Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2022 ONSC 6392
COURT FILE NO.: CV-21-60522
DATE: 2022-11-29
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Stamford Kiwanis Non-Profit Homes Inc.
Applicant
– and –
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and The Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls
Respondents
J. Jebreen and S. McAnsh, for the Applicant
J. Feiner and Allyson Amster, for the Respondent, Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
J. O’Kane, for the Respondent, The Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls
HEARD: October 24, 2022
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE M. BORDIN\
reasons for decision
NATURE OF THE APPLICATION
[1] The applicant, Stamford Kiwanis Non-Profit Homes Inc. (“Stamford Homes”), seeks an order declaring that the three properties it owns are statutorily exempt from municipal taxation pursuant to section 3(1)12(iii) of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31 (the “Act”).
THE ISSUE
[2] Section 3(1) provides that all real property in Ontario is liable to assessment and taxation, subject to certain exemptions. Section 3(1)12(iii) provides an exemption for:
- Land owned, used and occupied by,
iii. any charitable, non-profit philanthropic corporation organized for the relief of the poor if the corporation is supported in part by public funds.
[3] The respondents do not dispute that Stamford Homes is a charitable, non-profit philanthropic corporation that is supported in part by public funds. In their facta, the respondents took no position on whether the tenants were “poor” in the sense intended by the exemption and determined in the cases relied on by the parties. The respondents conceded in oral argument that Stamford Homes, by providing rent-geared-to-income (“RGI”) to many of its tenants serves the poor as intended by the exemption.
[4] The only issue in this application is whether Stamford Homes is “organized for the relief of the poor”.
THE FACTS
[5] Paragraphs 6 (a) and (d) of the letters patent for Stamford Homes dated February 28, 1984, states that the objects for which Stamford Homes is incorporated include:
(a) to acquire, construct, hold, supply, operate, manage and maintain housing accommodations and incidental facilities for the purpose of operating a non-profit housing project for lower income people, senior citizens, functionally handicapped person or others with special needs;
(d) to raise money through subscriptions, memberships.
[6] Stamford Homes currently owns three apartment buildings which provide affordable housing to low-income residents of Niagara Falls. The three properties are:
a. 4901 Buckley Avenue, Niagara Falls, Ontario (the “Buckley Property”);
b. 6995 Ailanthus Avenue, Niagara Falls, Ontario (the “Ailanthus Property”); and
c. 6015 Barker Street, Niagara Falls, Ontario (the “Barker Property”);
(collectively, the “Properties”).
[7] Stamford Homes acquired the Buckley Property on March 27, 1987. Thirty-one of the thirty-six units were RGI units as of December 2021. Apart from the limited information contained in the parcel register, there is no evidence as to the source of funds for the initial purchase of the Buckley Property.
[8] The Buckley Property was initially financed by a charge in favour of private institutional lenders. The mortgage was assumed by CMHC on March 18, 1998.
[9] Stamford Homes acquired the Ailanthus Property on April 14, 1994. Twenty-two of the forty-one apartments at the Ailanthus Property were RGI units as of December 2021. Stamford Homes provides one of the two-bedroom units to the March of Dimes for its use as an office and staff space. The March of Dimes provides full-time care for tenants in 12 of the units at the Ailanthus Property, and limited care to tenants in a number of other units in the building. Stamford Homes does not charge rent to the March of Dimes. Apart from the limited information contained in the parcel register, there is no evidence as to the source of funds for the non-financed portion of the purchase of the Ailanthus Property.
[10] The Ailanthus Property was initially financed by a charge in favour of a private institutional lender. The mortgage was assumed by CMHC on May 26, 2000.
[11] Stamford Homes acquired the Barker Property on April 17, 2015. Seventeen of the thirty units at the Barker Property are affordable units with rents that are set below 80 percent of the CMHC Rental Market Report Guidelines. The remaining 13 units are at market rents so that the affordable units can be financially sustained. Apart from the limited information contained in a parcel register, there is no evidence as to the source of funds for the non-financed portion of the purchase of the Barker Property.
[12] The Barker Property was and continues to be financed in part by a charge in favour of a private institutional lender. It was also financed in part by Niagara Regional Housing. The Niagara Regional Housing mortgage was assumed by CMHC on July 27, 2020.
[13] In 2016, Stamford Homes was successful in obtaining grant funding under the Social Housing Improvement Program in the amount of $167,464 for the purpose of balcony restoration and roof replacement. The balcony restoration work was done at the Buckley Property and the roof replacement at the Ailanthus Property. The grant reimbursed Stamford Homes a portion of the total roof replacement costs of $193,800 plus HST. Conditions of the grant require that Stamford Homes continue to own, operate, and maintain these units as affordable housing over a ten-year affordability period, ending December 31, 2027.
[14] Stamford Homes works with Niagara Regional Housing to provide affordable rents to low-income residents of Niagara Falls. Niagara Regional Housing is the regional service provider under the Housing Services Act, 2011, S.O. 2011, c.6, Sched. 1, and provides funding that enables Stamford Homes to offer RGI housing at the Buckley Property and Ailanthus Property.
[15] RGI is a system, established under part V of the Housing Services Act, that limits the rent paid by tenants to what they can reasonably afford. The Province sets out calculations for the rent payable under the RGI program. The majority of the units at the Properties are RGI units.
[16] Niagara Regional Housing maintains a centralized waiting list for RGI housing. People who want to live in an RGI unit at the Buckley Property or the Ailanthus Property must apply to Niagara Regional Housing and meet a number of criteria set by Niagara Regional Housing, including an income assessment. There is a significant demand for these affordable units and there is a waitlist for upcoming vacancies managed by Niagara Regional Housing. Financial need is the primary factor in selecting applicants for units.
[17] The Barker Property is not a housing provider under the Housing Services Act. It has no RGI tenants. The market rent tenants subsidize the rents in the below market units.
[18] There is also significant demand for affordable units at the Buckley Property.
[19] Waitlists exist for all three properties.
[20] There are a total of 107 units at the Properties. Other than the 13 market rent units at the Barker Property, the tenants of the remaining 94 units are paying either RGI-based rent or affordable rent that is set below the market average. The affordable rents include utilities and are equal to or less than 80 percent of the market rents as determined by CMHC. RGI tenants pay a fraction of those reduced rents. A summary of the rents at the Properties is set out in the following table:
Buckley Property
Ailanthus Property
Barker Property
2-bed
3-bed
1-bed
2-bed
1-bed
2-bed
Affordable Rentals
$862
$919
$767
$862
$714
$790
Average RGI Rent
$295
$258
$258
$307
Market Rent
$1,054
$1,279
[21] The average annual household incomes of the residents in the 94 below market rent units at the Properties are:
Property
1-bedroom
2-bedroom
3-bedroom
Buckley Property
N/A
$21,206
$21,101
Ailanthus Property
$14,846
$22,224
N/A
Barker Property
$20,005
$24,362
N/A
[22] The directors of Stamford Homes serve without remuneration. The board of directors meets monthly, except in December, and directs Stamford Homes in conducting its business.
[23] The day-to-day management of the Properties is handled by Shabri Properties Limited ("Shabri"), a for-profit property management company. According to its contract with Stamford Homes, the services provided by Shabri include:
• providing corporate reporting, including financial reports, information and advice to the board to assist in fulfilling corporate and legal obligations, preparing and distributing agendas, minutes and notices for board meetings, acting as corporate secretary;
• financial management including maintaining the books and records, paying the mortgages, expenses, invoices and charges, collecting all rents and other sums to be paid by the tenants, preparing operating budgets, reviewing and recommending market rents;
• tenant administration including receiving and processing all applications for market rents, dealing with lease agreements, verifying income and calculating RGI rents, providing notices to tenants, enforcing payment of rents; and
• property maintenance including keeping the Properties in a state of cleanliness, snow removal and landscaping, physical inspections of the Properties, and repairs and maintenance.
THE POSITION OF THE PARTIES
[24] Stamford Homes focuses on the purpose for which it is organized. It submits that it is organized for the relief of the poor, i.e. to provide affordable housing to its tenants, and that the evidence establishes that its primary purpose, or alternatively part of its purpose, is the relief of the poor. Stamford Homes says that it therefore satisfies the requirements of the exemption.
[25] The respondents do not take issue with Stamford Homes’ assertion that its purpose (primarily or in part) is to provide relief to the poor. The respondents say that this case is on all fours with The Religious Hospitallers of St. Joseph Housing Corp. v. Regional Assessment Commissioner (1998), 1998 2943 (ON CA), 42 O.R. (3d) 532 (C.A.), and the conclusions reached therein with respect to the meaning of “organized for the relief of the poor” and that this court is bound by the conclusions in Religious Hospitallers.
[26] Stamford Homes responds to the respondents’ position by asserting that Religious Hospitallers can be distinguished.
BURDEN AND STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
[27] As confirmed by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Ottawa Salus Corp. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp. (2004), 2004 14620 (ON CA), 69 O.R. (3d) 417 (C.A.), at paragraph 16, Stamford Homes must affirmatively establish that its property falls within the four corners of the exempting provision. However, the legislative intent and purpose of the exemption must also be kept in mind.
[28] The Ontario Court of Appeal in Salus applied the principles of contractual interpretation of taxation legislation in Québec (Communauté urbaine) v. Corp. Notre-Dame de Bon-Secours, 1994 58 (SCC), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 3, to section 3(1)12(iii) of the Act, at paragraphs 24 to 27:
[24] Applying these principles, the starting point is an examination of (1) the general purpose of the Assessment Act and (2) the purpose of the specific exemption claimed by the respondent.
[25] The general purpose of the Assessment Act is obvious. It is expressed in s. 3(1) of the Act: "All real property in Ontario is liable to assessment and taxation … ". In Canadian Mental Health Ass'n v. Ontario Property Assessment Corp., [2002] O.J. No. 2199 (QL), 31 M.P.L.R. (3d) 79 (S.C.J.) at para. 42, Kozak J. described the purpose of s. 3(1) as follows: "to impose upon all real property in Ontario a general obligation to pay a property tax so that the government can meet its expenditures".
[26] However, this purpose is not an absolute one. Section 3(1) expressly provides that the general purpose is "subject to the following exemptions from taxation". Twenty-nine exemptions follow, including exemptions for churches, public education institutions, public hospitals, houses of refuge, charitable institutions, small theatres and large non-profit theatres. Many of the organizations listed in the exemption paragraphs perform activities which are of great benefit to either discrete groups of disadvantaged persons or to society as a whole. Exemption from property tax allows these organizations to spend more of their limited resources on those activities. The clear implication of these exemptions is that while there is a substantial public interest in the generation of revenue through the taxation of real property, in the context of the real property covered by these exemptions, that public interest is outweighed by the public interest in giving relief from property taxation to certain organizations.
[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.
[29] Religious Hospitallers does not explicitly consider principles of statutory interpretation beyond the following comment:
[W]hen a taxpayer claims an exemption from taxation he or she has the onus of showing that he or she comes clearly within the terms of the exemption clause in the relevant statute: see London (City) v. Ursuline Religious Diocese of London, 1964 243 (ON CA), [1964] 1 O.R. 587, 43 D.L.R. (2d) 220 (C.A.); and Yarmouth (Township) v. London (City), 1956 42 (ON CA), [1957] O.R. 37, 7 D.L.R. (2d) 140 (C.A.). This is because, as stated in Commissioners for Special Purposes of Income Tax v. Pemsel, 1891 21 (FOREP), [1891] A.C. 531 at p. 551, "[t]here is no purpose in a Taxing Act but to raise money, and . . . every exemption throws an additional burden on the rest of the community.”
[30] This comment was made in the context of confirming where the burden lies, not the interpretation of the Act and the exemption in question. Religious Hospitallers did NOT explicitly consider Notre-Dame de Bon-Secours.
[31] As noted by the Divisional Court in Re LDARC Corp. v City of London et al. (1985), 1985 2148 (ON SC), 50 O.R. (2d) 677 (S.C.), it was not the legislature’s intention to grant tax exemptions to all worthwhile charitable institutions. This is evident from the language of the exemptions which circumscribe the institutions eligible for exemptions.
ANALYSIS
[32] Stamford Homes asserts the facts of this case are on all fours with St. Catharines Seniors Apartments Phase Three Inc. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation et al., 2015 ONSC 3896. The issues in St. Catharines Seniors were who “the poor” are, and specifically, how poor a person must be to qualify as one of “the poor” under the exemption in issue in this application.
[33] Given that the respondents do not take issue with whether Stamford Homes serves the poor, St. Catharines Seniors is of limited assistance.
[34] The tenants are, on the evidence before the court and as set out in the cases referenced by the parties, poor. The evidence establishes that the primary purpose of Stamford Homes is to provide affordable housing to its tenants. However, the respondent says that Stamford Homes is not “organized for the relief of the poor”. This case turns on whether Stamford Homes is organized for the relief of the poor.
[35] The objects of Stamford Homes as set out in its letters patent are aimed at providing housing for lower income residents, seniors, and those with special needs. The objects specifically reference that Stamford Homes will “manage and maintain housing accommodations” and “raise money through subscriptions, memberships.” On the evidence, Stamford homes does neither except manage on a very high level.
[36] The respondents rely on Homes v. North Bay (City), 2005 5873 (ON SC), where at paragraphs 13 and 14 the court summarized the activity of the applicant seeking the exemption and whether it was “organized for the relief of the poor”:
[13] The Applicant is the exclusive owner and operator of these rental units. It is governed by a Board of 6 Directors who serve entirely without fee, gratuity or involvement of any kind or amount whatsoever, attending to the collection of rentals, payment of mortgage installments, maintenance and repairs to the residential units, maintenance and care of the grounds, receiving applications and allotment of accommodations along with preparation and execution of leases, personal attention and assistance to individual tenants from time to time in numerous other ways. I am satisfied that prerequisites (1) and (2) of Section 3(12) of the Assessment Act have been met.
[14] In determining whether or not the Applicant was organized for the “relief of the poor” there must be an element of economic deprivation or need to the tenants and it also requires that the Applicant undertakes some form of endeavor to provide the relief.
[37] The respondents point out that although Stamford Homes is the owner of the Properties, it does not provide any of the services provided by the board in Homes. Rather, those services are outsourced to a for-profit entity.
[38] Religious Hospitallers confirms that the objects of a corporation assist in determining whether the institution is “organized for the relief of the poor”. However, the objects are not conclusive. It is the property for which the exemption is claimed and its actual operation and administration which are of primary concern in determining whether the exemption criteria are met.
[39] The respondents urge that Religious Hospitallers is binding on this court, with particular reference to the following conclusion of the Court of Appeal:
… if the institution is not organized for the relief of the tenants then it does not matter whether they can be categorized as "poor" or not. I consider this to be a vital question on the facts of this case, and it is for this reason that the method of administration of the Housing Corporation was outlined earlier in these reasons. I read the words "organized for the relief of the poor" to mean that it would be the corporation itself, by some form of endeavor of the corporation, which would provide the relief involved. In this case, the corporation itself does very little. It raises no funds by efforts of its members for the support of the institution, such as solicitation of the public or other fund-raising projects or events. It does not manage the operation; that is done by the order of the Religious Hospitallers of St. Joseph in return for payment of an annual fee of approximately $60,000. The Housing Corporation is the registered owner of the property which it purchased from the Order, but the purchase was fully financed, and the cost of financing is paid for in total, by government funds. From the outset, the actual operation and administration were organized so that the Housing Corporation has provided nothing which is for the relief of the tenants. The total cost is borne by a combination of the tenants themselves and government.
In our case, all of the funds to operate the Housing Corporation project come from the tenants and government sources. It is that fact which, as stated above, compels me to conclude that it is not the Housing Corporation which provides relief for the tenants in this case.
[40] The respondents assert that Stamford Homes is not entitled to the exemption because:
• the entire administration, operation, and management of the Properties have been outsourced to a private, for-profit corporation that performs these functions for a fee;
• Stamford Homes does not fundraise, it is not financially supported by its members and uses no funds of its own in its operation – the cost of the Stamford Homes’ operation is borne by a combination of the tenants and the government; and
• there is no evidence of how additional financial support resulting from the exemption would assist the applicant to further relieve against poverty.
[41] Stamford Homes argues that Religious Hospitallers can be distinguished legally and factually because:
a. Religious Hospitallers relies on an outdated principle regarding the purposes of the Assessment Act that contradicts the Supreme Court of Canada on the purposes of tax statutes;
b. Stamford Homes does more than just own the Properties:
i. it paid for the acquisition costs of the Properties using its own funds or funds from private mortgages and uses its own or member funds for its operations;
ii. it has a volunteer board of directors that oversees the operation of the Properties; and
iii. its track record demonstrates that any tax savings will be used for the benefit of the poor as it continues to add new affordable housing developments for the poor and continues to look for other opportunities to provide much needed affordable housing in the City of Niagara Falls.
[42] Stamford Homes says that Religious Hospitallers can be distinguished because the court based its analysis on the principle that there is no purpose in a taxing act but to raise money, and every exemption throws an additional burden on the community. It says the court in Religious Hospitallers failed to consider the second purpose of the Act – the public interest in granting appropriate organizations additional resources to relieve poverty.
[43] The court in Religious Hospitallers was obviously considering whether the applicant had established facts sufficient to allow the court to grant the exemption. Religious Hospitallers was decided four years after the Supreme Court’s decision in Notre-Dame de Bon-Secours. It is this court’s view that the Court of Appeal for Ontario must be taken to have contemplated the principles in Notre-Dame de Bon-Secours. The Court of Appeal’s silence cannot be taken to mean that the applicable interpretive principles were not considered. Moreover, as noted above, the comments of the court in Religious Hospitallers were made in the context of a discussion regarding who bears the burden.
[44] Stamford Homes asserts that there is an abundance of evidence in the record establishing that Stamford Homes uses its own funds and that it finances its projects with non-governmental mortgages. It says that all the Properties were purchased with its own funds and private financing. It points to the parcel registers for the Properties. The parcel registers do not disclose the source of the funds.
[45] There was no cogent evidence before the court that funds used by or in the possession of Stamford Homes came from its members or members of the public, or from any source other than tenants and government funds.
[46] Stamford Homes says that it paid for the purchase of the Barker Property with some of its own funds in 2015. It points to the parcel register. While the funds presumably came from Stamford Home’s account, there was no evidence provided to the court indicating that the funds in the account came from any source other than the tenants and government funds.
[47] Stamford Homes points to the fact that Meridian Credit Union Limited financed construction and placed a first charge on the Barker Property, the TD Bank financed in part and placed a charge on the Ailanthus Property when it was purchased, and Canada Life Mortgage Services Ltd. financed in part and placed a charge on the Buckley Property when it was purchased. No evidence was provided that the funds used to pay any of these mortgages came from a source other than the tenants or government funding.
[48] In response to the assertion that it uses none of its own funds or uses those of its members to fund its operations, Stamford Homes points to Note 3 in its financial statements which indicates that funds to be paid to legal counsel for litigation (which appears to be related to another project). Stamford Homes asserts these funds were contributed by its members. However, the source of the contribution does not appear clear from the note itself, and the court was not provided with any affidavit evidence confirming the actual source of the funds. Alternatively, Stamford Homes says that the defence and any settlement of this litigation is and will be funded by it. There is no evidence before the court to substantiate that these funds came from a source other than the tenants and government funds.
[49] Stamford Homes also refers to Note 8 in its financial statements which indicates that in 2017 it entered into an agreement with a board member to borrow $490,000. This loan bore interest at prime plus 1.25 percent and was, according to the financial statements, repaid in full in 2020. There is no evidence before the court that the funds used to pay the interest or loan came from a source other than the tenants and government funds.
[50] Stamford Homes also points to its financial statements which indicate that a small return on investments is generated each year ($2,683 in 2020) and put toward expenses, and that a portion of investment income is contributed annually toward the reserve fund ($9,780 in 2020). The financial statements indicate that Stamford Homes has substantial investment funds. Again, there is no evidence before the court that the funds which are the source of the investments and reserve funds come from a source other than the tenants and government funds. Accordingly, any income earned from the reserve fund is essentially income from those same two sources.
[51] None of the evidence establishes that Stamford Homes fundraises, in the sense that the word is ordinarily understood, nor that it is supported by its members.
[52] Stamford Homes asserts that the present case is factually distinct from Religious Hospitallers in that Religious Hospitallers does not mention anything about the applicant benefiting from volunteer services and direction. As evidence of the services provided by its board, Stamford Homes points to the following note in its 2020 Audited Financial Statements:
The corporation derives a significant benefit from volunteer services and direction. As the exact value of these services is difficult to determine, no value for them is reflected in these financial statements.
[53] Stamford Homes further points to the minutes of an April 22, 2022 board meeting in which the minutes say that the board had an in-depth discussion regarding the need for affordable housing in the region and discussed ideas to potentially build more housing, contacts and funding.
[54] According to Religious Hospitallers, the method of administration of the housing corporation matters, and the corporation itself, by some form of endeavour, is to provide the relief involved to obtain the exemption. The key aspects of Religious Hospitallers are:
• The corporation did very little;
• It did not raise funds by efforts of its members such as soliciting the public or by fund-raising projects or events;
• It outsourced the management of the operation for a fee;
• The purchase of the property was fully financed;
• The cost of financing is paid for by government funds; and
• The cost of the operation is borne by the tenants and the government.
[55] The same can be said for Stamford Homes. The evidence is that it does very little beyond finding and owning the Properties. There is no evidence that it raises funds by efforts of its members for the support of the Properties, or by solicitation of the public or other fundraising projects or events. Borrowing money from a member and repaying it with interest (from government funds and tenant funds) is not fundraising. Stamford Homes is the registered owner of the Properties, but there is no cogent evidence before the court as to the source of the funds for the non-financed portion of the purchase of any of the Properties. While the Properties were initially funded in large part by mortgages from private institutions, the evidence indicates that the mortgage payments were made from the same source of funds: tenants and government funds. The total cost of the Properties, on the evidence, is borne by a combination of the tenants themselves and government funds.
[56] While there is some evidence of work done by the board, the operations and management, even of board meetings, is outsourced for a fee. There was no evidence that the board did anything beyond what a typical board is required to do, give direction to a corporation. The evidence falls short of the kind of endeavour that Religious Hospitallers indicates is required.
[57] Except for Homes, which may have been following Religious Hospitallers, no case was provided to the court that expressly follows the conclusions and the distinctions drawn in Religious Hospitallers with respect to the meaning of “organized” and the requirement for “endeavour”. None of the other authorities drawn to this court’s attention put so as fine a point on “organized for the relief of the poor” as Religious Hospitallers.
[58] Religious Hospitallers does not make clear why engaging paid professionals to operate the Properties is better than employing a qualified entity to perform these services. It is not evident from the wording of the exemption that fundraising is required to qualify for the exemption. The exemption does not reference fundraising and only requires that the corporation be supported in part by public funds. The law has been clear for some time that public funds means government funding.
[59] However, Religious Hospitallers has never been overruled or overturned and this court is bound by the conclusion in Religious Hospitallers.
[60] The respondents raised the additional issue of a lack of evidence of how additional financial support resulting from the exemption would assist the applicant to further relieve against poverty.
[61] There is no evidence of what impact, if any, the reduction in taxes would have on the operations of Stamford Homes.
[62] Stamford Homes says that it is not required to prove how the tax savings would be used. Stamford Homes also argues that, in any event, its track record shows that it uses its funds to acquire properties to provide further relief to the poor. Seventeen years after it acquired the Buckley Property, it acquired the Ailanthus Property. Eleven years later, it acquired the Barker Property. It points to board minutes that shows it continues to look for new properties and that any savings would go toward further its poverty-reducing housing strategy.
[63] Based on the evidence before the court, any tax savings (i.e., unpaid taxes) are comprised in large part of government funds and the balance in rent from tenants.
[64] The comments of the Court of Appeal for Ontario at paragraphs 26 and 27 of Salus assist in understanding the importance of the tax savings. At paragraph 26, the court noted that “exemption from property tax allows these organizations to spend more of their limited resources on those activities”. At paragraph 27, “the public interest in granting these organizations additional resources to relieve poverty outweighs the public interest in generating revenue through the taxation of property.”
[65] The court in Religious Hospitallers also commented on the result of the tax exemption:
… I wish to comment on an issue raised by the Commissioner which questions the whole purpose of this litigation. On the facts as outlined above, if the Housing Corporation were to succeed in obtaining an exemption, there would be no item in its statements showing municipal property taxes as an expense. This would reduce their deficit by the amount of those taxes. However, since the provincial government makes up the total amount of that deficit, the Housing Corporation has nothing obvious to gain in obtaining an exemption. It appears that the only result is to shift the burden of the shortfall, to the extent of the municipal property tax amount, from the province to the municipality, which was never a party to the arrangement in the first place.
[66] The granting of relief is to allow not-for-profit corporations to use their limited resources from the funds raised and the efforts provided by members of the corporations and is tied to the efforts of its members outlined by the court in Religious Hospitallers.
[67] While no authority was drawn to the court’s attention that specifically required that the applicant seeking the exemption demonstrate that additional financial support resulting from the exemption would assist the applicant to further relieve against poverty, this case does not turn on this point.
[68] This court cannot distinguish the present case from Religious Hospitallers on the evidence before this court and is bound to follow Religious Hospitallers.
CONCLUSION
[69] For the reasons outlined above, the application is dismissed.
COSTS
[70] Given the nature of the issues involved, the source of the funds to Stamford Homes and the services it provides, the parties are encouraged to resolve the issue of costs of the application amongst themselves. If they are unable to do so, they may submit a bill of costs and make written submissions consisting of not more than two double-spaced pages in length, together with excerpts of any legal authorities referenced, according to the following timetable:
a. The respondents shall serve their bill of costs and submissions, if any, by Wednesday, December 14, 2022.
b. Stamford Homes shall serve its bill of costs and submissions, if any, by no later than Friday, December 23, 2022.
c. All submissions are to be filed with the court with a copy also being emailed to the judicial assistants at St.Catharines.SCJJA@ontario.ca, by Friday, December 23, 2022.
[71] If no submissions or written consent to an extension are received by the court by December 23, 2022, the matter of costs will be deemed to have been settled.
M. Bordin, J.
Released: November 29, 2022
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2022 ONSC 6392
COURT FILE NO.: CV-21-60522
DATE: 2022-11-29
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Stamford Kiwanis Non-Profit Homes Inc.
Applicant
– and –
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and The Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls
Respondents
REASONS FOR DECISION
M. Bordin, J.
Released: November 29, 2022