Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE: July 10, 2015

FILE NO.: WR 130694

Assessed Person(s): CFS Leasing Ltd.

Appellant(s): CFS Leasing Ltd.

Respondent(s): Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”), Region 23

Respondent(s): Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc

Property Location(s): 700 Wright Street

Municipality(ies): Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc

Roll Number(s): 3916-000-150-08098-0000

Complaint Number(s): 3001374

Taxation Year(s): 2013

Hearing Event No. 575731

Legislative Authority: Section 364.(24) of the Municipal Act, S. O. 2001, c. 25, as amended

Heard: February 10, 2015 in London, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel+/Representative
Complainant	Dorothy Gibbons
Municipality	William Dakin

DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY DAN WEAGANT

INTRODUCTION

1The subject property is a commercial building in the Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc. The property is part of an estate and the complainant contends that an application for vacant unit rebate, under s. 364 of the Municipal Act (“Act”’) had been filed with the Municipality for taxation years previous to 2013. The Municipality agrees the successful applications for vacant unit rebate had been filed in that past, but for the 2013 taxation year the application was filed after the deadline provided for in the Act for such applications.

2The Board must determine if the application for vacant unit rebate for the 2013 was made by the last day of February, 2014. If the Board determines that the application was made within the time limit prescribed by the Act, the Board must then determine the amount of the rebate owing to the applicant.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

3Ms. Gibbons is a representative of the estate that holds the title to the subject property. She testified that for the 2010, 2011 and 2012 taxation years, similar applications to the one in the complaint were filed with the Municipality and were successful in obtaining vacant unit rebates for those taxation years. Ms. Gibbons explained that the property has experienced chronic vacancy as a result of the ceasing of operations of a commercial enterprise in the building a few years ago.

4The estate, according to Ms. Gibbons entrusted the filing of these applications to a Mr. Norman Hobbs of Collins-Barrow, an accounting firm with an office in the area. For the 2013 taxation year however, Mr. Hobbs had either retired or was in the process of moving his practice to another person at Collins-Barrow. As a result, the 2013 application was filed by Mr. Schultze from the same firm. She understood that the application was sent to the wrong address originally and that through a re-direction process, the application was finally delivered to the Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc on March 6, 2014.

5Ms. Gibbons submits that, since the application was filed prior to the last day of February 2014, even though it went to the wrong address originally, it should be considered to have been made within the time period stipulated in the Act.

6Mr. Dakin submitted Exhibit 2, a copy of a letter issued by the Municipality on March 10, 2014, which serves to deny the application for vacant unit rebate. The Municipality cites two reasons for the denial. Firstly, the letter points out that: “Section 364(2) of the Municipal Act, 2001 states “the application shall be made to the local municipality by the last day of February of the year following the taxation year in respect of which the application is made…We received your application March 6, 2014.” Secondly, the letter explains that the application was not made on the prescribed form: “Please note that your application pertains to Section 8 of the Provincial Land Tax Act, 2006 and not Section 364 of the Municipal Act, 2001.”

7Attached to the denial letter in Exhibit 2 is a copy of the application form and attachments that were filed as part of the application. Mr. Dakin pointed out that the form used clearly indicated that it was being made under the Provincial Land Tax Act and not the Municipal Act. He noted also that the application was sent originally to the Ministry of Finance office in Thunder Bay, Ontario. Mr. Dakin testified that he understood that the Ministry of Finance office forwarded the application form and attachments to the Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc and that it was received on March 6, as indicated in the denial letter in Exhibit 2.

LEGISLATION

8In making its determination of this Complaint, the Board must consider s. 364 of the Municipal Act:

9Section 364.(1) of the Act states:

Vacant unit rebate

364. (1) Every local municipality shall have a program to provide tax rebates to owners of property that has vacant portions if that property is in any of the commercial classes or industrial classes, as defined in subsection 308 (1).

10Section 364.(2) of the Act states:

Requirements of program

364. (2) A tax rebate program under this section must meet the following requirements:

365. The program shall apply to eligible property as prescribed by the Minister of Finance for the purposes of this section.

366. If the property is in any of the commercial classes, the rebate shall be equal to 30 per cent of the taxes applicable to the eligible property, as determined under clause (12) (b).

367. If the property is in any of the industrial classes, the rebate shall be equal to 35 per cent of the taxes applicable to the eligible property, as determined under clause (12) (b).

368. An application may be made by or on behalf of the owner.

369. The application shall be made to the local municipality by the last day of February of the year following the taxation year in respect of which the application is made or such later date as the Minister of Finance may prescribe, either before or after the expiry of the time limit.

370. Unless otherwise prescribed by the Minister of Finance, an owner or a person on behalf of the owner shall submit one application for a taxation year, except that an interim application may be made for the first six months of the taxation year.

THE BOARD’S DELIBERATIONS

11The Municipal Act provides for vacant unit rebates where applicants who follow a prescribed process can recover a portion of their municipal property tax for a given year when a commercial or industrial property is wholly or partially vacant for a period of at least 90 days. There is no dispute among the parties as to the eligibility of the subject property for an application under this part of the Act. Eligibility of the same property had been considered and granted by the Municipality in previous taxation years and nothing has changed since.

12The dispute is the question of whether or not the application for vacant unit rebate was made “…to the local municipality by the last day of February of the year following the taxation year in respect of which the application is made…” The facts in evidence are that:

• An application was made, that was received by the Ministry of Finance on February 24, 2014;
• The Application was forwarded to the Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc and was received by them on March 6, 2014;
• The Application form used was for an application under s. 8 of the Provincial Land Tax Act.

13From the evidence it is clear that an application was made and that the application was made by the last day of February 2014. It is equally clear that the application was not made to the Municipality by the last day of February 2014. In addition, it is clear that the application itself was for a program within the Provincial Land Tax Act and not the vacant unit rebate program established by the Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc under s. 364.(1) of the Act.

14The Board finds that the application made by CFS Leasing was not made to the local municipality by the last day of February 2014. The Board also finds that the Municipality was correct in denying the application as it was not filed to them in time and was not filed as an application under s. 364 of the Municipal Act. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed.