3 total
The Court of Appeal overruled its prior precedent to grant a property tax exemption to a non-profit affordable housing provider.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered whether its prior decision in Religious Hospitallers of St. Joseph Housing Corp. v. Regional Assessment Commissioner should be overruled.
That case had interpreted s. 3(1)12(iii) of the Assessment Act to require a charitable, non-profit philanthropic corporation seeking a municipal tax exemption to show it provided relief to the poor by "some form of endeavour." The appellant, Stamford Kiwanis Non-Profit Homes Inc., argued that this requirement was not supported by the statute or legislative intent.
The Court agreed, finding that Religious Hospitallers was wrongly decided, had not been followed in subsequent jurisprudence, and introduced a vague and unworkable "endeavour" requirement.
The Court overruled Religious Hospitallers, clarified the applicable test for exemption, and allowed the appeal, granting the appellant a property tax exemption for its affordable housing properties.
The court granted a property tax exemption to a non-profit corporation sharing an identity in patrimony with a charity organized for the relief of the poor.
The applicant, Langs Community Development Corporation (LCDC), sought a declaration that its property was exempt from municipal property tax under s. 3(1)(12)iii of the Assessment Act, arguing it was a charitable, non-profit corporation organized for the relief of the poor and supported by public funds.
The respondents opposed, arguing LCDC did not meet the statutory requirements.
The court found that LCDC shared an identity in patrimony with Langs Farm Village Association (Langs), was supported in part by public funds (through a significant grant from the City of Cambridge), and was organized for the relief of the poor, both independently and by virtue of its shared identity with Langs.
The application for tax exemption was granted.
Corporate CEO held personally liable for fraudulent misrepresentation inducing mortgage discharge; full fees and substantial indemnity costs awarded.
The plaintiff mortgage brokerage brought a motion for summary judgment against the corporate defendant and its CEO for unpaid brokerage fees.
The CEO had fraudulently misrepresented to the plaintiff that the real estate agents on the sale of the property had agreed to reduce their commission by 50%, inducing the plaintiff to discharge its mortgage and defer its fees.
The court found the CEO personally liable for fraudulent misrepresentation and ordered both defendants to pay the full $350,000 fee plus substantial indemnity costs.
