ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE NO.: CV-14-516854
DATE: 20150911
BETWEEN:
CITY OF TORONTO
Plaintiff/Responding Party
– and –
ERIK BOSTROM
Defendant/Moving Party
Rodney Gill, for the Plaintiff/Responding Party
Erik Bostrom in person
HEARD: August 14, 2015
G. DOW, j
reasons FOR JUDGMENT
[1] Erik Bostrom, representing himself, seeks to have the Writ of Sale and Seizure issued against him November 27, 2014 set aside. He also seeks compensation for his time and effort in the amount of $5,000 from the City of Toronto and a further $50,000 payable personally by the City Solicitor, Anna Kinastowski.
[2] Erik Bostrom sought to give sworn viva voce evidence at the hearing of the motion which I declined to allow given that it was not requested or referred to in the materials filed.
[3] As I understood his submissions, Erik Bostrom takes exception to the nature of the City of Toronto’s conversion of unpaid fines against him into additional unpaid taxes against a property he owns within the City of Toronto.
[4] It is clear Mr. Bostrom has been convicted of a variety of Provincial Offences Act matters, the key two being the destruction and/or removal of trees without a permit on or before June 26, 2014 and July 24, 2014 when Erik Bostrom was fined a total of $43,750. Mr. Bostrom advised there may be an issue as to the veracity of these convictions and I urged Erik Bostrom to seek advice regarding the convictions and/or the fines. However, I further advised him his motion was not seeking that relief and could not be considered.
[5] The City of Toronto exercised its right under section 68 of the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. P.33, which states “When the payment of a fine is in default, the clerk of the court may complete a certificate in the proscribed form as to the imposition of the fine and the amount remaining unpaid and file the certificate in a court of competent jurisdiction and upon filing, the certificate shall be deemed to be an order or judgment of that court for the purposes of enforcement”. The certificate of default was issued November 25, 2014 and permitted the City of Toronto to issue the Writ of Seizure and Sale under this court’s Rules of Civil Procedure, and in particular r. 60.07. The Writ of Seizure and Sale directs the sheriff seize and sell “the real and personal property” of Erik Bostrom.
[6] However, the City of Toronto also wrote to Erik Bostrom advising him that under section 381.1 of the City of Toronto Act, R.S.O. 2006, c.11, it was adding the total of the unpaid fines to the tax roll of his property on Brock Avenue in Toronto. They would also be charging him 1.25 percent per month (15 percent per year) interest on the unpaid balance. Erik Bostrom advises and counsel for the City of Toronto acknowledged he has been making payments of $100 per month for the last few months in response.
[7] Erik Bostrom, as I understand it, submits that the conversion of the fines to the tax roll brings into application Part XIV-Sale of Land for Tax Arrears (Real Property Taxes) and specifically section 344(1) which prevents registration of a Tax Arrears Certificate to “January 1 in the third year following that in which the real property taxes became owing”. In other words, the City of Toronto is circumventing its own enabling legislation with regard to the time period allowed before enforcement proceedings are permitted. Counsel for the City of Toronto advised they were prepared to consent to stay enforcement through the Writ of Seizure and Sale for one year.
[8] As the City of Toronto has chosen to pursue collection by both methods, it is my view that they must abide by the method which gives Mr. Bostrom the greater protection in his interest in the real property on Brock Avenue. As a result, my decision is to stay the enforcement of the Writ of Seizure and Sale to be in accord with the provisions of Part XIV – Sale of Land for Tax Arrears (Real Property Taxes) of the City of Toronto Act, R.S.O. 2006, c. 11 which would appear to be at least until January 1 in the third year following that which the amount became owing on the tax roll. In my view, if it is open to the City of Toronto to remove from the tax roll the amount it added regarding the property on Brock Avenue owned by Mr. Bostrom, the City of Toronto may then be in a position to bring a motion to vary this order.
[9] The claims for monetary compensation by Erik Bostrom are without merit and are dismissed.
[10] As Erik Bostrom was self-represented, he is not entitled to any counsel fee. Given his Notice of Motion did include “that property tax charges cannot be actioned until three years past due”, I am prepared to allow him the filing fee expense for the Motion Record or the sum of $127.
Mr. Justice G. Dow
Released: September 11, 2015
COURT FILE NO.: CV-14-516854
DATE: 20150911
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
CITY OF TORONTO
Plaintiff/Responding Party
– and –
ERIK BOSTROM
Defendant/Moving Party
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Mr. Justice G. Dow
Released: September 11, 2015