CITATION: Wequedong Lodge (Thunder Bay) v. Thunder Bay (City), 2015 ONSC 2600
COURT FILE NO.: CV-13-0507
DATE: 2015-04-21
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
Wequedong Lodge of Thunder Bay,
Applicant
- and -
The Corporation of the City of Thunder Bay and Municipal Property Assessment Corporation,
Respondents
Randall Johns, for the Applicant
No one appearing for the Corporation of the City of Thunder Bay Karey Lunau, for the Respondent, Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
HEARD: April 20, 2015, at Thunder Bay, Ontario
Mr. Justice W.D. Newton
Decision On Motion
Overview
[1] Wequedong Lodge of Thunder Bay (“Wequedong Lodge”) seeks an exemption from municipal taxation for its property located at 435 Balmoral Street in Thunder Bay pursuant to s. 3(1)-12 of the Assessment Act.
[2] Section 3(1)-12 exempts from taxation "land owned, used and occupied by...iii. a charitable, nonprofit and philanthropic corporation organized for the relief of the poor if the corporation is supported in part by public funds."
[3] The parties agree that the sole issue is whether Wequedong Lodge is "organized for the relief of the poor".
[4] For the reasons that follow I conclude that Wequedong Lodge is not "organized for the relief of the poor" and is, therefore, not exempted from municipal taxation for this property.
Facts
[5] Wequedong Lodge is an Ontario Not – Profit Corporation. Its objects include "to provide short-term accommodation and services to native and non-native individuals and families who are seeking health services in the City of Thunder Bay".
[6] In fact, its clientele has been limited to members of Northwestern Ontario First Nations, Métis and Inuit and, occasionally, non-native escorts accessing medical services in the City of Thunder Bay.
[7] The services offered by Wequedong Lodge include the pickup of patients and escorts from the airport, delivery of the clients to the Lodge, and transportation to medical appointments. Short-term accommodation and meals are also provided.
[8] Health Canada pays for Wequedong Lodge's services as a "non– insured health benefit". Health Canada provides 99% of Wequedong Lodge's revenue. Wequedong Lodge performs no fundraising activities and has no volunteer staff members, other than its Board.
[9] Wequedong Lodge does not select or means test its clients. Entitlement to these services is based solely on First Nation's status and need.
Positions of the Parties
[10] Wequedong Lodge argues, in essence, that since its clients are "overwhelmingly poor" the Lodge is "organized for the relief of the poor." It argues that as long as relief of poverty is part of the purpose of the institution that is sufficient for exemption.
[11] The respondent, Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (“MPAC”) does not dispute that the clientele that Wequedong Large serves may be poor. It argues that the primary purpose of Wequedong Lodge is to provide a federal health benefit – temporary accommodation and transportation to individual receiving necessary health care away from their home – to First Nation individuals.
Analysis
[12] The parties agree that the onus is on the applicant to establish that the property is exempt from taxation.
[13] Ottawa Salus Corp. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp. (2004), 60 O.R. (3d) 417 (C.A.) is a helpful starting point. As Macpherson J.A. notes, the Act provides that all real property in Ontario is liable to assessment and taxation subject to 29 specific exemptions. He states:
[27] The specific purpose of subparagraph 12(iii) of s. 3(1) of the Act is to grant relief from property taxation to non-profit corporations “organized for the relief of the poor” because the public interest in granting these organizations additional resources to relieve poverty outweighs the public interest in generating revenue through the taxation of property.
[14] And, he cautioned that "the tax expenditure subsidy, extended in the public interest, must be circumscribed such as to be directed only at the charitable activity recognized and approved by the legislature."
[15] Notwithstanding the argument on behalf of Wequedong Lodge, I accept the submission of the respondent that it is the primary purpose for which the land is used and occupied which is determinative. For that I rely upon Diocese of Toronto Camps (Anglican Church of Canada) v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp., Region 16 (2004), 2004 34918 (ON CA), 191 O.A.C. 278.
[16] To rule otherwise would extend the exemption beyond the intention of the legislature.
[17] As stated by the Divisional Court in Tilsonburg & District Assn. for Community Living v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp. (2010), 95 R.P.R. 303:
It may be that well reasoned public policy arguments can be advanced to support broader criteria for exemption that would benefit the appellants but it is for the Legislature to decide whether or not those arguments should lead to legislative change.
[18] I agree with the respondent that the Wequedong Lodge is organized primarily to provide temporary accommodation and transportation to individuals receiving necessary health care away from their home and that it is not organized for the relief of the poor.
[19] Wequedong Lodge relied upon the Divisional Court decision of Sandy Hill Community Health Centre Inc. v. Ontario (Regional Assessment commissioner, Region No. 3 (1997), 1997 16223 (ON SC), 34 O.R. (3d) 226. In that case the health care centres were founded for the purpose of providing health care and other services to the poor. The Court observed that it was “the presence of the poor in those communities that led to the creation of the three Centres.”
[20] While it may have been a case for Sandy Hill, I find that the primary purpose of Wequedong Lodge is not relief of the poor but rather providing temporary accommodation and transportation as noted above. I do not accept the characterization of Wequedong Lodge as argued by the applicant.
[21] I find that Wequedong Lodge addresses problems of geography and access to medical services, and not poverty. Accordingly, I dismiss this application.
[22] The parties agree that there should be no order as to costs.
____”original signed by”
The Hon. Mr. Justice W.D. Newton
Released: April 21, 2015
CITATION: Wequedong Lodge (Thunder Bay) v. Thunder Bay (City), 2015 ONSC 2600
COURT FILE NO.: CV-13-0507
DATE: 2015-04-21
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
Wequedong Lodge of Thunder Bay,
Applicant
- and -
The Corporation of the City of Thunder Bay and Municipal Property Assessment Corporation,
DECISION ON MOTION
Newton J.
Released: April 21, 2015
/mls