Karey Lunau

The appellant, a religious organization, appealed a decision affirming that its properties, primarily used for tai chi classes, were not exempt from property tax as "places of worship" under the Assessment Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower courts' findings that the tai chi classes, while integral to the organization's religion, were not primarily "worship" from the perspective of the participants, and that a contemplative garden and sales area were also not tax-exempt.

The court emphasized an objective "primary purpose" test for tax exemptions, considering the intentions of participants, not solely the organizers.

A non-profit corporation operating a residence for families of children receiving medical treatment sought exemption from municipal property taxation under s. 3(1)11 of the Assessment Act.

The respondents disputed that the organization provided the “care of children” required by the statutory exemption.

The court held that although the organization did not directly provide childcare, its primary function constituted a “house of refuge” by offering shelter and support to families experiencing hardship while their children received medical treatment.

Interpreting the statutory language in its ordinary meaning and legislative context, the court concluded the facility provided refuge from distress and therefore qualified for the exemption.

The application for tax exemption was granted.

The applicant, a charitable non-profit corporation, sought a declaration that its 40-unit apartment building for low-income seniors was exempt from municipal taxation under s. 3(1) para. 12(iii) of the Assessment Act.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation opposed, arguing the applicant merely provided affordable housing rather than relieving poverty.

The court found that the term 'poor' is relative and not limited to the destitute.

Given the tenants' average and median incomes, which closely aligned with Statistics Canada's low-income cut-offs, the court concluded the residents were 'poor' within the meaning of the Act.

The application was allowed and the property was declared exempt from municipal taxation.

The applicant, a not-for-profit corporation providing short-term accommodation and transportation to First Nations individuals accessing medical services, sought an exemption from municipal taxation under s 3(1)-12 of the Assessment Act.

The applicant argued it was organized for the relief of the poor because its clients are overwhelmingly poor.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's primary purpose was to address problems of geography and access to medical services, not the relief of poverty.

An organization operating treatment and support centres for children sought a declaration that two properties were exempt from municipal property taxation under s. 3(1)6.1 of the Assessment Act.

The respondents argued that the exemption applied only to facilities formally designated by the Ministry of Community and Social Services as “Children’s Treatment Centers.” The court held that the legislation contained no definition requiring such designation and that the ordinary meaning of a children’s treatment centre governed.

Based on the evidence that the facilities primarily provided treatment to children and received provincial funding, the properties qualified for the exemption.

A declaration of tax exemption was granted.

The applicant sought property tax exemptions under s. 3(1), para. 23 of the Assessment Act for two amusement attractions at a waterpark, along with related pump houses and structures housing operational machinery.

The court interpreted the statutory exemption for “mechanical amusement devices on which a person rides,” considering the purpose of the exemption and principles of tax statute interpretation.

It held that a mechanically generated lazy river ride and wave pool qualified as mechanical amusement devices because patrons experience mechanically produced movement on the water.

However, buildings housing the pumps and equipment were not exempt, as they constituted buildings rather than machinery or equipment, though specific concrete foundations supporting machinery were exempt.

The court ordered amendments to the assessment roll and refunds of any taxes improperly levied.

A non-profit organization providing rehabilitation services and limited residential accommodation for individuals with brain injuries sought a declaration that its property was exempt from municipal taxation under the Assessment Act as a 'house of refuge'.

The applicant argued that the entire building qualified because it provided protection, support, and rehabilitation services to vulnerable individuals.

The court applied the primary purpose test and held that a 'house of refuge' within s. 3(1)11 of the Assessment Act refers to a residence where people live.

Because only one floor of the building provided residential accommodation while the majority of the premises was used for rehabilitation and administrative purposes, the property as a whole did not qualify for the exemption.

The application was dismissed, though the residential floor was recognized as exempt from taxation.