Application dismissed after tribunal found household takes in nearly $170,000 annually and holds tens of thousands of dollars in cash savings
A Sudbury couple who asked the city to forgive their $6,300 property tax bill due to sickness and “extreme poverty” had their claim rejected after an administrative tribunal revealed their household takes in nearly $170,000 a year and holds tens of thousands of dollars in cash savings.
In a ruling released on July 31, the Assessment Review Board (ARB) dismissed the application filed by a resident known only as S.O., who co-owns a local home with partner P.O., under section 357(1)(d.1) of Ontario’s Municipal Act. The provision allows municipalities to cancel, reduce, or refund property taxes for owners experiencing an inability to pay caused by extreme poverty or sickness.
While the tribunal acknowledged that S.O. provided sufficient medical records to prove a qualifying chronic health condition under the legal definition of “sickness,” adjudicator Karin Howard ruled that the couple’s financial reality was nowhere near the threshold of poverty.
According to evidence presented during the hearing (and detailed in court documents), the Sudbury household had a substantial financial cushion during the 2024 tax year.
The court documents state that under Ontario tribunal precedents, the Extreme Poverty Income Cut-off (EPIC) for a family of four in Greater Sudbury sits at $28,475 per year (defined as 75 per cent of Canada’s official Market Basket Measure threshold). When factoring in sickness, the threshold shifts to 100 per cent of the Market Basket Measure, which for Greater Sudbury is $37,967.
The couple’s actual income exceeded those lines by more than $140,000.
The tribunal noted that the couple’s claimed financial hardship stemmed not from a lack of income, but from high personal expenditure choices.
While their $146,580 in annual living costs covered essentials like mortgage payments and utilities, it also included debt servicing for lifestyle expenses such as pool and spa payments totalling $3,600 per month, as well as automotive loans and entertainment.
“Financial qualification is strictly objective,” the board stated in its decision, noting that discretionary consumer debt or high spending choices resulting from past financial decisions cannot be used to justify a claim of poverty.
According to the documents, even after accounting for all personal expenses, loan repayments, and discretionary spending, the couple was left with an annual net surplus of $23,148—more than three times the value of their unpaid $6,300 municipal tax bill.
Additionally, their chequing account held $28,500 in liquid cash, leaving nearly $25,000 in net available funds even after subtracting the allowable cashflow safety reserve.
The board ruled that experiencing sickness does not automatically exempt a property owner from municipal tax obligations if the household maintains the financial capacity to pay, and ordered the homeowners to pay the bill.