Tribunals Ontario

Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario

Assessment Review Board

Commission de révision de l’évaluation foncière

ISSUE DATE:

January 11, 2023

FILE NO.:

RD 22-002

Assessed Person(s):

2198806 Ontario Inc.

Appellant(s):

2198806 Ontario Inc.

Respondent(s):

City of Windsor

Property Location(s):

250 Dougall Avenue

Municipality(ies):

City of Windsor

Roll Number(s):

3739-040-050-00700-0000

Appeal Number(s):

3274175 and 3329157

Taxation Year(s):

2016 and 2017

Legislative Authority:

Rules 101-103 of the Assessment Review Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure

Parties

Counsel

2198806 Ontario Inc.

Joseph Jebreen and Scott McAnsh

City of Windsor

John L. O’Kane

REQUEST FOR:

A review of the Board’s Decision WR 167643 issued on December 16, 2021

HEARD:

In writing

ADJUDICATOR(S):

Christopher Voutsinas, Vice-Chair

DECISION

OVERVIEW

1On January 14, 2022, 2198806 Ontario Inc. (the “Company”), filed a Request for Review with the Assessment Review Board (the “Board”) respecting the Board’s decision in 2198806 Ontario Inc. v Windsor (City), 2021 CanLII 132950 (ON ARB), issued on December 16, 2021 (the “Decision”). The Decision bears the number WR 167643.

The Decision

2The Decision is in respect of appeals for the 2016 and 2017 taxation years filed by the owner of the property located at 250 Dougall Avenue, in the City of Windsor (the “City”), a nine-storey hotel (the “Subject Property”) that underwent significant demolition and renovation during parts of the 2016 and 2017 taxation years. The hotel operated at reduced capacity until May 1, 2016, at which time it was fully closed to complete the demolition and renovations. It reopened on or about November 23, 2017.

3The appeals filed by the Company relate to requests for tax relief or tax rebate (generally referred to herein as tax relief) under s. 357 and s. 364 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25 (the “Act”).

4Section 364 of the Act, entitled “Vacant unit rebate”, states that: “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…”. Whereas s. 357 of the Act, entitled “Cancellation, reduction, refund of taxes”, states that:

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) during the year or during the preceding year after the return of the assessment roll, a building on the land, (i) was razed by fire, demolition or otherwise, or (ii) was damaged by fire, demolition or otherwise so as to render it substantially unusable for the purposes for which it was used immediately prior to the damage…

5For ease of reference, s. 364 and s. 357 are reproduced in full in the addendum attached hereto as Attachment 1.

6The Company sought and received property tax relief from the City for the 2016 taxation year pursuant to s. 364 and s. 357 of the Act, and for the 2017 taxation year pursuant to only s. 357 of the Act. In response to the City’s decisions, the Company filed a complaint with the Board under s. 364(14) for the 2016 taxation year. However, the Company did not appeal the City’s s. 357 decision for the 2016 taxation year. For the 2017 taxation year, the Company filed a demolition or repair/renovation appeal under s. 357.

7The Company sought to have the Board increase the quantum of relief for both the 2016 and 2017 taxation years. The Company argued that for the 2016 taxation year, the Board ought to, in effect, create an appeal pursuant to s. 357(1) of the Act because it was relying on its pleadings as though it had made an appeal under that section of the Act, and if not, the Board should vary the rebate granted by the City under s. 364 of the Act. For the 2017 taxation year, the Company argued the quantum of relief should be increased under s. 357(1)(d)(ii), damage by demolition, or s. 357(1)(g), repairs or renovations.

8The Hearing Member addressed several issues in the Decision including the following.

1. For the 2016 taxation year:

a) Is there an appeal pursuant to s. 357 of the Act before the Board?

b) If not, should the Board vary the amount of the rebate granted by the City under s. 364 of the Act?

2. For the 2017 taxation year:

a) Is the Property eligible for relief pursuant to s. 357(1)(d)(ii) due to damage by demolition or otherwise?

b) Is the Property eligible for relief under s. 357(1)(g), repairs and renovation?

c) If the taxpayer does not qualify for relief under s. 357, can the Board consider relief pursuant to s. 364?

9In the Decision, the Hearing Member found that:

• for the 2016 taxation year, there is no proper s. 357 appeal before the Board, nor can the Board consider a s. 357 appeal (that was not made) in the context of a s. 364 complaint (that was made); and

• for the 2017 taxation year, there is no eligibility for relief under s. 357(1)(d)(ii) and s. 357(1)(g) of the Act, and that the Board cannot consider relief pursuant to s. 364 of the Act.

10For the findings in connection with the 2016 taxation year, the Hearing Member’s Decision is based on the following reasons: (i) the Company did not, in fact, appeal the City’s s. 357 decision and (ii) that the Act does not permit the Board to make a determination for relief pursuant to s. 357 when no notice of appeal was filed in accordance with s. 357(7). Further, there is no provision of the Act that would allow the Board to enlarge its authority under s. 364, the complaint received, to create an appeal pursuant to s. 357, an appeal that was not made by the Company.

11For the findings in connection with the 2017 taxation year, the Hearing Member’s Decision is based on the following reasons: (i) the Property does not qualify for relief under s. 357(1)(d)(ii) because the demolition which caused it to be substantially unusable occurred prior to 2017, (ii) that the property was eligible for a rebate under s. 364 of the Act (though no such request was made) and that the property is not eligible for tax relief under s. 357(1)(g); (iii) that there is no s. 364 complaint before the Board as the Company did not file an application to the City or a complaint to the Board under this section for 2017, and (iv) that the Board does not have the jurisdiction to create such a complaint.

Relevant Rules

12In considering whether to grant a Request for Review submitted pursuant to Rule 101 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”), the test to be applied is whether the requestor has established any of the grounds set out in Rule 102 which states:

Grounds for Review

102. A request for review will not be granted unless the Board is satisfied that:

(a) the Board acted outside its jurisdiction or violated the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness;

(b) the Board made a significant error of law or fact such that the Board would likely have reached a different decision;

(c) the Board heard false or misleading evidence from a party or witness, which was discovered only after the hearing and would have affected the result; or

(d) there is new evidence that could not have reasonably been obtained earlier and have affected the result.

13The Board’s powers in considering a request for review are set out in Rule 103 which states:

Review Order

103. Upon considering a request for review, or on its own initiative, the Board may:

(a) dismiss the request; or

(b) after providing all parties an opportunity to make submissions:

i. confirm, vary, or cancel the decision; or

ii. order a rehearing on all or part of the matter.

The Request for Review: Grounds and Alleged Errors

14In the Request for Review, the Company requests that the Board vary the Decision to address the quantum of relief pursuant to s. 357(1)(d)(ii) of the Act for both the 2016 and 2017 taxation years.

15In overview, the Company cites the following grounds in support of the request:

1. the Decision violates the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness; and,

2. the Board made significant errors of law or fact such that the Board would likely have reached a different decision.

Specifically, the following three errors are outlined in the Request for Review.

1. for the 2016 taxation year, the Board erred in finding that it cannot make a determination for tax relief pursuant to s. 357;

2. for the 2017 taxation year, the Board erred in its interpretation of s. 357(1)(d)(ii); and,

3. for the 2017 taxation year, the Board erred by splitting a multistage demolition and rebuilding project over two taxation years into demolition that meets the statutory threshold and demolition that does not.

16Per the above, Rule 102 grounds for review (a) and (b) are engaged.

17The Board requested and received submissions from the Parties.

Issues for the Review

18The issues to be addressed in this Request for Review are as follows. Did the Board err:

1. In finding that it cannot make a determination for tax relief pursuant to s. 357 for the 2016 taxation year.

2. In its interpretation of s. 357(1)(d)(ii) for the 2017 taxation year.

3. By splitting a multistage demolition and rebuilding project over two taxation years into demolition that meets the statutory threshold and demolition that does not.

4. And if so, in any of the above, what is the corresponding impact on tax relief for the 2016 and 2017 taxation years?

Result

19The Board finds no valid grounds for the Request for Review and dismisses the Request for Review.

ANALYSIS

20The Decision relates to applications for tax relief made by the Company for the 2016 and 2017 taxation years as the Subject Property was closed from May 1, 2016 to November 23, 2017 for demolition and renovation in connection with a rebranding of the hotel.

21The Company sought and received property tax relief from the City for the 2016 taxation year pursuant to s. 364 and s. 357 of the Act, and for the 2017 taxation year pursuant to s. 357 of the Act.

Issue 1: Did the Board err in finding that it cannot make a determination for tax relief pursuant to s. 357 for the 2016 taxation year?

22The Decision did not consider relief under s. 357 for the 2016 taxation year as the Hearing Member found that there was no basis to do so.

23For the 2016 taxation year, the Company applied to the City for property tax relief. Two applications were made.

24The first application was for relief as a result of repairs or renovations pursuant to s. 357(1)(g) of the Act. The City granted relief in the amount of $34,090.73 for “repairs and renovations”. The Company did not appeal this decision. However, it argued that the appropriate amount of relief pursuant to s. 357 is $169,248.09 (gross) and $135,157.36 (net).

25The second application was a vacant unit rebate application pursuant to s. 364 of the Act for the ground floor restaurant area. The City granted relief in the amount of $975.59. In response to that decision, the Company filed a complaint with the Board under s. 364(14).

26For the 2016 taxation year, the only complaint filed with the Board was the complaint filed under s. 364(14).

27At the commencement of the hearing the Company stated that its intention was to appeal the City’s s. 357 decision, rather than file a complaint for the s. 364 decision. The Board provided the Company an opportunity to investigate whether it had in fact appealed the City’s s. 357 decision and for the Parties to make post-hearing submissions.

The Company’s Submissions

28The Company submits that the Decision should have considered relief under s. 357 for the 2016 taxation year (even though it had not filed an associated appeal), given that a (s. 364) complaint was filed on time in the context of the decisions issued by the City for the 2016 taxation year, and that the City was considering both s. 357 and s. 364 of the Act in granting relief for the 2016 taxation year.

29The Company submits that the Decision notes in Toth Equity Limited v Ottawa (City), 2015 CanLII 21998 (ON ARB) (“Toth”) that:

the Board found that using the incorrect application form for an appeal to the Board is not a fatal error when seeking relief…”. Toth involved an application pursuant to section 334 of the Act that the Board substantively considered as an appeal pursuant to section 357 of the Act. The Decision attempts to distinguish Toth on the basis that differences between sections 334 and 357 are less severe than the differences between sections 364 and 357, and that relief is more regulated under section 364. Respectfully, those are not compelling reasons to ignore the principle in Toth that substance should be preferred over form, especially under the circumstances of this case.

The City’s Submissions

30The City submits that there were two Municipal Act, 2001, tax relief appeals in question at the hearing. The City submits “that the only matters on the appeal hearing docket…were a “vacancy rebate appeal #3274715 under s. 364 of the Municipal Act, 2001, for the taxation year 2016; and a “demolition” or “repairs/renovation” appeal, under s. 357 of the Municipal Act, 2001, for the taxation year 2017.”

31The City takes the view that the Company’s Request for Review “attempts to re-argue the tax refund appeals, absent a complete evidentiary record, which is not the intended purposes of the Request for Review process…”.

32The City further submits that the Company’s Request for Review at paragraph 10 concedes the Decision’s conclusion as “technically…true”, and that the Hearing Member’s determination at paragraphs 15 and 17 of the Decision states: “In its post-hearing submissions, the Company confirmed that it had not appealed the City’s s. 357 decision.” And that “There is no dispute that the Company did not appeal the City’s s.357 decision for the 2016 taxation year.”

33The City takes the position that “the Legislature did not grant the Board the power to convert an appeal under one section of the Municipal Act, 2001, into an appeal under another section of the Municipal Act, 2001. Had the Legislature intended to grant such powers, it would have done so expressly.”

34The City notes that the Company made “two (2) distinct applications to the City for 2016 taxation, under those two (2) discrete Municipal Act, 2001, tax relief provisions, but appealed to the Board about only one determination, that was the determination on the s. 364 vacancy rebate.”

Findings on Issue 1

35In paragraphs 27 and 28, the Hearing Member states that:

This is not simply a matter of the wrong form being used to appeal to the Board. Rather, the Board has the wrong type of decision before it. As stated in Toth at paragraph 26, “the scope of the appeal to this Board is determined by the scope of the application made to the City.”

Therefore, the Company’s position cannot be supported. Had the legislature intended to grant the Board the power to create an appeal that was not made it would have expressly set that out. It cannot be said that the Company simply filled out the wrong appeal form with the Board. City council made a separate decision under s. 357, which was not appealed to the Board. The Board cannot, in the context of a s. 364 complaint, consider an appeal of a different decision for a different type of relief in relation to a different building area.

36In paragraph 30 of the Decision, the Hearing Member states that:

There is no proper s. 357 appeal before the Board, the Company did not file an appeal under this section for the 2016 taxation year and the Board does not have the jurisdiction to create such an appeal. The Board’s authority is limited to the relief available under s. 364(16), which is to determine the amount of any relief owing to the applicant on a s. 364 application.

37The Hearing Member states at paragraphs 24, 25 and 26 of the Decision, that in Toth:

… the Board found that using the incorrect application form for an appeal to the Board is not a fatal error when seeking relief and referenced the rules for interpreting taxation legislation as outlined in Notre Dame.

There is a distinction between this matter and Toth. In Toth, the Board determined that a determination for relief can be granted pursuant to s. 357(1)(f) where the appeal form for s. 334 was used. Both s. 334 and s. 357(1)(f) are nearly identical. Both provide for a cancellation, reduction, or refund of taxes due to a gross or manifest error, a clerical error, a transposition of figures or a typographical or similar error in calculations of taxes. Section 357(1)(f) is slightly expanded with the words “but not an error in judgement”. For both types of applications, an appeal to the Board is made under s. 357(7) or (8). By contrast, the reasons and procedures for relief under s. 357(1) and s. 364 are different. Section 357 requires an appeal and the amount of relief is discretionary whereas s. 364 requires a complaint, municipalities are required to have a vacant unit rebate program in place, municipalities are permitted to include exceptions and special rules (see s. 32 of O. Reg. 325/01 for the City of Windsor) and the amount of the relief is legislated. A decision under s. 357 is made by “council” at a meeting at which the applicants may make representations, whereas a decision under s. 364 may simply be mailed to the applicant by the municipality.

Due to the differences outlined above, the Board does not find the reasoning in Toth is applicable to the present matter.

38The Hearing Member appropriately distinguishes Toth from this matter and there is no error related to its application. The Board agrees with the City’s view that the Requester is attempting to reargue the matter on Review.

39The Board finds that the Hearing Member did not make an error in finding that they cannot make a determination for tax relief pursuant to s. 357 for the 2016 taxation year for the following reasons:

a) The Company did not, in fact, appeal the City’s decision made pursuant to s. 357 in connection with the 2016 taxation year. This is not a question of form over substance nor of using the wrong application form – there was no appeal of the City’s decision made pursuant to s. 357 by the Company.

b) The Hearing Member appropriately addressed and determined that they could not consider an appeal that had not actually been made by the Company.

c) The Hearing Member considered the Parties’ arguments and determined that the Board in this instance did not have the authority to convert the existing s. 364 complaint, or otherwise create such a s. 357 appeal, when none existed.

Issue 2: Did the Board err in its interpretation of s. 357(1)(d)(ii) for the 2017 taxation year?

40The Company asserts that the Hearing Member erred in finding that the Company was ineligible for relief pursuant to subclause 357(1)(d)(ii) for the 2017 taxation year as a result of “too narrow an interpretation” of that provision.

41Section 357(1)(d)(ii) (“Cancellation, reduction, refund of taxes”) states that:

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) during the year or during the preceding year after the return of the assessment roll, a building on the land,

(ii) was damaged by fire, demolition or otherwise so as to render it substantially unusable for the purposes for which it was used immediately prior to the damage;

42In the Decision at paragraph 55, the Hearing Member states: “There is no dispute that the Property was fully closed for the period of January 1, 2017 to November 22, 2017 and reopened on November 23, 2017 with the exception of the 9th floor.”

The Company’s Submissions

43The Company submits that the Decision at paragraph 65, states that “the Property does not qualify for relief because the demolition which caused it to be substantially unusable occurred prior to 2017” and the Company further submits that it is “a significant error of law to interpret subclause 357(1)(d)(ii) as requiring the demolition that rendered a property to be substantially [un]usable to occur in each tax year even though the property remains substantially unusable. The relief is not dependent on an act of demolition occurring in each tax year.”

44The Company submits that the Hearing Member’s interpretation of that subclause is novel and narrow and her failure to seek submissions from the Parties on the point is a violation of natural justice and procedural fairness.

45The Company also takes the position that “the Decision made three key factual findings: (1) that the demolition took place over time; (2) some of the demolition took place in 2017; and (3) the demolition rendered the Property substantially unusable as a hotel. The Company asserts that the Decision failed to apply the law to those facts and that this is a significant error of mixed fact and law such that the Board would likely have reached a different decision.”

The City’s Submissions

46The City submits that the Company’s 2017 tax relief application to the City was made under both s. 357(1)(d)(ii) – that the property had been damaged by demolition, and s. 357(1)(g) – that the property had undergone repairs and renovation that prevented the normal use of the building; and that no party objected to that determination.

47As it relates to s. 357(1)(d)(ii), the City submits that at paragraph 64 of the Decision, that the Board found that the “evidence before the Board does not establish that the demolition occurred” during the relevant statutory period and at paragraph 65 that the “demolition…occurred prior to 2017”.

48The City indicates in its submissions “that the Board concluded that the Subject Property would have been entitled to a vacant unit rebate under section 364, had such an application/appeal been made”.

49The City further submits that the Board concluded “it had no jurisdiction to invent a section 364 appeal, absent a section 364 vacancy rebate application to the City” and that in paragraph 86 of the Decision the Board stated that “The Board is unable to consider an appeal that was not commenced. The Act does not provide the Board with the ability or discretion to deem a s. 364 complaint that was not made.”

Findings on Issue 2

50As indicated in the Decision, the Company began major demolition and renovations in 2015 pursuant to a rebranding of the hotel. The Subject Property operated at reduced capacity up to May 1, 2016, subsequent to which it was fully closed to complete demolition and renovations. It reopened on or about November 23, 2017.

51Relief for “demolition” may be granted under s. 357(1)(d)(ii), whereas as relief for “repairs and renovations” may be granted under s. 357(1)(g).

52As it relates to the 2017 taxation year, the Hearing Member considers and addresses at paragraphs 63 through 65, the provisions of s. 357(1)(d)(ii) and specifically concludes at paragraph 65 that:

the Property does not qualify for relief because the demolition which caused it to be substantially unusable occurred prior to 2017. The evidence is that the only demolition that occurred in 2017 was the “rear of house” office area on the main floor. The Board finds that this relatively small area of the Property did not render the building to be “substantially unusable for the purposes for which it was used immediately prior to the damage”.

53The Hearing Member’s conclusion is supported by the evidence as indicated at paragraph 59 of the Decision. The July 2016 status report from Pure Building Group shows that demolition was complete for floors 2 through 8 and 90% complete for the ground floor and 50% complete for the 9th floor (i.e., prior to 2017).

54The Hearing Member, in her discretion, appropriately considered and applied the provisions of s. 357(1)(d)(ii). The Board finds that the Hearing Member did not make an error in her interpretation of s. 357(1)(d)(ii). Further, the Board finds that the Requester is attempting to reargue the matter on Review.

55The Hearing Member raises no questions or concerns in connection with the interpretation or application of s. 357(1)(d)(ii) in her Decision. There is no indication by the Hearing Member that submissions from the Parties regarding s. 357(1)(d)(ii) were necessary nor needed. Further, the Hearing Member explains her interpretation and application of the relevant provision in her Decision (e.g., paragraphs 63 - 66). As such, the Board will not interfere with the Hearing Member’s discretion, and in these circumstances, not seeking submissions does not amount to a violation of natural justice and procedural fairness.

Issue 3: Did the Board err by splitting a multistage demolition and rebuilding project over two taxation years into demolition that meets the statutory threshold and demolition that does not.

The Company’s Submissions

56The Company submits that “it is not reasonable to split a multistage demolition and rebuilding project into steps that meet the statutory threshold and steps that do not”.

57The Company further submits that “In finding that the demolition at the Property rendered it substantially unusable and that some of that demolition took place in 2017, the Decision should have logically concluded that the Property was eligible for relief pursuant to subclause 357(1)(d)(ii) for the 2017 taxation year.”

The City’s Submissions

58The City’s submissions provide that the Board concluded the Property was ineligible for relief under either provision of s. 357 or s. 364 and that all three of its conclusions are fact driven as follows:

1. The Board found as a fact, that under s. 357(1)(d)(ii) the “evidence does not establish that the demolition occurred” during the relevant statutory period (Decision para. 64);

2. The Board found as a fact, that the “demolition ... occurred prior to 2017” (Decision para. 65); and,

3. Those fact findings were based on the uncontradicted evidence of the Complainant about the work at the Subject Property.

Findings on Issue 3

59In its Request for Review, the Company specifically refers to the demolition at the Subject Property as a “multistage demolition and rebuilding project”.

60At paragraph 59 of the Decision, the Hearing Member’s determination of the relevant demolition for purposes of s. 357(1)(d)(ii) is based on factual evidence presented per the status reports from Pure Building Group, and at paragraph 65 of the Decision, the Hearing Member concludes that:

the only demolition that occurred in 2017 was the “rear of the house” office area on the main floor. The Board finds that this relatively small area of the Property did not render the building to be “substantially unusable for the purposes for which it was used immediately prior to the damage”.

61The Hearing Member considers and addresses the multistage demolition that occurred at the Subject Property and concluded, in her discretion, that the “relatively small demolition” that occurred in 2017 was of no operative effect as it related to s. 357(1)(d)(ii). The Decision shows that this determination is based on the evidence and the facts presented and accepted by the Hearing Member.

62The Board finds that the Hearing Member did not err in her characterization of the relevant demolition that occurred at the Subject Property for the purposes of s. 357(1)(d)(ii).

Issue 4: And if so, in any of the above, what is the corresponding impact on tax relief for the 2016 and 2017 taxation years?

63The Board, having found no errors in the Decision and consequently that no further tax relief is warranted, does not need to address Issue 4.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

64The Board finds no valid grounds for the Request for Review. The Board orders the Request for Review dismissed.

"Christopher Voutsinas"

CHRISTOPHER VOUTSINAS

VICE-CHAIR

Assessment Review Board

Website: www.tribunalsontario.ca/arb

ATTACHMENT 1

Section 357 of the Act provides, in part:

Cancellation, reduction, refund of taxes

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,

(a) as a result of a change event, as defined in clause (a) of the definition of “change event” in subsection 34 (2.2) of the Assessment Act, during the taxation year, the property or portion of the property is eligible to be reclassified in a different class of real property, as defined in regulations made under that Act, and that class has a lower tax ratio for the taxation year than the class the property or portion of the property is in before the change event, and no supplementary assessment is made in respect of the change event under subsection 34 (2) of the Assessment Act;

(b) the land has become vacant land or excess land during the year or during the preceding year after the return of the assessment roll for the preceding year;

(c) the land has become exempt from taxation during the year or during the preceding year after the return of the assessment roll for the preceding year;

(d) during the year or during the preceding year after the return of the assessment roll, a building on the land,

(i) was razed by fire, demolition or otherwise, or

(ii) was damaged by fire, demolition or otherwise so as to render it substantially unusable for the purposes for which it was used immediately prior to the damage;

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

(e) a mobile unit on the land was removed during the year or during the preceding year after the return of the assessment roll for the preceding year;

(f) a person was overcharged due to a gross or manifest error that is clerical or factual in nature, including the transposition of figures, a typographical error or similar error but not an error in judgment in assessing the property; or

(g) repairs or renovations to the land prevented the normal use of the land for a period of at least three months during the year.

Section 364 of the Act provides, in part:

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).

Requirements of program

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

1. The program shall apply to eligible property as prescribed by the Minister of Finance for the purposes of this section and as set out in a by-law passed under subsection (2.1).

2. If the property is in any of the commercial classes, the rebate shall be equal to 30 per cent, or such other percentage prescribed by or determined in accordance with the regulations or a by-law passed under subsection (2.1), of the taxes applicable to the eligible property as determined under clause (12) (b).

3. If the property is in any of the industrial classes, the rebate shall be equal to 35 per cent, or such other percentage prescribed by or determined in accordance with the regulations or a by-law passed under subsection (2.1), of the taxes applicable to the eligible property as determined under clause (12) (b).

3.1 If the property is in a class prescribed under clause (12) (a.0.1), the rebate shall be equal to the percentage prescribed by or determined in accordance with the regulations or a by-law passed under subsection (2.1).

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

5. 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.

6. Subject to paragraph 7, an owner or a person on behalf of the owner shall submit one application for a taxation year unless the Minister of Finance prescribes that more than one application may be submitted.

7. An interim application for the first six months of the taxation year may be made to a local municipality unless the Minister of Finance has made a regulation exempting the local municipality from this paragraph.

Options for municipal by-law

(2.1) A local municipality that has a tax rebate program may, by by-law,

(a) provide for requirements for the program in addition to the requirements under this section, including additional requirements or criteria for a property or portion of a property to be eligible property;

(b) specify circumstances under which no rebate is payable in respect of a property that would otherwise be eligible property; and

(c) specify, for each class in respect of which the rebate applies, a percentage for the rebate for eligible property of up to 35 per cent. 2020, c. 36, Sched. 30, s. 2 (7).

Complaint

(14) A person who has made an application under this section may, within 120 days after the municipality mails the determination of the amount of the rebate, complain to the Assessment Review Board in writing that the amount is too low.