and $32,000 yearly.

10Based on the evidence provided, the Board found no indication that the Applicant had discretionary expenses beyond a minimal amount, and the City took no issue with the Applicant’s expenses.

11The Applicant’s credit cards are generally paid off in full monthly, however, there was an outstanding balance of $1,744.05 and $3,390.34 on her two credits cards as of December 31, 2024.

12The Applicant testified that she had a chequing and a savings account and provided statements for these accounts. The Applicant testified that she moved money from her savings to her chequing as needed to cover her expenses. Her savings account in 2024 had opening and closing balances of $8,409.80 and $2,134.96, respectively, indicating a yearly shortfall of around $6,275 (rounded).

13The Applicant is the only occupant of the Subject Property. The Applicant testified that she holds ownership of the Subject Property with her mother (deceased) whose name remained on title in 2024, and her brother in equal shares. The Applicant testified to the difficulty leveraging her equity in the home given the three names on title, including removing her mother’s name and dealing with her estranged brother.

14There is no mortgage on the Subject Property.

15The City submitted that the Subject Property is worth around $1,000,000.

16The Applicant provided oral evidence of a Registered Retirement Income Fund (“RRIF”) with a balance of $33,800.51 on June 30, 2025. Her testimony further indicated her RRIF was converted from a Registered Retirement Savings Plan (“RRSP”) in 2025, with the first payment of $1,761,63 paid to the Applicant in June 2025.

17The Applicant provided evidence and testified that has Stage 3 Lymphoma. Her testimony also included that this was untreatable. The Applicant provided evidence showing medical bills of approximately $350 annually, and the Applicant gave no other submissions on her sickness.

Findings

18The M.A.N. decision dictates that the ‘extreme poverty’ qualification must be considered first before ‘inability to pay’. The same reading the legislation would apply to the ‘sickness’ qualification being considered before ‘inability to pay’.

19For purposes of applying s. 357(1)(d.1), in M.A.N. the Board adopted a test for ‘extreme poverty’ based on the Market Basket Measure (“MBM”), which is Canada’s Official Poverty Line, and the Extreme Poverty Income Cutoffs (“EPIC”) , which is the ‘extreme poverty’ line, or 75% of the MBM. These data sets are published by Statistics Canada. The numbers are adjusted for household size and location. The relevant measures that’s apply to the Applicant are as follows:

Toronto Area total cost MBM $30,239 Toronto Area EPIC $22,679

20The Applicant’s disposable income ($24,707-$1,440= $23,267) is very close to the extreme poverty mark of $22,679. Fully applying the M.A.N. decision, there would also be adjustments and considerations for made for property taxes, medical expenses and shelter costs. Because the parties did not have the benefit of the M.A.N. decision at the time of the hearing, for the purposes of this Application, the Board will accept that the Applicant meets the definition of ‘extreme poverty’ without a deeper analysis and a full application of the formula outlined in M.A.N.

21Because the Board is accepting that the Applicant meets the ‘extreme poverty’ test, no further analysis is needed on the Applicant’s ‘sickness’.

22The Board must now consider whether the Applicant’s assets indicate that she has an ability to pay the municipal taxes.

23Based on the oral testimony provided regarding the balance of her RRIF in June of 2025, it is reasonable for the Board to conclude that the Applicant had around $35,000 in her RRSP in 2024 before the account was converted into a RRIF in 2025.

24The Board finds that the Applicant was able to pay her property taxes in 2024. Even given the depletion in her savings over the course of the year, and that her end of year credit card balance exceeded her savings, the Applicant had roughly $35,000 in an RRSP in 2024. No evidence was provided as to why this amount could not be accessed by the Applicant.

25In summary, even if it is assumed that the Applicant meets the extreme poverty qualification, her asset holdings at year end establishes that she had equity in her RRSP that she could liquify to pay the full amount of the municipal taxes owing.

26The Board notes that the since the Applicant’s brother is also an owner of the Subject Property, in general, his income and assets must be considered when making a determination of this Application. As an owner, he is shown as a taxpayer on the tax roll, and, for purpose of tax collection, each taxpayer is liable to pay the municipal taxes. Considering the Board’s finding that the Applicant is able to pay, it is unnecessary to consider the brother’s financial information. However, for any future s. 357(1)(d.1) applications, his financial information would be relevant, if he remains as an owner on title.

CONCLUSION

27The Board finds that the Applicant has failed to demonstrate that she was unable to pay the property taxes levied in 2024 because of sickness or extreme poverty.

ORDER

28The Board orders that this application be dismissed.